1955D LWC - Retained Lamination? (edit: pre-cud?)

You’re seeing the same thing I am. I just don’t have all those neat arrows on my cell phone.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

haha, trust me, you're better off. I think I spent 20 minutes just undoing poorly created arrows and recreating them.

 

Are y’all sure? @Collecting Nut , @Kevin Mader also, I’m not an expert so I have questions myself.

 

That I can relate too! Lol

 

I’m not an expert by any means but that’s what it looks like to me. It looks more like a lamination crack that opened up on the wheat stalk more than anything else but please, don’t bet money on that.

 

That's my best guess from all 36 days of collecting and analysis experience I've acquired thus far.

 

Ok, here’s my thoughts FWIW. Let’s start with what we know, based solely on your pictures and provided feedback. Remember, you have the coin in hand, feel free to correct me if I’ve made an incorrect assumption.
1) This coin has a die crack, the die was cracked and the void was filled when struck:


2) This is a common place for die cracks, pre cuds, retained cuds, and cuds on LWCs. Here’s a similar example:

This is listed as RCD-1C - 1950- 08R.
3) Laminations are caused by impurities in the planchet and occur along horizontal lines (somewhat parallel to the coins surface).
http://www.error-ref.com/?s=Lamination+
4) Pre cuds have a die crack that goes rim to rim.

• CONTACT

Pre Cuds
A “Pre Cud” is a precursor to most collectible of all die break errors called a Cud. The Pre Cud starts out as a Rim to Rim Die Crack. When the die break starts to show lateral spread and horizontal offset it now becomes a Retained Cud. If the break separates from the die the result is a fully-fledged Cud.


Rim to Rim Die Crack “no displacement”
5) Let’s look at your coin again. It shows horizontal displacement:


and also vertical displacement:
See above and :


So I’m not 100% sure what you have. The likelihood of a lamination only at the ends of a die crack, in a known weak spot on a LWC, is not impossible but is probably unlikely. A lamination at the end of a die crack with horizontal movement (without obvious indicators, fold, wrinkles, etc...) is even more unlikely. The ends of the crack connecting to the rim looking sharp are most likely vertical movement. I think your coin is either a pre cud or retained cud. JMHO

 

Didn’t know you were just starting. You keep on the path your on. You are doing great! There are many knowledgeable folks here and many top experts. I’ve learned a lot here and learn more each day.

 

Seems reasonable, but the part that confuses me is that I've understood a die crack shows up as a raised line on the coin, a sort of 'scar' if you will. The reason I'm thinking that this is a lamination crack is that I can't see a raised scar between the stalk and the rim, only the thin apparent separation. Honestly, I don't have the experience or knowledge to tell if that's a behavior that a coin would exhibit from a cracked die.

 

Ah, yeah, I'm an old guy, but just now started collecting and getting interested in the subject. I suppose I'm preparing for my retirement (which can't come soon enough I'm thinking).

 

Retirement can’t come soon enough! 13 more years

 

It's a retained lamination. Look at the dramatic drop right here...

 

Hah, I hear ya. About the same for me, as long as I quit spending money on things like the 2021 Morgan dollars

 

That’s horizontal movement.

 

Is there a different angle or lighting you guys can suggest I can use to clarify that spot?

 

It drops off, I'm saying. Geeze. Don't you see that? For the record, I can discern the pictures are sideways.

 

It's clear enough. The lower and upper parts are apart, there, they're separated.

 

I think your subsequent explanation is a good one. I'm going with that...for now. LOL

I see what you are saying, but have a look at the thickness and arc of the rim in between the cracks. Definitely some movement, but I think its the die that's moving rather than a lamination. I also feel that the lam cracks would be incuse rather than protruding. What do you think?

 

The lamination didn't peel off, obviously. But it was enough of an interference to leave that disfigurement in that stalk, separating the stalk, as it did, when the die lifted off. Or that's what I'm seeing...

 

Here are three snaps as close as the USB microscope would let me get at three focus points, first at the rim, second on the field and third at the stalk. If it helps any. It doesn't seem very incuse to me, though...