1911-P and 1921-S Lincoln Cents... Mint Error/Flaw, or Post Mint Damage? 1 1

[ProfHaroldHill]

In my view, neither one is PMD. Picked them up at a coin store, years ago. 35 cents total, (not purchased at the same time.)

[RWB]

Damage. Delamination on reverse.

[bsshog40]

I agree with PMD on the first one. The second looks like a delamination to me also. I have a question tho, how can a 95% copper coin delaminate? 

[ProfHaroldHill]

27 minutes ago, bsshog40 said:

I agree with PMD on the first one. The second looks like a delamination to me also. I have a question tho, how can a 95% copper coin delaminate? 

From an inefficient alloying process, when speaking of major laminations. Very minor lamination can occur from the rolling before the blanking, or punching out, of the strips. Oil, dirt, even air bubbles, can be trapped just under the surface during the drawing/rolling.  

I agree with you and RWB, regards the 1921-S, but I am of a different opinion on the 11-P. 

[ProfHaroldHill]

If you lined up both sides of the 1911P, you'd notice that the incuse curved lines are precisely opposite each other. They are also of the exact same apparent circumference, if the lines were continued beyond the edges of the coin, as a normal Lincoln Cent.

That's a hint.

[ProfHaroldHill]

If the 1911-P were made of nickel, those curved lines would likely be visible on the rims. It's an 'incomplete punch' error, and it got those lines before it was struck, even before it went through the upsetting mill.

It occurs during the blanking process when the blanking die, often called a blanking punch, fails to fully penetrate the strip of metal. When the strip is advanced partially, a blank will be produced with curved lines cut into each side, precisely in line with each other from front to back. The upsetting mill and the flow of metal toward the rims, then against the collar, can eliminate the effect from the newly created rims, but the sharp, fairly deep incisions will remain on the rest of the surfaces.

I've seen nickels where the cut is visible across the rim.

 

[Moxie15]

I have two difficulties accepting your explanation of the curved line.

1. The curved line on the obverse follows a single arc until it hits the upturned rim then it changes direction into a different arc. If this occurred before the rim was upset the angle of the arc should not change but it would end into the upsetting.

2. There is a matching (or Nearly matching) arc on the reverse. Every punching tool that I have encountered has one cutting edge and one shear edge, not two cutting edges.  

Therefore I doubt that this was caused at the mint and would need further proof, or a further explanation of this.

[ProfHaroldHill]

8 hours ago, Moxie15 said:

I have two difficulties accepting your explanation of the curved line.

1. The curved line on the obverse follows a single arc until it hits the upturned rim then it changes direction into a different arc. If this occurred before the rim was upset the angle of the arc should not change but it would end into the upsetting.

2. There is a matching (or Nearly matching) arc on the reverse. Every punching tool that I have encountered has one cutting edge and one shear edge, not two cutting edges.  

Therefore I doubt that this was caused at the mint and would need further proof, or a further explanation of this.

Regarding Point #2, if you do an internet search you can find several examples of this error, and they have virtually identical incisions, obv and rev.

Re Point #1; The area where the L in Liberty should be, (where the 'line' ends,) is a valid point to bring up. It's an area that provides a 'pause factor', I do agree. Consider the following though: At the moment of striking, the metal is briefly altered from a solid state to a fluid state. The rim area is the highest point of the design on the Lincoln cent, (to protect the devices, etc, from wear, and to allow the coins to stack.) The metal filling the void that will be the rim, is subject to shifting forces due to the effect of the collar stopping the radial flow of the fluid metal and abruptly shifting its direction by 90 degrees.

There is significant missing detail there that does not appear to be from retained material, (grease, etc,) and it's in an area not subject to normal wear due to its proximity to the rim. My thoughts are that the deforming of the apparent 'line' occurred only at the surface, in the last nanoseconds prior to the metal's return to a solid state.

