Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;RonSanderson, post: 2661730, member: 77413&quot;]I have been giving this some thought and have benefited from other members, too. I think there is no wear at all.</p><p><br /></p><p>When the coin was struck the metal is forced into two deep areas of the dies that are opposite each other, the shoulder and the O. Often these do not get filled up completely. That causes the weak O.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>Edit:</b></p><p>The bust of Lincoln often looks scratched on the sleeve of the coat, but this, too, is due to the metal not reaching all the deep parts of the die. Because it was not reshaped and smoothed by the die it retains all the original roughness (such as dings from the raw planchets going through a drying tumbler). On the S cent this area is smooth but the O on the flip side is weak. On the D cent you see roughness (not wear) on the sleeve but the O is stronger.</p><p><br /></p><p>I think you could inspect these marks under a microscope to tell if they are from the strike or are dents from handling after the strike. If they are dents then the metal would have been banged out of its original shape, and there would be a higher edge along the dent where the metal was pushed aside. If they are from the strike then the metal was simply never there, and the marks would not have any signs of displaced metal around them.</p><p><br /></p><p>The pervasiveness of these marks on the sleeve, across many coins and years, makes me favor the theory that they are from metal flow during the strike, like the weak O on the reverse. Of course there can also be dents and dings from handling after the strike, too, because this is a high point. This would be an interesting area for a detailed photo study.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in