Greasy strikes became absolutely pandemic on Kennedy halves during the 1990s. The Mint didn't seem to care until they started selling them as NIFC.
I found this in the wild in 1973 or 1974 so I know it's no later than that. I have no provenance to prove that claim but I'm quite sure that won't affect 'value' in any way.
Not at all. The two photos seem to indicate two different errors, at least to my admittedly myopic eyesight. The 1990 cent appears to be a slight cavitation, likely caused by failure of the copper to properly adhere to the zinc, whereas the error in the earlier photo looked more convex to me. As always, I could be wrong.
You first said it was a cud then you said it was lamination. It's one error on one coin, two different angles. It's not convex, the area in question is concave. You got the 1990 part right though.
I was indicating that your last response came across as quite catty. I admitted that I was incorrect with my first diagnosis. I apologize. What more do you want?
I thought you were being sarcastic by using "Me-ow!" whatever that meant. If I misunderstood you, I'm sorry.