When it comes to wheat cents, the die wear at the O in ONE is always a bit of a turn off for me, regardless, there are some planchet marks on Lincoln's shoulder and some bag marks on the reverse. It has good red color so I will guess 64 RD
I am not sure that is die wear on the O of ONE. The opposite side of the planchet is where the main part of Lincoln’s bust is formed. There is only so much metal available, so I expect that sometimes the O gets starved of metal and is simply not filled up during the strike. You can compare the clarity and the smoothness of the C just below it to the rough surface of the O. The copper was pushed all the way up into the C and its surface was smoothed and flattened once it reached the full depth of the C in the die. On the O, it is really the raw surface of the planchet pushed partway into the cavity in the die, so it doesn’t fully form the O. You can see how the surface of the raw planchet looks just like the flat surface of the O. Detail of a similarly struck reverse. You can see that the O is not full height above the field, compared to the C.
I think Ron is absolutely correct in his reasoning for the weak 'o' on the reverse. I've seen several high grade wheats with similar strikes as this one.
Evan, I believe that’s from the deep bust cavity on the obverse die. Look at that flat LU in that same area. The striking pressure a little wanting leaves that, I believe.
Sorry, define it how you want, still a turn off for me. If the weakness on the O in ONE, including the LU in PLURIBUS is due to the obverse design, then why Don't all wheats exhibit it? Later die states exhibit this weakness. Show me an early die state with this issue on the O in ONE. Granted 40's and 50's cents weren't exactly struck the best, which is why I mostly stick with early wheats. To me this is way more attractive: JMO
Essentially I agree. I prefer the O to be full, so my coins are generally selected for their strike. Frankly, I am at a loss as to why this isn’t more important to the grading services, but I guess a lot of collectors like shiny things, even if that luster comes from using a worn die with flow lines and orange-peel surfaces. I think @eddiespin was on the mark, too. If you decrease the striking pressure, you can make the dies last longer. This is good for the mint’s budget. But it’s not so good for pushing the metal up into the die cavities. This would be independent of die state; a new die or an old die would both work the same. Here’s an early San Francisco reverse from 1911. Although the coin is dark and hard to see, I don’t see any flow lines or die wear in the photo. Yet, the O, PLU, and AME are all weak. It would seem strange to have a die worn in just these spots, but a strike with reduced pressure seems to explain it. Eventually the mint made the bust much more shallow, to the point where it almost looks caved in.
