1919 KN EF --- BUT !

[numismatist 2]

What are thoughts on this .. would it pass as EF ...

Is the damage done at the Mint or after striking

There are raised dross marks especially in the Reverse marks

which makes me think towards Mint damage ?

[numismatist 2]

Reverse

[numismatist 2]

Obverse

[Nordle11 564]

Yeah looks like mint damage.

I saw that one a while back on ebay, but wondered if it would fit into a capsule with that knock haha.

Potential purchase?

[Error 4]

Yeah looks like mint damage.......

But you can never be sure. So it all comes down to price and whether you can live with it - the not knowing - because if you ever want to sell it, any potential buyer (if you can find one) will also consider the damage. And it is damage so not worth much IMO. It has been on offer for a while with no takers.

[Prax 80]

Faulty platchet and pretty obvious mint damage (the tail of the second 9 extends to damaged area and the tooths "ok teeth" are unevenly struck)

However I personally feel, notwithstanding the platchet damage, classifying it as EF would not be warranted especially with the hairlines on the portrait

[Mr T 169]

Hard to say, but I'm inclined to say damaged after striking. If the planchet was damaged before striking, wouldn't the rim not be bulged as it was struck in a collar?

[Prax 80]

Hard to say, but I'm inclined to say damaged after striking. If the planchet was damaged before striking, wouldn't the rim not be bulged as it was struck in a collar?

Possibly. One can't be 100% certain but here's why I thought otherwise.

If you observe the obverse closely you will notice that the teeth from 7 o'clock to 11 is short, faint and improperly struck. This could be the result of a platchet fault that prevented an even strike.

[Mr T 169]

Yeah picking a genuine error can really get difficult.

Does the smaller clamp mark bulge the rim too?