You SHOULD be able to "see" each code. That is, you should be able to discern each "mark" on the code (such as the "dots" making up the "dot matrix" letters), whether or not you are able to "read" anything useful out of them. (If OTOH, you feel that you can NOT "see" them well enough, feel free to leave me a comment; I may or may not do anything about it)

If you ARE able to use one or more of these "bad" codes, PLEASE leave a comment and let me know, so that you save others from subsequent futile attempts. Also, please list the "valid" code you used, just for my own curiosity.

Finally, the "Bad" Codes!

Technical:

These images were scanned at high-resolution (1200dpi) to get as much detail as possible, then reduced (after "re-aligning") to "full-size" (approximately 96dpi).

By "full-size", I mean just that: on MY 17-inch LCD monitor, with my typical 1280x1024 screen resolution, these images appear almost exactly the same size as the piece of cardboard trimmed from the carton.

Therefore, you should be able to see ALMOST as much detail as if I had handed you the physical code.
I say "ALMOST" because, since I'm limiting to "full" size on MY monitor, there are MANY fewer actual pixels in the image, so you can't "blow it up" (or use a magnifying glass) as far as you would with the physical cardboard.

Caution: PLEASE WAIT for the images to finish loading, especially if you're using a slow connection (like dial-up).
Sometimes it's hard to tell whether or not they're done, with interlacing and such, but if you can't yet see all the detail that I intended, it'll be much harder, if not impossible, to decipher what's there.
I did my best to make the final image(s) as small as possible, but sufficient detail requires more data.

PS: I still have a few more "bad" codes, so I'll probably post more in the near future, especially if there's any particular interest in this one.

PPS: I've lost track, over the past few years of MCR, of how MANY "bad" codes I've found. It would be interesting to estimate the "rate" of "bad" codes, but they seem to be getting "better": I haven't personally found any new "bad" codes in months.