Rolled-In Metal or PSD?

[JC Stevens]

Rolled-In Metal or PSD?
1970S Lr. Date Cent
When I first looked at this I thought it was PSD. But the rim of the cavity is to jagged to be cause by a ding. Could it be “Rolled-In Metal Blank”? It looks like a cavity where the metal fell out before the strike.
But then again maybe I’ve had too many “Mikes Classic Margarita’s”!!!

[Jacob]

Its a lamination.

[Vickilynn]

I was going to guess strike thru ? But what do I know ? Vickilynn

[coppercoins]

It is struck through. It is not rolled in metal, it is not lamination, and the term is not 'strike' through.

[Maineman750]

It is struck through. It is not rolled in metal, it is not lamination, and the term is not 'strike' through.

Glad to hear you say that Chuck....I knew one of the experts corrected me once for the same thing (struck thru). I agree.

[Jacob]

Wow now I can see the coin. Not sure what I was thinking as it being a Lamination. I just got home from golfing and had you could say way to many eggnogs

[JC Stevens]

Wow now I can see the coin. Not sure what I was thinking as it being a Lamination. I just got home from golfing and had you could say way to many eggnogs

Does Mike's make eggnogs too?

[Jacob]

Does Mike's make eggnogs too?

Yeah its called Mikes Hard Eggnog it has a little bit of a lemonaide taste to it too.

[mikediamond]

It's most likely struck through a thin shard of metal, possibly a detached rim burr. As far as terminology goes, there's nothing grammatically or conceptually objectionable about using "strike through" instead of "struck-through". After all the indentation represents a strike through some piece of debris.

[JC Stevens]

Yeah its called Mikes Hard Eggnog it has a little bit of a lemonaide taste to it too.

Hum, I wonder if they use Hard Boiled "in lemonaide" Eggs? UCK!!

[coppercoins]

Except that 'strike through' is present tense and suggests an action that is currently or constantly happening.

'Struck through" is far more grammatically correct because the coin was at one time struck through something. It is not still striking nor is it still being struck. It WAS struck...once (or more, if proof), but it definitely already happened, thus past tense.

The term was originally written and published as "struck through" - and in staying with the term as originally (and correctly) published, I stand on my ground that "strike through" is wrong. Perhaps insisting on the correct grammatical use of terms in defining what happened to our coins will assist in people learning about them.

Honestly when I hear the term used as "strike through" I think of a line drawn through a word...not a coin that was struck through an obstruction. This tends to be a case where changing a term - even slightly - opens us up to beginner confusion and misdirection because they are looking for a line drawn through the motto or something instead of an obliterated area of the surface of the coin caused by an obstruction during the striking process.

[coppercoins]

And thus officially makes for the first time I believe I have ever actually disagreed with Mike Diamond on anything. I suppose it is actually possible.

[Roller]

And thus officially makes for the first time I believe I have ever actually disagreed with Mike Diamond on anything. I suppose it is actually possible.

I agree with Mike. The deviation from normal is caused by a strike through a foreign object (not a "struck" through a foreign object). That's what caused it. It is, however, a coin that was struck throug a foreign object. I'm happy to use either.

[jallengomez]

Ha ha. I've always argued that "strike through" is equally correct grammatically because it's named after an event, and not necessarily referring to the event. It's just like a batter struck out, but a pitcher records it as a strike out, and not a struck out.

I agree though that it looks like a struck through.

[Roller]

Ha ha. I've always argued that "strike through" is equally correct grammatically because it's named after an event, and not necessarily referring to the event. It's just like a batter struck out, but a pitcher records it as a strike out, and not a struck out.

I agree though that it looks like a struck through.

I don't think it to be "equally" correct. If you are trying to define the anomaly, it is a strike through. If you are defining the coin (the result) then it is a coin "struck" through a foreigh objec. The tenses are not interchangeable between the two scenarios.
The trouble is that defining the coin is not what is done in other situations, i.e. "doubled die". We refer to a coin that shows doubling of devices as "doubled die", in other words we are defining what caused the anomaly. (No one expects to see the "die" that is doubled, we expect to see the coin which is the result of the doubling.) Applying this principle "struck through" would be incorrect since to be consistent, we should be defining the cause of the anomaly, not the resulting coin. And what caused it is a "strike" through a foreign object. (Just mental gymnastics.)