I guess I want to say a strike through, particularly because of how the damage only barely clips the date. Seems like if this was just stamped on after the fact, that's some trick. Please take a look. Thanks.
Thanks rockdude. It's completely "clean," not a scratch on it. On the obverse, the rim adjacent to the damage is perfect, too, not a scratch there, either. Whatever hit this coin was stamped, just on the obverse, where the damage is, and didn't even touch the rim. If you need better pics of anything, might take a little time, but let me know. But this one just has me going some...
It is really hard to tell from the pictures but I believe that it is a Severe Lamination Peel (De-Lamination)! The sub-surface of the planchet was probably undermined with air bubbles and a poor composition mixture that caused the separation and the look of a very diverse terrain. Frank
Frank, is this what you mean (under the 1)...only more severe? Notice, coincidently, this is a '63-D, too.
Here are hopefully some better/clearer closeups, as well as one of the reverse area rockdude asked about.
Eddie, Yes, this coin appears to have a Lamination separation (peel) around the "1" in the Date! It could be easily confused as a Strike (Struck) Through Error but any Strike Through would have damaged the "1" as well! Frank
Eddie, The close-up pics better show that it is definitely a Lamination separation (peel) instead of a Strike Through Error! Frank
So rockdude, you and everybody else, too, I assume. It was down most of the day today, too. Frank, I still can't visualize exactly what a "lamination" is. Is that a planchet condition before the planchet is even struck by the dies? Just help me visualize what took place here a little better...if you will...thanks.
Whatever caused the lamination problems (i.e. improper alloy mixture, air bubbles, foreign material, any or all of the preceding) existed in the roll stock whe it was made and before the planchet was ever cut from the roll! The flaw was probably visible before and during the minting process but may have become more prevalent after the minting of the coin and also with time while to coin was in circulation. Frank
Wow...thanks...so this particular error, I take it, could have appeared anywhere on this coin (and on either side), depending on the orientation of the planchet, i.e., on how it was "seated," when it was struck. If I have that right, Frank, I of course find it educational...and very cool!
That pretty much sizes it up! The orientation of the error is dependent upon the stamping of the planchet from the roll stock and the postioning in the collar when the coin was struck. If the flaws in the planchet roll stock continued further within the roll stock, then there are probably additional Cents struck during the same time that have some amount of lamination separation problems. Frank
