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

I'd have to disagree with Steve.e

A lamination is caused by an internal flaw, either a gas bubble, slag or other foreign body within a piece of metal. A partial or missing clad layer is caused by the improper bonding between two pieces/layers of metal. They are not the same thing even though they can have the same effect ie. a layer of metal peeling away. So a missing clad layer or partial missing clad layer is not the result of an lamination.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

So, you feel it is in fact a partial clad layer? I keep going back to the error-ref part that if the copper core is exposed, it is not a lamination error

 

If you are talking about the OP coin, it is a partial clad layer where the layer broke away post strike. The coin in post #12 by MichaelK is a partial clad layer that went missing pre-strike.

 

It is a partial clad lamination, because part of it is still attached. It looks like something or someone ripped off the loose part that had separated from the copper core. It would be more valuable if that portion was still attached to the edge.

 

If the OP coin had a complete clad layer (post strike)
and the lamination either detached post strike or was physically taken off post strike, I don't view that as a partial missing clad layer.
The peeled off part that is missing was struck as evidenced by the lack of a strike on the copper core.
So it was a full clad layer originally. That's why I don't think it's a partial missing clad layer.
Part of the clad layer is missing now, but it could be PMD if it was torn off intentionally. It's not a clean break.