Grease, Weak, or Wear?????

[Guest]

Found this tonight 2003 D. Since there is no zinc showing I don't think it's wear. So is it grease or a weak strike?
Image1.jpg

100_2453.jpg

100_2454.jpg

100_2455.jpg

100_2456.jpg

100_2450.jpg

100_2452.jpg

100_2459.jpg

100_2458.jpg

100_2451.jpg

[hasfam]

Very cool coin. I would say its the culprit of being struck thru grease. A lot of it.

[jfines69]

I disagree... With the abrasion marks running thru the weak areas I would think that grease would not be the culprit... Knowing my assesments I am most likely incorrect... LOL... I think it is a severely abraded die that should have been retired!!!

[trails]

Struck through grease (Fonzi) and lots of it.

BJ Neff

[graveyard_guy]

could it be a die adjustment strike? the NGC website say's "die adjustment strike, obverse. Low pressure did not allow for all of the details of the coin to be present." and on grease "struck through grease. Note the resemblance to a die adjustment strike, except the reeded edge is full. Struck thrus can also affect just one side of a coin, while a die adjustment strike will show weakness on both."

[trails]

Die adjustment strikes will show uniform weakness on all the design elements. In this case, some design elements appear to be normal, while others are complete gone.

BJ Neff

[jcuve]

Greaser baby!

[copperlover]

I'll agree with a greaser.

[mikediamond]

This is a weak (low-pressure) strike, in my opinion. The design rim is poorly developed and the beveled rim/edge junction of the unstruck planchet persists. A grease strike will show a strongly developed rim and a flat, vertical edge. The unusual stength of the design in the center of the coin may be a consequence of lowering of the relief of the design and a slightly greater central convexity. Clash marks from this period are often strongest in the center for this reason.

[graveyard_guy]

cool... ok now how do I switch the "best answer"?

[jallengomez]

cool... ok now how do I switch the "best answer"?

LOL...Always wait for Mike.

[trails]

The reason why I discounted a weak strike was due to the peripheral lettering showing strength near the rim, then weakness of that design as it progress towards the center. Then there is the overall design on both the obverse and reverse showing different strength of design elements in different quadrants, giving it kind of a blotch appearance.

However, since my experience concerning weakly struck coins is less than Mike's, I will assume that he is correct in his analysis.

BJ Neff

[mikediamond]

It's entirely possible that we have a combination error -- a weak strike in combination with a grease strike. I have seen such combinations before, although they're rare. Still, I'd need to see evidence more persuasive than that already cited to conclude that grease is a factor here.

[jfines69]

Sounds like this coin needs to make a trip to someone... Can't wait for the final determination on this one... Way cooooooooollllll!!!

[hasfam]

I understand the part regarding the underdeveloped rim, but like BJ, I was focusing more on the irregularness or blotchiness of the areas that were either missing detail and thie areas that show details fading into the field. After reading your post Mike and revewing the photos again, I understand and agree, but It really does seem like grease was involved at the same time. Perhaps a moment when a technician was working on the mechanics of the machine.