Leaving aside for a moment the above explanation, one has to ask how it would be possible to make such a cut into the surface, as seen above, without harming the rim in any way or distorting the design anywhere. I'm convinced this occurred before the striking, but I'm of course open to other theories/speculation.

Edited September 22, 2020 by ProfHaroldHill
Change added to shifting, re forces

[Henri Charriere]

[Aside:  With all due respect to Prof. HILL, I would certainly like to know why the single most recognized numismatic expert who can rightfully claim, legally or otherwise, to have subjected or visited upon coins unspeakable horrors others are reluctant to even hint at -- in the interests of an advancement of knowldge, has yet to render a diagnosis as to what happened to these coins which have apparently lain around, unmolested and out of circulation for at least the past sixty years, or more.]

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

[Aside:  With all due respect to Prof. HILL, I would certainly like to know why the single most recognized numismatic expert who can rightfully claim, legally or otherwise, to have subjected or visited upon coins unspeakable horrors others are reluctant to even hint at -- in the interests of an advancement of knowldge, has yet to render a diagnosis as to what happened to these coins which have apparently lain around, unmolested and out of circulation for at least the past sixty years, or more.]

That's easy. I simply do not care. Okay? This fascination for coins that have been physically mangled during their long histories just leaves me, ohhhhh, uninspired. I know, I might lose my "Official 21st Century Numismatist" membership card and secret decoder ring, not to mention risking being labeled a "troll", but there you have it. Damage is damage, and I don't collect damage. I do some, but then discard them. If QA had been more familiar with my work, he'd know that I'm not moved by error coins, real or imagined. I'm more in the mold of a "debunker". And on Internet message boards regarding coins, I do get to see a whole lot of "bunk".

Edited September 22, 2020 by VKurtB

[Moxie15]

I don't know if all what you say is true, @ProfHaroldHill, what I do know is that it looks similar to your buffalo nickel that Fred Weinberg called PMD  I have to give you point #2 as many, but not all coins claimed to be partial clips have cuts on both faces.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/860931/an-example-of-a-incomplete-clip-planchet-mint-error

I am surprised that they use two cutting surfaces as one sharp cutting surface often leaves a cleaner cut 

[ProfHaroldHill]

On 9/22/2020 at 2:50 PM, Moxie15 said:

I don't know if all what you say is true, @ProfHaroldHill, what I do know is that it looks similar to your buffalo nickel that Fred Weinberg called PMD  I have to give you point #2 as many, but not all coins claimed to be partial clips have cuts on both faces.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/860931/an-example-of-a-incomplete-clip-planchet-mint-error

I am surprised that they use two cutting surfaces as one sharp cutting surface often leaves a cleaner cut 

I'm actually going to post that nickel in this thread, but wanted to post these two first. 

I disagree, in part, with FW's assessment. The reverse is not PMD, in my opinion.

[ProfHaroldHill]

@Moxie15 I've decided to start a new thread for that nickel, I think it might be better than piggybacking this one. 

[ProfHaroldHill]

@Moxie15 This is a better image of the reverse. Note that at the left side ending of the curved line, it disappears just before it gets to the rim, then reappears and continues briefly, along the rim. That says, to me anyway, that the 'line' was there before the planchet was struck. 

[Moxie15]

On 9/22/2020 at 5:50 PM, Moxie15 said:

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/860931/an-example-of-a-incomplete-clip-planchet-mint-error

I think this will help @Insider

[Insider]

The cent looks like it may have an incomplete punch during blanking with an improper alloy mix..  Post it on CU and see what Fred says.  The other coin is a major lamination (delamination).ed out completely

[ProfHaroldHill]

4 hours ago, Insider said:

The cent looks like it may have an incomplete punch during blanking with an improper alloy mix..  Post it on CU and see what Fred says.  The other coin is a major lamination (delamination).ed out completely

Thanks! I'm glad to read that. I'll do that, with the 1911.

That 1921-S was actually disappointing to turn over and find the missing lamination.  It's probably worth less as a minor error than an unscarred 1921-S is, in the same grade.