Error experts: Partial clad or PMD?

cmerlo1

I picked this up in a large 'error' lot a while back. I've been on the fence about whether it is actually an error, or if it is the result of some kind of PMD. The clad does appear to be missing in the copper-colored areas- I can see a line where the nickel ends and the copper begins. It is also light by .1 grams. What do you think? If real, would it be worth submitting to our hosts for the $50 mint error fee?

LanceNewmanOCC

.
my vote JUST based on the images, is PMD
.

SullivanNumismatics

Almost certainly a genuine mint error. If genuine (90% sure it is), it's a partial missing clad layer and in its poor condition, it's worth about $15-$20.

hamster7

I love this error (if not PMD). What will PCGS call it on the slab so I can search for one?

coinman23885

<< <i>Almost certainly a genuine mint error. If genuine (90% sure it is), it's a partial missing clad layer and in its poor condition, it's worth about $15-$20. >>

tightbudget

I think it's the real deal, but I don't think it's worth submitting.

gonzer

Loks like what was once known as 'sintered plating'. I vote real.

lasvegasteddy

put me in the non pmd crowd here...
interesting example

RichardDawkins

I think it is post mint damage. I could be wrong.

PerryHall

<< <i>

<< <i>Almost certainly a genuine mint error. If genuine (90% sure it is), it's a partial missing clad layer and in its poor condition, it's worth about $15-$20. >>



>>

jmcu12

IMO it is a real mint error and is partially sintered.

errormaven

In my opinion, it's either plated or stained. Missing clad on both faces is exceedingly rare. The blotchy pattern over ERTY is not at all typical of a missing clad error. Nor is the transition to a yellowish, blotchy border zone in several areas.

The preponderance of the evidence indicates post-strike damage/alteration.