Ok! I Would Like To Be Educated Here On Grading A Coin On These Forums.

I'm not confusing the two.
I a die is wearing out, meaning that it is losing material - in this case the high point of the cheek - wouldn't the cheek get higher, not flatter as the die gets more hollowed out?
And if it is die wear, wouldn't we see more and at that point be called a die error or at the very least a variety? Such as the Known problems with the 1922-D weak/strong reverse (and Weak/no D) varieties.

On the weak/no die problems coming from over polishing the die and filling the D with grease thus effectively removing the 'D' from the finished coin.

Lets see a real conversation on this, as it can get confusing with the different ways a coin is made or mis-made as it were.

In the photo example you included, glare overwhelms Abe's cheek such that no detail can be seen there.

Coins that circulate not only get worn, they also get banged up. A circulated coin will have hits and dings on it. When frehsly minted, MS coins have no hits and dings, but most acquire some due to rough handling along the path from the coinage press to you. With practice, ciculation hits can be distiguished from those that happen at the mint and in the coin bags.

You are falling into a trap here .
The 1965 Lincoln is a weak strike coin with no wear and is definitely
Mint state . For most part it is quite typical for that year .
Lincolns are much like Morgan's you HAVE to learn the characteristics
of each Year and Mint to form a proper opinion .
A 1965 Lincoln is not comparable to the 1979 or 1954 shown .
Similar to Comparing an 1881S Morgan to an 1885O Morgan.
Apples and Oranges .
Great book to acquire if you wish to learn about Lincoln Cents
Is a Guide Book of Lincoln Cents by Q David Bowers .
He states ,most were struck in 1966 and that Gems are in the minority
due to quality and strike issues .
The hub dies we're wearing quite badly by the middle 60s due to
the Hi Relief characteristics of the coin . This was corrected in 1969 .

Here is a photo that may show the surface of the 1965 a little better. I used my camera scope to take the photo, turning the overhead light all the way off, bringing my light source in from the top of the coin, almost flat, raised just enough to illuminate the Coin.

The cheek is not worn, that flatness is due to the strike being weak and high point die wear. Also, you cannot judge properly without a reverse photo. My go-to on the reverse is the cornice. One also has to consider that a circulated coin will have other signs of wear, such as loss of luster, hits and dings.

Also consider that the master a new master hub was used in 1969 because the original hubs were VERY worn by 1968. From about 1960 up, softness in the obverse design started showing and got progressively worse each year.

I agree! Finally a good conversation on grading. I thank you for the information given so far.

Lets try to keep this going.

This is valuable info for helping me grade what I have in my collection.

Rothery, A coin that has hundreds of bagmarks but no wear will always be an MS-60 at the lowest(or UNC details), and a coin that has almost no marks but a small amount of wear will always be an AU-58 coin at the best. It's sometimes very very hard to discern whether or not a coin has wear, so someone may say it's either AU-58 if it does or MS-60-something if it does not.

One other idea is to look at any denomination from the cent to dollar and inquire if the particular issue has known weak strikes or other coining issues which might affect the observed grade. So for another example could be various Indian/buffalo nickels from the 20s which have known weak strikes, even for gloriously high grades.

This thread is great by the way...