Wheat Cent - Struck Through Error or PMD?

But what if the material that was struck through is softer or more malleable than the copper planchet? Then, wouldn't the coat line still remain, albeit deformed somewhat?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yes, to an extent. My thinking is, such a softer material wouldn't generate such a sharp delineation at its' edge. It would "feather" more gradually. That was part of the chain of reasoning which has me thinking delamination.

 

Ah that makes sense. The bulge is quite deep so it must have been a hard material if it's a strike through. So delamination is a possibility but a planchet error is not unlikely too, right? If it was a planchet error, then I'm thinking that the planchet was dented and then struck.

 

If it were dented before the strike, that coat detail wouldn't have been struck at all. No way for the die to have reached it.

 

Well it came in today. It's a very sharply struck 1909 VDB Wheat cent.

I tried to take some decent photos. Does it look like one type of error or PMD?

The crater area doesn't look as deep as I thought based on the original photos.

 

@paddyman98 check this out.

 

Maybe it is a planchet or lamination error... it's as if the planchet experienced a chip or delamination with the extra piece loosely hanging on, then it was struck, and the strike forced the piece to come off.

Here are some closeups using a USB microscope:

 

I'm still sticking with Strike Through. IMO, The edges of are too tapered/rounded to be a lamination. I think a strike through can still leave the impression of the coat. This is a sharper edge on the die so the grease (or whatever the material) would be thinner on the edge when it is under pressure.

 

How about... a lamination strike through due to a planchet defect?

 

I'm more than ever convinced that it's a detached lamination. Look how sharp the delineation is at the right side of the top detail, and under the Y in the bottom detail.

 

I agree that the area under the Y is sharp, but the other side on the shoulder just doesn’t look like an edge that would come from a lamination. Also, look at the surface of the pit. Lamination surfaces that I’ve seen tend to be more rough and irregular (due to the original surfaces of the gas pockets?).

In addition, I think the pit is too deep compared to the length to be a lamination. Remember, that the gas pocket or contamination was originally formed in the cast alloy ingot. As the ingot is rolled, the pocket is elongated along with the metal. I believe the pit is too round and deep have been present when the ingot was rolled into a strip.

At least from my standpoint, this has been an interesting discussion. The comments supporting lamination are reasonable, but I think strike through explains the observations better. In the end, however, no one may be able to come up with definitive proof to be totally convincing.

The next question (assuming it's not a lamination): Is it struck through Grease or a Metal Fragment? I think it’s a metal fragment.

 

Ok, this coin was submitted via Economy tier to NGC about 1.5 weeks ago, along with some other coins. Anyway, NGC assigned an error to this coin already (today)!

Just in case anyone wanted to take a guess first, I put their responses in spoilers.

According to two different sources... :


Red Book contributor:

Spoiler

"LAMINATION ERROR"

NGC:

Spoiler

"OBVERSE STRUCK THRU"

Who's right?


Although, I still think it's possible that it's a:

Spoiler

Struck through error of a loose de-laminated piece that was folded and slid across during the strike, which may be evidenced by the parallel lines. But all of that may be far-fetched lol Otherwise, I'm trying to imagine what else could have had such a thin profile to be struck through shallow enough to preserve some of Lincoln's shoulder relief height, as well as to cause what looks to be a drag mark - a thin piece of ribbed metal?.

 

That's why this is a strike-through. I know it looks like a fagioli, but those are way, way too soft to do this.

 

I won't refuse to consider it a possibility. Not having been there at the moment it happened, I doubt we'll ever be sure, but the preponderance of the evidence - to me - indicates detached lamination.

 

The surface of it looks a little lam-like. You're theorizing the force of impact of the die dislodged an already-weakened lam that was just barely hanging on. I think that could be, too. All I know is, that was no fagioli that made that indentation.

 

You guys have probably checked this out already, but is there another known example of a struck through error that looks like the 1909 VDB cent? The errors that I've seen all have very distinctive and unique indents (e.g. nail, staple).

Here's one error that's struck through cloth (!), which makes me think that even the softest materials will leave a mark due to the high pressure strike. So, the indent on the 1909 VDB could have been from a sliver of almost anything!



Here's a struck through thread error:



Here's one that's struck through a "struck fragment" - it sort of looks like my 1909 VDB, but without the parallel "drag" mark. All of the struck through errors appear to display a perpendicular impression or dent without any dragging or scraping off of material, which is why I'm reluctant to agree with NGC (at least if it's only caused by a struck through error).




Interestingly, the "drag" mark is similar to parts of what's seen on this "indent error" coin (at least it appears to have similar parallel line characteristics on the left side of the coin below). Obviously it's not as intense as this, but more like a small loose piece from another planchet indenting the main planchet.




Pics from the 'net.

 

Wait, the Red Book contributor actually stated that he thought it was a:

Spoiler

PLANCHET ERROR

 

@iPen, I saw that pic of that Kennedy, before. Anything caught in between will leave some kind of impression, I'd think. Excepting, maybe, a fagioli (...especially if it was cooked, lol).

 

It is what it is. No one knows for sure.

 

I know for sure it's not a fagioli.