Is this a lamenation error?

Is this a lamenation error, or high heat damage? Or something else? See the cracking around the edge on both sides. And the image is real mushy

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

grnwavdav,


If I'm correct in saying that the Letter's and Number's on the date are very faint, I would suggest that when the Mint started the press they alway's fill the die's with grease to help reduce the friction from the heat generated from minting the coins. That is interesting that both obverse and reverse sides of the coin are similar.


Rhubarb

 

Grease-filled die was my first thought as well, but I believe that this coin get it's appearance from something that occured post mint, probably 'spooning', which is a process in which you repeatedly tap a coin with a spoon to make the coin into the shape of a ring. This one looks like it was abandoned before it was completed. I suspect post mint damage, but still, a cool find!

 

That's an interesting theory, but if you'll notice, the coin's surface seems to be concave, which would rule out a lamination peel. I have a lamination peel in my collection, and it looks quite different. Peels usually have a grainy appearance, similar to a piece of wood that has chipped off a larger piece, not a mushy appearance that this coin seems to have.


Of course, as I always say, there's a good chance I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time!

 

I would like to see closer picture's of the coin. Like I said the letter's and number's are faint. It's hard to determine what's going on with the picture's provided.


Rhubarb

 

Are You referring to my Post? If you are I am looking at the edges. I also am looking at the letter's and number's. My first consideration is Grease filled. 2nd is a die that is overheated from excessive use, but not a single letter or number is visable to accept that theory. 3rd. a die lamination peel error would look like this:


If I use a loupe It's because I can't see what's there. To check for Error's and Varieties I do use a loupe and it's usually a 20 x. Perhap's someone should post a Lamination Error.

Rhubarb

 

Like this?

Phoenix

 

Pheonix,


Your coin is die faigue. The die's are Heat Treated to aprox. 60 RC. then sent to the press. It appear's that the die has broken or chipped to create the 69 D that you have. Lamination is different....... Your 69 D is one to ponder on. I wouldn't mind haveing it in my collection.



Rhubarb

 

Nah, the coin Phoenix has shown appears to be a lamination. Die fatigue is usually seen as small raised lines from the wire brushes used on the dies, or actual major die breaks in the really late die states. The picture Phoenix provided does not show a retained major die break (cud), but rather a planchet defect. The difference is apparent, mainly because of the rippling affect on the raised pieces of metal, as well as the fact that the entire design is still present. Those things don't occur from any type of die defect.

 

Ok. I also have been wrong in the past.


Rhubarb

 

Rhubarb
Phoenix's coin is a definate lamination.
As for the one pictured at the start of this I can't see it clearly enough to make any opinion.

 

Rhubarb,

The pictures of the coin you provided, are of a Lamination Error due to a defective planchet! The one in the pictures that you provided is coming apart in bits and pieces and while some of the bits and pieces have separated from the surface of the Obverse, most have not. On the coin that is the subject of this Thread, most of the surface of the coin's Obverse and Reverse has separated while retaining a portion near the rim.

I have some really nice Lamination Errors, one of which has close to a 1/4 inch strip of the surface that has peeled away. I will try to take some pictures and post them here later.


Frank

 

The first coin shown on this thread is a victim of post-strike damage. Both surfaces were pounded into mush and some metal from the edge was relocated onto the obverse and reverse face as a thin apron. Some say it's damage from bouncing around an industrial dryer. Whatever the cause, it's definitely not a mint error.

 

I do suspect that Mike is right. Where as GDJMSP is also correct in wanting the weight on the coin. The possibility of a garage mint may come into play. The weight's of Lincoln Cents are The Lincoln, Wheat Ears Reverse penny weighs 3.11 grams. The Lincoln, Memorial Reverse penny (1959 to 1982) weighs 3.11 grams. The Lincoln, Memorial Reverse penny (1982 to present) weighs 2.5 grams.


grnwavdav, PM me. I will put this issue to rest.


Rhubarb

 

The weight is 2.8 g. And I think it a 1980 d. but I really can't tell, it could be 1989.