Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Leadfoot, post: 979344, member: 2972"]First, I don't recall ever saying "always". That said, no, it doesn't make sense that the planchet marks would occur on the high points of the design. They occur on points that aren't fully struck like the O in ONE and on the obverse in the shoulder. That is but one more reason to think that marks on the O are contact marks and not planchet marks. Lastly, if you are going to suggest I'm wrong about something, I would appreciate you post examples of where I was wrong, like a more well struck O in ONE.  Like I said, I cannot recall one, but am open to the possibility.  Just saying I'm wrong without showing me an example makes me think you just want to argue. That 50/50 split assumes the distribution is equal.  I would suggest on the O in ONE it is not.  While it would stop short of "always", the vast majority of strikes on O in ONE when weakly struck (on very high grade coins like those in this thread) are planchet marks.   Of course it can.  By being a fully struck coin from an abraded/worn die.... I didn't say (or I didn't intend to say) it was a weak strike, I intended to said that die wear made it appear weakly struck.  THat's what I was referring to in post #16 and #21, and I appreciate the opportunity to make the point more clearly.[/QUOTE]