Can Someone Explain This

Not sure why either. I know they do that for laminations as well. But they don't do it for something like a clipped planchette. It makes no sense.

It's both a Rev. Planchet Flaw and Detailed coin.

I just don't understand why they put a planchet flaw in a details slab. It would seem if there were other problems that the coin had they would have mentioned it on the slab as I have seen up to three things listed like Improperly cleaned, bent, and ex-jewelery and I don't see why this would be any different. You can clearly see the planchet flaw was there when the coin was minted so there is no way it was done outside the mint and I just never thought that anything that was done to the coin during the striking of the coin could be called a problem where it should go in a details holder. I guess if they do lamination's the same way it must be one of NGC's policies to do this type of thing but I sure don't understand it

You can pay the attribution fee for NGC to label what the mint error suppose to be, if NGC agree they would put it in, but it doesn't mean that the error coin in question is not cleaned or mess with in the past.

My last experience is this 1941-S Large S label with harshly cleaning after the attribution, it doesn't say what type of cleaning it was done to it, perhaps over dipping or polish that I wasn't able to detect.

biokemist6 is correct in his overall assessment of planchet flaws. Eye appeal is amongst the most subjective areas of grading. It is also the greatest influencer of marketability of a coin. In that respect, planchet flaws are detracting and affect the grade of the coin.

Even the ANA Grading Standards identify planchet defects as detractions that negatively affect grade. Now, that is not to say that there are not those who collect such coins. Every oddity has its niche. However, with respects to grade, whether the damage occurred at the mint or post-mint is not the issue...it is still damage that has created a detraction on the coin, thus affecting the grade.

Another thing to remember is that the TPGs were originally designed to create a completely sight-unseen market for coin "investment". In such case, I would personally prefer to know the coin was damaged with a planchet flaw with the details being AU than to have the coin "EF-40, planchet flaw." The "details" grade gives me more information regarding the coin than a lower adjusted grade. Ideally, such a situation should be "EF-40, rev. planchet flaw, AU details".

For me a decent planchet flaw or lamination would be an attraction not a detraction.

Part of the reason you do not see a lot of early copper in slabs is because of the way TPG 's value planchet flaws. If you like early copper flaws are a given.