1920 Wheat lamination error?

I believe this may be a lamination error? Has anyone seen this before?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm not so sure! Lincoln cents are supposed to be 95% copper. Aren't they?

Chris

 

It almost looks like something was on top of the copper when it was punched. I don’t know. Thanks Chris!

 

The term is Stuck Through if the material is retained and Strike Through if it is not.

However it does appear as if that may be an explanation. @paddyman98 has a keen eye for this sort.

 

I've never heard anyone use the term "Stuck Through" before. I've always heard it called a "Retained Strikethrough".

Chris

 

I believe this to be a very dirty cent with gunk on it that got harshly cleaned off in some areas. Lamination errors and strike through errors would not leave the cent looking like that in the center.

 

This looks as if something was melted to the surface of the coin. Not a retained strike through.

 

Well I am an older fellow. Let's see if I can track that down for you.

 

That too was my initial suspicion but the profile lines seem to be very well detailed.

I am by no means an expert of course hence my mention of sir @paddyman98

 

After looking at it again, I agree. Either partially plated by something or something melted into it.

 

I've got 30 years on you!

Chris

 

Here we are. Just a quick screenshot but this should suffice.
Of course you can visit the site yourself if you wish.

 

How would you know that?

 

But, as I intimated, nowhere does it refer to a "Retained Strikethrough" as a "Stuck Through" as you suggested.

Chris

 

I clicked on your username. Click on mine, and you will see how old I am.

Chris

 

You allow your age to be shown on your profile.

And you called it a Stuck Through. You might have meant struck through, which all strike through coins are called. Only when the object remains on the coin is it called retained.

 

All for a misplaced "r". HaHa

Though I do see your point sir.

 

Off Topic!
While we're on the subject, one of my pet peeves concerning the use of the terms, "Struck Through" and "Strikethrough" is the misuse of the terms when describing this error.

If the cause of the error is known, then we should (properly) call it, for example, "Struck Through Cloth" or "Struck Through Wire" or whatever. However, if the cause of the error is unknown, then it should be (properly) called a "Strikethrough". Even the grading services are guilty of misusing these terms. I have yet to ever see a certified error with the term, "Strikethrough", on it. So, I can only assume that they know what caused the strikethrough. If that is the case, why don't they list it in their description?

Chris

 

The autocorrect on this site causes many misspellings. It's happened to me numerous times.

 

Hmmmmm...but not you...