I found this a few days ago. Most of the roughness and bumps around the 6 are explained by lamination peeling, which is apparent elsewhere on the coin (not really visible in the photos). The prominent prong coming out at the base of the 6 is more difficult to explain. I don't see how it could be a tilted repunch of a digit, more likely something to do with the lamination. I've posted two closeups with lighting scattered differently to attempt to illustrate it better. Any comments are welcome.
cud markings i have a few state quarters , and some few lincoln memorial cents with cud marks..most likely an imporperly set die that wasnt recarved right.. (if they did..reuse a plancett).. id suggest you sent it to ngc or anacs or pcgs.. let them take a look see
I think if you look closely you will find that it is some more of your peeling lamination. It is pinned on the right and has swung counterclockwise off the base of the "6".
Is it possible that someone mistakenly used a "3" instead of a "6"? Can you make a transparent overlay of the "3" and see if it matches? Chris
I'm glad to see everyone is enjoying this coin. Thanks for all your comments. I have placed below a photo of the obverse, with a red line showing the 'leading edge' of the lamination I discussed in the OP. It follows the grain of the planchet, and peels in the direction indicated. To me it clearly explains the minor pits and so forth around the six. After trying many angles to get the light just right with my loupe, I can see a hairline break along the base of the large protrusion (it does have thickness, however, almost as much as the 6). So it does appear to be a piece of metal not in firm contact with the field. Having said that, there are parts of the 6 that are beginning to peel off with the lamination as well. What is so puzzling is how well the protrusion connects with the 6. I didn't make transparencies, but I did think for some time about a 3, also a 4 turned at some odd angle, but I really don't see the mechanics of it occurring, considering the time period. And it doesn't fit with a D or S mm.
I guess I did not explain it too well. Let's try this. Green is where it was at minting and the red is where it has moved to. BTW, all the lamination I see is in the immediate area of the "6".
Thanks for the addtional feedback. There is some loss of metal visible on the 6, which could account for the mass present in the protrusion. Interesting how the top of the 6 with metal loss shows no shearing. I see no other good explanation. I think I can safely classify this as a lamination error.
It is not a lamination error. In numismatic parlance, the date took a hit. What you are seeing is the damage and the metal that was moved. It is not an error but a manifestation of the damage. Thanks, Bill
Although there is what seems to be a very small flake of metal inside of the '6', and on the lower right side of it, I see a smashed '3' (lower right curve) which says the extension of the '6' could be damage. I can tell you with certainty it has nothing to do with a wrong punched numeral.