1972 D Lincoln Wheat Cent, Post Mint Damage Or Error?

I'm going to agree with CC here. Not that I'll add any expertise, but it's simply fun to approach the question of "post-mint" damage from an observational angle.

To test the "post-mint damage" idea, we might ask: "does the coin show evidence of a foreign object forced directionally under the lamination? To that end, it might be good to ask a few more questions:

If a. points to the foreign object in question, we might ask how this material was forced into the coin, as it appears under both the lamination and embedded within the field before the fold of metal.

If the lamination folded back on itself due to an object forced into the coin, then we might reasonably conclude this force was directed perpendicular to that fold of metal (c.).
Is there any evidence in the fields before the lamination to suggest an object forced into the coin, such as directional gouging)?

However, if the object was forced in the direction as shown by c., how does this explain that bulge (d.) perpendicular to this force?
And why does the object stop cleanly at the lamination layer and not break through to the other side? That's a very neatly applied force, imo.

Since I do not see how post-mint damage explains what I see, I have eliminated it as a possible cause. But that's just me.

Hi everyone, Happy holidays. Thank you for the replies.

I'm still not sure what to make of this, but I should be able to get some closer photos for you guys. My girlfriend gave me a microscope for Christmas. I haven't received it yet, but it's coming.

Condor101 is correct. A lamination crack that was damaged after the strike.

Ok...I guess that's settled, and I learned something too. So much for my long-winded analyses, lol.

Coop, that's a cute kid!