It's VF because alot of them looked pretty much like that when struck as far as we can tell. Most are off centre, have lots of flat patches, some are near impossible to identify to any particular mint. I think the reason for this was a number of factors, firstly the Civil War, perhaps moneyors though it better to make the coins hard to identify to a mint, afterall having a coin with Stephen on it was a political statement (just like those that minted Matilda coins), some even blundered the legends so that they could avoid committing themselves to either side. That i think is half the reason for the flat patches, or the fact that the reverse dies are practically always off centre and the mint name is the bit that's off the edge! The other half is that the coinage of the preceeding reign had been deteriorating and i imagine that the monarch and Co were not supplying the tools to make the coins with? If the moneyors are using inadequate worn tools and blanks then the coinage would deteriorate, would it not? So pretty much my example is VF because it was like that when struck, there is no real wear on the portrait as such compared to the flat patches, now the portrait seems to be damaged but that actually is from the minting process, what you can actually see on the obverse is ghosting of the cross on the reverse. Now if it had been struck from defaced dies it would have been worth considerably more. And i know what you mean about hammered coins and the clipping, creasing, missing pieces, it's annoying! I did once come across a gorgeous round groat in EF with a blue grey tone, and an unrecorded varitety!! ... i bought a half guinea instead