pre 81 are not laminated, looks like a big die crack/chip. The S mint mark looks cool as well. Nice find.
Actually the lamination errors about how the 'solid' cents some times 'de-laminate'. The 2 looks to be extra material (chip) and the 5 might also (crack/chip) but could be a lam peel. Who has a nice link to lamination errors?
So it would be an improper alloy mix? Since the copper cents are not "laminated" over zinc? Like when we see 'woodys'.
I'd say that's what a lamination erroe on a copper cent could be . I'm thinking maybe a die chip . @Jim M or @Paddy54 would know .
Wow tough call...as when I first looked at this my first thoughts is lamination error as it looks to be a peel. But here are my real thoughts . If it was a lamination it would be larger area running though the date,not just in the 5. If it was a die crack again I do feel it would be larger also. Now just limited to the 5. So that only leaves two other choices. Die chip or splinter medal that is raised in the 5. The wear and age sort of makes it a hard call. Another consideration is that it's only limited to the 5 thus a die chip or a defective punch. But I believe it's a die chip that's raised. Very cool find.....
no, they are not "laminated" but lamination errors occur on pre 82 solid alloy (copper) cents and on other solid alloy coins.. http://www.error-ref.com/?s=lamination
Are you able to take a piece of paper and stick it underneath that spot? Looks a bit raised. If you can do this than my call is Lamination also.
The area just to the right does look lower , like it was a lamination error that broke off causing the "line" .
