1927 Lincoln Cent Question

Ohyeah Nice picture. They are very clear and beautiful I like how they expand as well.!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I have never seen such great large clear detailed pictures around here. its always the thumbnails that you have to click on and wait for that dark picture viewer to load or pictures you cant even zoom in on.

 

Cleaned? Did you Look/see the dirt in the '9'? IMO-most cleaning of coins removes all evidence of 'age'.
I fail to see evidence of scratch marks from rubbing with a cloth/towel--wait never mind-obverse? were the dirt is? woops/ sorry--outta beer--brb

 

look closely at lincoln and at all the high spots on the bust you can see it was polished with something smooth but looks like all the annealing has been buffed/rubbed off as well. I dont know i could be wrong im still learning about cleaning coins!
.

 

That what happen when you polish an older copper cent with lets say ....
ONE MILLION GRIT sanding foam!/emery cloth

 

ok so we are in the same boat-both learning--ever heard of CONECA?-check it out, yep I must say that I hear your opinion, but man that's still a nice lam error-by the way-don't clean your coins-right on-be good-still some kick ***$% pictures! Later

 

@Jral1 Judging by your ridiculous claims of "error" coins you own, and your incessant dribble regarding them coupled with your refusal to accept them as the damaged crap that they are, you are not qualified here or anywhere but your own mind to have the slightest opinion on anyone else's coins. Type less, read (and by default learn) more and maybe one day your opinions will carry more weight than the breath expended to voice them.

How you can spout endless fantasies on how the mint creates crop circled coins and yet try to discredit a nice example of an authentic lamination error as posted by the OP is beyond me. Troll the threads you created yourself.

 

+1

 

I want to go with+++++ZING+++++++

 

It's just you. You have a lot to learn.

 

I did start an XRF analysis of (8-10) Jefferson Nickel lamination errors sent to me from Mike Diamond of Coin World. Examining all areas of the lamination areas I did not find any extraneous alloys or contaminants. My point is most laminations may be physical rather than chemical contamination such as improper annealing. On the other hand like the wartime nickels a poor mixing alloy may contribute to more pronounced lamination errors which we obviously see in this series of wartime nickels than the rest of the Jeff's outside this time period for this unique non-working alloy. I have yet to continue my research on this topic of wartime nickels - on why do they peel so easily! Normally with time more oxidized (i.e., easily corroded metals) do make there way to the surface more quickly and this may be a reason we see wartime nickels with such a high lamination rate. But again with these non-wartime nickels ALL showed consistent alloy percentages with one another and NO outside metals in the mix at percentages down to 0.01%.

John Lorenzo
United States

 

Lamination errors i would think would be with the brown toning layer they put onto cents that is the only thing on a cent pre 1982 that could possibly be decribed as a lamination. I would say this is a planchet/blank defect and thats about it but i dont even think its a mint error to tell you the truth it surly didnt leave the mint like that so id say DAMAGE AFTER MINTING. D.A.M.

 

LOL i must have missed the authentic slabbed photo. Is this one of your other screen names to?

 

Jral you need to learn a little about coins and how they are made IMO

 

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. As I said, you have much to learn.

 

What i said makes more sense its just how i see it. What other process does a pre 82 cent go through that could be called a lamination. The copper wash is the only process i can think of that could be called a lamination. Take a little CLR and a toothbrush to any pre 82 and the laminated brown surface is removed very easily leaving behind an ''unlaminated'' unprotected pure copper finish.

 

yeah. You have "proofen" that I learned from the first reply to my thread. We all start somewhere. I didn't go to Fantasy Island dreaming up how it could have happened at the mint. My avatar? That shows how little you put into searching me out. Else you would have seen it documented completely from purchase to its personal inspection and attribution by Mike Diamond. Hammerjob ha! Oh, and if I were @non_cents I would not have like 3 ft of snow in my back yard. We are not the same person. Again, if you had looked farther than the very first thread you could find where I ask for help, you would find a few where we argue.

Do you know what ad hominen is? I'll save you the embarrassment of screwing up another definition and tell you. Attacking an argument by using personal remarks rather than a relevent counterargument based on facts that pertain to the subject at hand, is ad hominen.

an ancient thread of mine has no place in this persons thread asking for help with their coin.
you are acting ignorant and out of line. Take your meds already.

 

pre 82 cents are not laminated , the surface you are calling lamination is the toning . the cent in this thread is a laminated error because of the mixture of the planchet was bad and came apart. this is the offical name for this whether you like it or not.

 

This thread is not making me happy. Jral1, we are stopping this now. Silent, I understand the frustration, but discontinue. All of the rest, if you have no technical aspect to enter, lay low. Some participants have points already, and no use to hit the bingo mark on this. Just as an educational point, a metal coin can not be flexed back and forth and retain previous "roundness", it will be extended in the direction perpendicular to the flex line.

 

Ok sorry Desertgem

Ok that tells me 2 things either they use multiple sheets of core metal to form the the acual coin stock using heat or pressure to laminate them together which i havnt read anything about or they use heat and or pressure to bond the brown toning onto the coins surface> i say both because the copper wash or the sintering process...
(if they used it on these cents) ...both use heat to adhere the coating/lamination onto the coin well im not sure about copper wash using heat you tell me does it?. Im pretty sure they dont use adhesive but i guess they could use some kind of chemical in the copper wash that causes the wash substance to adhere to the coin but there isnt that much info out there about those processes I haven't found much anyways. If they go through a copper wash as some say whether it uses heat or not or whether the substance is bonded at that point the coating surly would be bonded to the coin when the coin was pressed effectively creating a laminated surface
So if they dont use multiple sheets of core metal laminated together to make the coinstock I would have stick with my resoning that this is just a defect in the coinstock , PMD or i guess there also could have been a cutmark or scratch on the coinstock or planchet that seperated a long after it left the mint maybe due to corrosion that was cleaned off by someone whether the op or someone before him. That would fit into the defective planchet/blank/coinstock catagories. I think i have made my point I do see why this damage would be called lamination by the way it looks (Like you can just lift or peel the rest of that area away) But i have to stick with defect error caused by a cutmark, scratch or somekind of sharp gouge on the coinstock or planchet .
I sill leaning towards PMD because of the raw copper surface!