Interesting Defective Planchet Error with Multiple "Issues"

ThePennyLady

Here's an interesting 1917-S Lincoln cent I recently sent in to PCGS to be graded. I bought it because it had some pretty iridescent toning and several bold reverse die breaks (which I really like), but then when I had Todd photograph it, he noticed and pointed out to me that it also had a defective or split planchet from 6:30 all the way around to 10:00. It also has what looks like a strike thru in the motto area where UNUM should be, and/or a weak strike in some of the letters in UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, but I'm not sure they are strike thrus because the planchet is so messed up, that I thought it is possible be that the coin just didn't strike properly. Any thoughts?

ThePennyLady

Hmmm, bump for the morning peepers.

ctf_error_coins

Wow, that's really cool. My guess is a Lamination Error, but ask Fred or Mike.

Neat coin.

CaptHenway

Did anybody weigh it before it was entombed?
Could be a rolled thin planchet in the area of UNUM, unrelated to the planchet lamination. Had there been a lamination at UNUM prior to the strike, I would not expect the planchet to be so smooth there.
TD

FredWeinberg

Tom just beat me to it.

It certainly looks like a small tapered end planchet.

If you could weigh it, I'd bet it's a few grains light.

ThePennyLady

<< <i>Tom just beat me to it.

It certainly looks like a small tapered end planchet.

If you could weigh it, I'd bet it's a few grains light. >>



Fred, does the tapering have anything to do with the planchet splitting on the other side? Would it cause the planchet to split or is that just a coincidence?

FredWeinberg

I've seen that 'look' before, but I'm not sure
what causes it.

Because I don't see it on other tapered end
planchets, I believe in this case it's just
coincidence.

If anything, we should see a Blakesley Effect
opossite the tapered area.....

RWB

My suspicion is that the coin was struck from a partially collapsed die – something very unusual for a cent. The portion on the left has separated along the inside rim, making the die face crooked (not parallel to the planchet). The raised irregular rim on the left indicates that portion of the die was lower than it should have been. Overall metal flow would have been disrupted.

I’d have to see the coin to do any more guessing…and I could be totally wrong.

Batman23

To me it looks like there is a thin spot seen by weak details at UNUM and near the date. The rim on the left of the reverse looks like a cud, maybe the edge of the die flaked off while also creating those die cracks down the middle of the die? Just a couple guesses. A nice conversation piece.

illini420

I have no idea what's going on with it, but it sure is pretty cool

CaptHenway

<< <i>My suspicion is that the coin was struck from a partially collapsed die – something very unusual for a cent. The portion on the left has separated along the inside rim, making the die face crooked (not parallel to the planchet). The raised irregular rim on the left indicates that portion of the die was lower than it should have been. Overall metal flow would have been disrupted.

I’d have to see the coin to do any more guessing…and I could be totally wrong. >>



That separation along the left has been diagnosed by the photographer (who has the advantage over all of us of having seen the coin) as being a lamination.
TD

ChrisRx

Kind of looks like a bad electrotype.

blu62vette

<< <i>

<< <i>My suspicion is that the coin was struck from a partially collapsed die – something very unusual for a cent. The portion on the left has separated along the inside rim, making the die face crooked (not parallel to the planchet). The raised irregular rim on the left indicates that portion of the die was lower than it should have been. Overall metal flow would have been disrupted.

I’d have to see the coin to do any more guessing…and I could be totally wrong. >>



That separation along the left has been diagnosed by the photographer (who has the advantage over all of us of having seen the coin) as being a lamination.
TD >>



I am not an error person but the left rim darkness you see is shadow cast from the crack/split whatever the term may be. The coin really has a lot of issues...I did not even notice the lack of UNUM until this thread.

seanq

I'd love to know how you got that thing into a problem-free holder, I have had coins bagged for small Mint errors like strike-throughs (before the Genuine holders were around). Really where that coin belongs is in a Mint Error holder.


Sean Reynolds

illini420

<< <i>I'd love to know how you got that thing into a problem-free holder, I have had coins bagged for small Mint errors like strike-throughs (before the Genuine holders were around). Really where that coin belongs is in a Mint Error holder.


Sean Reynolds >>



I was wondering the same thing. I'd guess that some collectors wouldn't think it's cool if they bought a coin like this based on the grade on the holder and then saw that it was all cracked up.

CaptHenway

How much does a deficiency in manufacturing affect the grading of a coin?

Does grading only consider what happened to a coin AFTER it is struck?

Could the nicest 1922 "No D" cent you could imagine qualify for an MS-64?
65?
66?

How high can a coin legitimately missing design details be graded?

TD