1952 penny error

@Pickin and Grinin - I couldn't find the exact post I was looking for but I did find this:

http://www.error-ref.com/lamination-cracks/

I'll keep looking but it's been a heck of a day and I need to vegetate a little bit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

While this is true. Lamination cracks are never in the same position as compared to a die variety. A die variety may be noticeable and notable within only a few strikes.

My point is that the op's coin is an exact (within a few strikes) of the coin I posted. This is not possible with lamination, a lamination will happen where there is separation within the planchet and not one will look alike.

 

Oh yes, well, if that were the case...but P&G, the pre-cud die crack on the coin in the link you put to that very nice website (where I spent a couple of enjoyable hours recently) shows the crack forming in front of and through the "W" of We. On the OP's coin the crack is seen way over at the "T" of Trust. So, could this coin in the link have been struck with the same die as the OP's coin, just at an earlier stage of deterioration?

@Pickin and Grinin - you know how much I esteem you, so I ask this with all sincerity and eagerness to learn. Thanks in advance for your patience in trying to get me to see what you are explaining if I am missing something.

 

I never did say what I thought it was..

 

Questions are always good!
@LaCointessa the crack that you are referring to is on a different coin
The crack on 1952-01B, C, and D is on a different die pairing. The one we are looking at and @babygirl coin matches is SKH -1952-02D. It might even be a slightly later die stage that the one pictured in cuds on coins. The cracks seem to be a little heavier than the one pictured, but some of that could be wear VS a later die state.

1952-02C and 02D are the same pairing.

 

Thanks...I'll take a look while waiting my turn at doctor's office a little later.

 

Hiya @Pickin and Grinin - I had a chance to look at SKH-1c-1952-02C and 02D. Thanks so much for not giving up on me. This is what I learned:

In 02C the feature I am seeing on the right and left of the "T" is identified as a die crack and in 02D where the feature is more developed (at least to the right of the "T") it is identified as a retained cud. Nowhere is it referred to as a lamination issue, retained, "smooshed down" or otherwise.

Comparing the OP's coin with the photographs of 02C and 02D, it appears the die crack in the OP's coin is somewhere in between. Unless what I am seeing on top of the T in 02D is only PMD, then I think I see more cud material (die crack has grown) in the 02D photographs than the OP's coin and the OP's coin has more cud material (die crack is larger) than 02C.

I wonder if @paddyman98 is convinced one way or the other now about what we are seeing on this coin.

I hope I finally got this right.

 

@LaCointessa
It's hard to tell without the coin in hand. The reference coin does look like the T has taken a hit, or has slight damage.
I am not sure how many strikes it takes to see evidence that the die has progressed, or how many strikes after this one that it became a horned head. But, it probably wasn't many.

Just remember the number is the die/ die pairing, and the letter is the stage of the die. This same style is used on Variety vista also, pretty much the norm.

 

Thank you @Lacointessa,@Pickin and Grinin and @Paddman98 for your discussions are helping me a lot to understand a little bit better of both coins. I am amazed of the likeness but I see the difference btw on them.

 

@LaCointessa and @paddyman98 for my incorrect typing earlier