Error Lamination | 1963-D world's smallest delamination -- or PMD?

[profiler]

May I please get your thoughts on what appears to be a very small delamination?

The case for delamination: It has the characteristic rectangular shape of delaminations. And it if was gouged out by an implement, I don't see how the implement could have avoided damaging the northmost edge of the mint mark. Yes, the top ridge of the mint mark is lower but it's still raised and is not on the same plane as where the "supposed" delamination starts.

The case for PMD: There's no question the SW and NE portions of the mint mark are depressed, as if having taken a hit. And the depressions run in the same direction as the "supposed" delamination -- but they seem to have come from above, not from something dragged across it.

Thanks in advance for your ideas.

[jfines69]

It appears to be all damage... The date has hits also... Could be from a coin rolling machine!!!

[willbrooks]

2 dimensional images of 3 dimensions can be deceiving. You are saying that the anomaly across the mint mark is incuse? It doesn't look that way in the photos, so that is why I ask. It looks to me at first glance to be die chips in the mint mark, and also a lamination at the bottom of the 6.

[profiler]

I like that distinction, Will, going from 3D to 2D. Noted.

Here's the same coin pitched at 45-degrees. I agree with your assessment: It's a small delamination where the mint mark later took a hit. (And the hit could have caused the lamination to peel up like that.)

I was looking to see if that was, in fact, a delamination and not a piece of the mint mark. Nicely answered.

Thanks, Will.

[duece2seven]

How about a "filled" MM that took a hit from bottom to top? Hence the blob of metal above. And the 6 takes a hit from top to bottom. Just random thoughts from an unqualified observer.....

[profiler]

Duece, I like your thinking on that as a possibility.

One of the best distinctions I recently learned from Will was that varieties are specific in that they are repeatable events that are on the die and are well documented with markers, etc. While with errors, we can't be certain in many cases because anything could have happened. I've enjoyed focusing on errors for what it's been teaching me about mint processes. I think I'm getting pretty close to move on to varieties for more clarity in my hunt...

Thanks again.

[jfines69]

Another thing with errors is they are fewer in numbers for the most part!!!

[mrmike916]

I can see it being a lamination. The incuse area looks very smoth, as do areas under a lamination. If it was damage that caused metal displacement, I would expect to see some scraping in the incuse area. It just really tough to rule out damage some times. When you can't rule it out, it has to go into a maybe pile, or get tossed back!

[profiler]

Totally agree, Jim. An error is there and pretty much stands out for the most part. The learning curve is, indeed, steep for varieties. Glad they're so nicely documented.

[profiler]

I can see it being a lamination. The incuse area looks very smoth, as do areas under a lamination. If it was damage that caused metal displacement, I would expect to see some scraping in the incuse area. It just really tough to rule out damage some times. When you can't rule it out, it has to go into a maybe pile, or get tossed back!

Thanks, Mr. Mike. So far I find myself caring much less about the value of something--and much more about the process of how something got to be the way it is. Having started only a few months back in earnest, I'm surprisingly fascinated by all of this and the "detective" work in figuring things out. I voraciously read this forum and articles on line. The analyses, comments, and opinions here are invaluable to me. Thanks again.