| Author |
 Replies: 22 / Views: 2,452 |
|
Valued Member
United States
322 Posts |
Hi All. Is this post mint damage? There seems to be a piece of foreign metal inside the crack. Someone having fun in the garage? Thought I'd ask before throwing it back. Thanks, Mike   |
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
138 Posts |
interesting coin, I can't tell either.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5318 Posts |
Going from rim to rim, I think that's a pretty dramatic/interesting planchet defect, especially the inclusion of that lighter metal impurity. You can just make out how this layer follows the "grain" of the rest of the coin. My guess: I think there was an impurity in the original ingot, which as rolled flat into coining stock elongated into this layer of weakness and then was stamped out as the planchet. Seeing how the light metal area is raised above the field, this impurity may have corroded further and pushed up the surrounding bronze layer. A zinc impurity may be a good candidate, imo. Just my guess...I want to hear what others say.  I'd keep that one...it's a very dramatic example.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1807 Posts |
That's called a lamination error. Happens often on the pre-zinc cents.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
322 Posts |
Good point KurtS, I did not notice the "grain". It does seem to follow it.
Mike
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5627 Posts |
Judging from the corrosion on the obverse I would say KURTS, you are right, zinc, could be the culprit. Also check out the I in the word "IN", die gouge or? |
|
Valued Member
United States
322 Posts |
I took a closer look with better lighting. It is definitely a metal impurity that was trapped below the thin layer/lamination of copper. The rough piece of copper directly above the impurity is actually folded over. It use to cover the opening. I don't see any corrosion. The underlying metal looks like silver?
morgans dad, the I, just a piece of dust. Good eye!
I'll post some better photos later.
Thanks for your comments, Mike
|
|
Moderator
 United States
16679 Posts |
Quote:
Judging from the corrosion on the obverse I don't see it  This looks to be lamination peel. swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Moderator
United States
16679 Posts |
Now that you point it out KurtS, I see it now. Ya, it has the right signs of zinc corrosion swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
19964 Posts |
To me it looks like a standard lamination issue then, at some point (probably during circulation), I piece of debris was pushed into the peel. Notice the slide marks to the west.
|
|
Moderator
United States
16679 Posts |
I guess that would be considered damage then swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
To set the record straight:
This is a planchet defect - lamination. It also has something else going on that was done at the mint - it's not damage.
Furthermore, lamination is very common on cents from around 1938 through 1964. On other dates it is somewhat scarce, and this is the first I have ever seen on a 1972 cent, which makes it interesting.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
322 Posts |
With a 14x loupe I can see the metal further up and down the lamination. Even where it's not torn open. I'm not sure what to make of it. I find the strangest things. Two more photos.   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7629 Posts |
Well, the coin is interesting, no doubt. It's not just a typical example of lamination, there's something else going on. While I do not have the 'complete' answer as to exactly what it is, I can tell you it is unusual. I have seen many thousands of 1972D cents, and can tell you this is an oddity for sure, and it's not post-mint damage.
My next step would be to show it to someone who deals in errors regularly and find out what caused this issue, and whether it might be worth enough to bother with certification. Perhaps Mike Diamond might find this and respond. He's about the best error guy I know. My specialty is in die varieties - die doubling to be precise - and errors have never really caught my interest, so I can only go so far as to know when a coin is an error and when it's odd enough to warrant further investigation. Yours does.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
I can tell you it is unusual. I have seen many thousands of 1972D cents, and can tell you this is an oddity for sure, and it's not post-mint damage The lamination is not post mint damage but the "whatever it was" that either pushed the edge of the lamination back into the crack or folded it back over on itself IS post mint damage. (In some pictures it looks pushed under but in the first picture in mikep's last post it looks like the edge of the lamination has been folded back over itself.) I think the light colored stuff in the crack is a remnant of whatever caused the damage. |
|
Valued Member
United States
270 Posts |
I agree a lamination error with post mint damage!
|
| |
Replies: 22 / Views: 2,452 |
Posted 12/22/2008 3:53 pm
