2001 5c Coin With A Line Across It

Is it a scratch? Raised or Incused?

numismatic linguistics is a lot to learn - I'm about two months in and keep getting myself into trouble for this or that. Sometimes I just need a heavy hand to say, mate you're dreaming and this is why. Numismatic enthusiasts come across dismissive, then my sarcasm will kick in. I spend just as much time trying to control my acid tongue as I do learning the difference between an off-centre strike and a misalignment strike. To me it was like they are exactly the same thing reworded.

Reminds me of The scene "Cerulean Sweater" monologue, where Miranda Priestly (Numismatic folk) coldly shuting down Andy Sachs (me) after I snicker at thebtwo "almost exactly sounding" definitions, being chosen for a coin error.

Thank you for the extra photos, and for your follow up reply.

As for your coin, in my opinion, it looks like PMD. It looks like something scratched the coin, and pushed the metal over to the side.

The reason I asked if it was raised or incused, was to determine if it was damage or not.

It is PMD, there is no way that could happen when the coin was struck.
From the photos it looks like the top part of the rim has been pushed in.

Looks like Sap beat me to it He was. posting while I was typing.
Glad our answers were basically the same

Reminds me a little of this coin I saw. I think they labelled it a crack I'm assuming in the die, however the link is gone so it won't open

Yes, that's a die crack. Quite an unusual die crack in being so long and prominent, but nevertheless a die crack.

You'll notice it isn't straight. What you can't notice because that picture doesn't show it, is for that shilling, the coin itself won't be cracking on the edge.


The coin exists, therefore it must have happened. While it could (in theory) have happened in the mint, a freshly minted coin gotten caught on a conveyor or gears or something, you do not need the mint to explain how it was made, since conveyors and gears also exist outside of the Mint. Therefore it isn't a mint error.

In terms of not always having an explanation for exactly how PMD has occurred, here is the process. We look at a pattern of "damage" (such as with the shilling you posted) and ask "how could this have happened in the Mint". If we have an answer (in the case of the shilling, the answer is "yes, a cracked die") then it can be designated a mint error. Or perhaps a "variety" rather than an error; there is a technical difference though common usage tends to prefer "error" due to the perception that "errors" are worth more than "varieties". But if we do not have an answer, then " PMD" must be the default answer, simply because of Occam's Razor: it is the most probable answer, therefore the most likely to be true.

What we cannot do is say "I can't possibly imagine how this damage occurred, therefore it must have somehow happened in the Mint".

New theory it's the actual rim that's come off and it got there.