2000 P Broadstrike Dime Just Guessing

Not broadstruck, just beat up.

I agree Pete, how can it have that distance between the rim and the letters yet remain the same size as a normal dime.

Coop, here is a side by side with another 2000 dime.

Most all the outer devices on the reverse are weak along with the date mainly on the obverse. This dime is the same size as a normal dime. It only appears to be thinner.

Is the weight normal? Thanks, Doug.

If the coin were broad struck the reeds would not be visible.

Broadstruck means that the collar was not in place during the striking. Since it is the collar that creates the reeded edge, if it is not there there will be no reeding. If reeding is partially there it isn't a broadstrike, it is a partial collar error.

In the case of the OP coin, although weak the reeding appears to be complete. SO not a broadstrike or a partial collar error.

Since the reeding is full and complete it's not a broadstrike. You'll need to measure the coin's diameter precisely with a caliper or micrometer, from east-to-west and north to south. If the diameter is the same as a normal dime, then that's what it is. If the diameter is greater, there are two possibilities. One possibility is that the perimeter was flattened in some manner outside the Mint. If the coin is out-of-round, that would support this hypothesis. The other possibility is that this is a rare "wide collar" error. Such errors occur when the collar is very worn and has expanded fractionally. It can also reflect the use of the wrong broach to produce the ridged working face of the collar or the use of a collar for a foreign denomination. A wide collar can also occur when two or more vertical collar cracks are present. I've only encountered a few wide collar errors among US coins. One was worn and the other had four collar cracks, which allowed the collar to spread in all directions.