Die Cracks or Lamination Issues?

[AstroRaider]

Here is an example of a 1955S Lincoln Cent (wheatie)...


Is this from die cracks or lamination issues?

Thanks for any comments...

[jallengomez]

Definitely cracks. A case could be made for this being a retained cud.

[rlm's cents]

Definitely cracks. A case could be made for this being a retained cud.

Yeah, they look like cracks at first glance, but can you explain how a die crack could possibly affect the outside edge of the rim. That has got to be a lamination IMO.

[johnthereseller]

I opine this to be a lamination issue. If you look to the south a bit you can see a very faint lamination fold edge. As atated abpve the issue extends beyond the the rim ridge and continues to the side. The areas that appear to be retained cud could achieve that appearance from wear in circulation if those areas were raised after being struck. This is of course just the opinion of a layman coin enthusiast.

[coppercoins]

I'm not sure I get it. Die cracks and laminations are two completely different things and are very easy to tell apart. I'm not sure what the debate is about.

These are 100%, without question, die cracks.

Laminations are flaking of the metal - a peeling back of two layers of metal that are not bonded together well.

[johnthereseller]

the issue was with the issue of a die crack running over the lip to the outer rim of the coin. Not all lamination issues peal back or flake, there can also be foreign material in the fold and if a peal is present at the time of the strike and is thus affected by wear it would change the original characteristics. I included a lam peal as a reference

[coppercoins]

All lamination issues have an effect of metal separating from metal - that's what they are. And if you look at them closely, the separation will be evident. They are completely and obviously different from die cracks. That was my point.

[johnthereseller]

I am not meaning to argue that is not my point but cents this post was put up I thought a discussion on die cracks and lamination issues would be good because there are times when they can look the same or similar. please see attached photos for what I was trying to get at. Not all lamination issues will have a peal or complete separation and in photos it can be hard to tell especiall for those who do not have as trained an eye as some of the experts on this site . If everything were cut and dry every time there would be no use for questions or this site. Please see attached photos and offer your opinion I appreciate it. Is photo one a die crack or lam issue and photo 2 is obvious I think.

[johnthereseller]

stupid fingers with a mind of thir own here are the photos. for reference purposes for those of us who are learning and need them.

[mustbebob]

If you want to start a discussion on die cracks versus lamination issues, then you need to start a separate thread and name it as such. This post concerns the one coin in particular, not any number of other coins. The answer was provided as a die crack by one of the best in the business. I am not discouraging the dialogue, it simply needs to be started elsewhere. In addition, there are hundreds of posts dealing with both anomalies on this site. You are welcome to search for and see if it has already been discussed before stating another one.

[coppercoins]

It's good that you have no intention of arguing here - nor do I. I do still stand by my original statement, even with your visual examples which are all obviously completely different from the coin in the original post - they are all lamination issues.

Die cracks and lamination are extremely easy to separate as to what they are. I was doing it without fail as a kid. I'm not getting the problem with telling them apart.

Still yet, my explanation remains solid in that they show separation of metal and die cracks do not - and this is the main difference between them.

I suppose I just don't understand how something so obvious to me could confuse anyone, and I have seen it here a few times. I just scratch my head, usually - but this time I spoke out because I simply cannot see how one could be mistaken for the other.

[johnthereseller]

I see I will limit my open dialog and opinions as the experts will handle everything. Thank you.

[rlm's cents]

It's good that you have no intention of arguing here - nor do I. I do still stand by my original statement, even with your visual examples which are all obviously completely different from the coin in the original post - they are all lamination issues.

Die cracks and lamination are extremely easy to separate as to what they are. I was doing it without fail as a kid. I'm not getting the problem with telling them apart.

Still yet, my explanation remains solid in that they show separation of metal and die cracks do not - and this is the main difference between them.

I suppose I just don't understand how something so obvious to me could confuse anyone, and I have seen it here a few times. I just scratch my head, usually - but this time I spoke out because I simply cannot see how one could be mistaken for the other.

So you believe it is a die crack. Then you should be able to tell me how a die crack could possibly affect the outside edge of the coin. I just do not understand how the die could possibly show the crack on the edge of the coin.

[jallengomez]

I believe anything we're seeing on the edge of the coin is incidental to the cracks.

[coppercoins]

It may or may not be related to what's on the edge of the coin. What I can tell you is that with 100% certainty and without a shadow of a doubt at all the lines in the design on the coin are definitely die cracks. How's that?