Is this "Lamination" the same as "Partial Missing Clad?"

Discussion in 'Error Coins' started by JCro57, Jul 16, 2018.

  1. JCro57

    JCro57 Making Errors Great Again

    My understanding is that a coin missing its clad layer, in full or in part, is a form of a lamination error. So just wondering why this is labeled "lamination" rather than "partial missing obverse clad layer?" I feel "lamination errors" should be for non-clad coins, like nickels, cents, and silver/gold coins that are not plated. For clad coins, if any of the copper is exposed, it should be labeled as a full or partial missing clad layer. (Picked this up at an auction last night as part of my missing clad layer/plating issue series.) I also think this coin is heavily overgraded for an MS63 as the reverse looks incredibly worn throughout.

    Any thoughts or opinions are appreciated.

    1.jpg 2.jpg 3.jpg
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Michael K

    Michael K Well-Known Member

    Had this been a partial missing clad originally, the copper area would have more details from being minted. But because the piece of the coin that had the details have been peeled, or broken off, it is a (detached?) lamination that was removed.
    The details on the copper are just the remnants of the minting from underneath the clad. And the clad layer that is gone had all the details, lettering, date, Roosevelt.
     
    Oldhoopster likes this.
  4. JCro57

    JCro57 Making Errors Great Again

    So if I am reading your response correctly, it is still a parital-clad layer as it now exists, correct? it just came off AFTER it was struck.
     
  5. Pickin and Grinin

    Pickin and Grinin Well-Known Member

    I believe a partially missing clad layer, Happens before the planchet was struck adding the full detail to the coin, a peeled laminating happens after the strike.
     
    Cheech9712 and Oldhoopster like this.
  6. Oldhoopster

    Oldhoopster Member of the ANA since 1982

    I believe you can see where the lamination was attached just to the left of the ear. There is a raised remnant.
     
  7. Michael K

    Michael K Well-Known Member

    I don't think it's a partial clad layer.
    Even with a weaker strike the details would be there, and they are not on the copper.
     
  8. JCro57

    JCro57 Making Errors Great Again

    Hmmm...Then why does it appear copper-colored? the plating over the copper core is an alloy (copper-nickel mix) that is one solid color.
     
  9. JCro57

    JCro57 Making Errors Great Again

    I see that, and I know it is a lamination. I am just confused as to whether or not it is also by default a partial clad layer since that part of the plating is now gone.
     
  10. Pickin and Grinin

    Pickin and Grinin Well-Known Member

    A partial clad layer does not show this much of an edge, if any.
    the cladding tapers the copper core, and the strike eliminates the edge. The dime you posted shows a heavy edge from one rim to the other, and is evident that one half of the cladding separated after the strike. Even copper laminations show evidence of detail deep within the metal. For evidence I am attaching a wheat cent that had a lamination at one time the full date is still visible.

    Although it is hard to see in this old photo, in hand you can see the 19 and the partial D within the depths of the coin. IMG_2577.JPG
     

    Attached Files:

  11. paddyman98

    paddyman98 I'm a professional expert in specializing! Supporter

    It's a Lamination. Simple.
     
  12. Michael K

    Michael K Well-Known Member

    Not sure what you are asking. The clad layer is silver colored (copper/nickel) the copper core is copper colored.
    There is a copper color towards the rim from 10-12 o'clock. That could be environmental damage.
    The part that was minted was peeled away which is why the core is not showing the minting details strongly. If it was a partial missing clad those letters and numbers would be easy to read on the copper.
     
  13. Michael K

    Michael K Well-Known Member

  14. JCro57

    JCro57 Making Errors Great Again

    I apologize to everyone for maybe not understanding. Let me put this another way...

    On the dime I posted, the red area is the copper core. It is red because the clad layer - for whatever reason - is not on there anymore.

    Am I good so far?
     
  15. JCro57

    JCro57 Making Errors Great Again

    This is from error-ref, and is why I thought it is a partial clad layer and not a lamination; the copper core is definitely exposed. See below.

    Screenshot_2018-07-16-16-31-12.png
     
  16. Cheech9712

    Cheech9712 Every thing is a guess

    I'm guessing it's clad layer to the right was pealed off after the strike
     
    JCro57 likes this.
  17. Michael K

    Michael K Well-Known Member

    That's what I am saying and you can see it in the photo I posted compared to the OP photo where the details are not on the copper, because they were on the piece that was peeled off. If it was a partial clad, they would be on the copper and they are not.
     
  18. JCro57

    JCro57 Making Errors Great Again

    I think I am going to go with that it is in fact a partial clad layer, and not simply a lamination. I based this on the error-ref definition, a look at slabbed/labeled examples on Heritage, and also examples on Jon Sullivan's website which is where I saw the 25c SC piece posted here).

    There are those where the strike occurs before the clad layer comes off, and those that come off post-strike. Details are sharper when the coin is struck after the layer comes off, and weaker when the clad layer comes off after the strike.

    For my posted coin, the copper core is exposed because the silver-colored clad layer is gone, and very likely came off after strike. Whether it was gone before or after strike I think is irrelevant.

    Thanks to everyone for chiming in, and feel free to keep them coming. Anyone have a comment about its stated grade?
     
  19. Pickin and Grinin

    Pickin and Grinin Well-Known Member

    Anything after the strike is a lamination strait and simple.
     
    JCro57 likes this.
  20. steve.e

    steve.e Cherry picker

    The missing clad area was caused by a lamination. If the lable said partial missing clad layer it would not properly explain the error.
     
  21. JCro57

    JCro57 Making Errors Great Again

    I think I finally got it. Thanks, my friend.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page