Is this a retained lamination or a retained strike-through?

TurtleCat

I've had this nickel for a long time but haven't bothered to really look at it much. It's very intriguing. I assume there isn't a great deal of value for this type of error but I'm curious as to what happened to achieve this result. It is a 1940s. So far as I can tell there is nothing special about the obverse so I didn't bother imaging it.

Oldhoopster

I believe it's a laminantion. Looks like there may be torn metal in the upper right of the "void"

TurtleCat

The sharp edges and lack of peeling lean me against lamination but there are probably laminations like this.

FredWeinberg

I'd call it a Retained Lamination Flap

TurtleCat

Thanks Fred! It was a new one for me.

GoldenEgg

Technically, it’s both, but I too would call it a retained lamination flip

Stella

I was going to say that it looks like a lamination, but then I read down and saw that Fred had answered. I think you have your answer!

BLUEJAYWAY

Nice lamination example. I like it.

Jimnight

Lamination!

ricko

Interesting nickel... That would be a keeper for me....What year is that? Cheers, RickO

TurtleCat

@ricko said:
Interesting nickel... That would be a keeper for me....What year is that? Cheers, RickO

It’s a 1940s. I bought it in the junk table of a local coin shop years ago. I picked up several nice laminations from that table back then. Always found them interesting. This one was just enough different to stump me.