1957 D Lincoln Cent looks like peeled back lamination ?
Benito
Posts: 256 ✭✭✭
Please thoughts on this no scratches peeled seems seems as old as coin though tankyou 
2
Benito
Posts: 256 ✭✭✭
Comments
Looks that way to me. Somebody peeled it back hoping there was a prize inside.
IMHO the coin looks like PMD
https://photos.app.goo.gl/3dmaZrJx15TbvKPc7
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ncjfMXoPabRGoNk27
I understand where you are coming from on that - I almost came to the same conclusion. But, look at the reverse - no sign of the trauma that would have had to have occurred had the obverse been "clawed" back like that.
Anyone have any thoughts?
It looks like a lamination to me.
Plus lamination match perfect the cuts no scratches or damage to the coin
let a coin expert look at it and see what they think it is
https://photos.app.goo.gl/3dmaZrJx15TbvKPc7
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ncjfMXoPabRGoNk27
Even if it is a lamination it isn't worth spending time or money on. Most collectors dislike laminations.
Actually, not funny but I feel my "disagree" would probably get retaliation.
It's a real shame to feel that way about any members of CU but we all know the trolls exist.
IMO, your post is very disturbing and uninformed. If I posted this nonsense I'd quickly go back and edit it to preserve my reputation. You deserve to lose a "star" for this one!
I like the OP's coin. I'd be curious to know what part of your hobby is worth the time and money.
@errorsoncoins
@fredweinberg
I have had to try and sell coins with laminations in the past. The experience was not a pleasant one. So I assure you I am actually very well informed by "the market." My attitude toward laminations is simple: Have None, Want None.
@291fifth said: "I have had to try and sell coins with laminations in the past. The experience was not a pleasant one. So I assure you I am actually very well informed by "the market." My attitude toward laminations is simple: Have None, Want None."
No one can argue with YOUR attitude about a coin as it is the way you feel based on your likes, knowledge, and experience. If you don't like a coin with laminations, it leaves more for the rest of us who like them. If you are a coin dealer, perhaps the next time you buy a coin you'll look for lamination "damage" so you can pay less and sell it faster.
A small percentage of our error business is due to laminations - the bigger the better. We note them on our label. However, just as you, I should be very disappointed to get a coin in the mail with some of its surface ripped up if not expecting it!
I just get disappointed when someone calls another collector's coin worthless or the time spent looking through what many consider "junk" just a waste of time. This year some very valuable "transitional cent errors" have been discovered and slabbed by folks who in your opinion were wasting their time.
Here's a similar one that is not yet peeled back:
1960d
Nothing that a collector finds interesting and enjoyable is a complete waste of time or money. It's pretty cool. It'll never sell for much, but that doesn't mean it's not cool.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
It does look like a folded back delamination....and the lack of damage on the reverse supports this ......Interesting coin... Cheers, RickO
Planchet lamination
And here is the good thing...even if the coin was damaged by something outside the mint, however it happened, it is still a coin with a lamination.
Since there are now two of these coins with similar damage in the thread, let's try to figure out if it happened inside the Mint or later.
We may never know for sure.