Mint Error or Damaged? Decoding Planchet Flaws vs. Post-Mint Damage in “Part 2: Are These Real?” Key Date Coins

Is that a rare lamination flaw, or did someone just scratch it with a screwdriver? Let’s break down how to tell the difference. I’ve spent decades under the loupe examining everything from 1909-S VDB cents to clipped planchet quarters. The line between a valuable mint mistake and worthless post-mint damage (PMD) is where fortunes are made—or lost. Inspired by the forum thread “Part 2: Are these real?” where a collector assisted a senior with key date coins, I’m focusing this piece on Variation #32: Planchet Flaws vs. Post-Mint Damage. I’ll walk you through lamination errors, clipped planchets, PMD, and tooling marks with the authority of someone who has flagged counterfeits for PCGS and educated novices at ANA conventions.

The Core Distinction: Planchet Flaws vs. Post-Mint Damage

In my experience grading thousands of coins, the single most misunderstood concept among hobbyists is the origin of a surface irregularity. A planchet flaw existed before the coin was struck; PMD happened after it left the mint. This difference dictates everything about value.

• Planchet Flaws: Present at striking. Include laminations, clips, cracks, and voids from impurities in the blank.
• Post-Mint Damage (PMD): Occurred during circulation or storage. Includes scratches, tooling, corrosion from environment.

When the forum user “Numismaphile” posted images of 1909-S VDB, 1914-D, and 1931-S Lincolns, many responders fixated on authenticity. But as an attribution specialist, I see equal danger in mislabeling a genuine lamination as a screwdriver scratch—or vice versa. Your coin’s numismatic value depends on getting this call right.

Lamination Errors: The Peeling Planchet Phenomenon

A lamination error is a separation of the coin’s metal layers caused by trapped gas or impurities in the strip from which the planchet was cut. I’ve examined 20th-century cents where the copper cladding literally peeled like onion skin. Such a rare variety can boost collectibility if the luster and eye appeal remain strong.

How to Authenticate a Lamination

1. Look for smooth, curved boundaries—metal delaminated along grain lines, not straight gouges.
2. Check if the flaw disrupts the design uniformly (e.g., date and rim both affected pre-strike).
3. Use a 10x glass: true laminations show crystalline voids, not shiny tool marks.

In the forum’s photo set, none of the suspected “key dates” showed classic lamination. But the darkness around mint marks on the 1914-D and 1931-S—feared as dirt—could mask a lamination at the edge. I always tell buyers: if the “S” sits in a depressed, flaking field, suspect planchet, not grime. Provenance matters less than the strike character here.

Clipped Planchets: Blanks With a Missing Wedge

A clipped planchet occurs when the blanking die overlaps a previously punched hole in the strip. The result is a coin with a straight or curved missing wedge. In my attribution reports, I note clip angles relative to mint marks to judge mint condition.

Clip vs. Damage Checklist

• Genuine Clip: Smooth arc, reeded or plain edge continuous with remainder, no bright cutting marks.
• PMD Fake Clip: File marks, irregular depth, often near rim opposite a design element for concealment.

None of the “Part 2” coins (including the 1916-D Merc Dime and 1937-D 3-Legged Buffalo) presented as clipped. But understanding clips protects you when a dealer calls a damaged edge “a rare error.” Don’t let poor patina fool you into overpaying.

Post-Mint Damage: The Value Killer

PMD is what flattened the dreams of many forum members examining the 1909-S VDB. One user noted the mintmark “S” looked applied; another used the “N” in UNITED as a marker, citing the “Deep N” versus genuine “Shallow N.” That is not planchet flaw—it is post-mint alteration, and it wrecks numismatic value.

Common PMD Types in Key Dates

• Tooling Marks: Polishing, engraving, or added mint marks (like a fake “S” on a VDB).
• Scratches/Corrosion: From pockets, soil, or cleaning.
• Environmental Damage: Dark toning mistaken for patina.

As the expert “RedRocket” queried: what makes the S VDB “definitely no good”? The answer from attribution science: the B in VDB on genuine pieces slopes ~20 degrees; the posted example was too level, and the S was tooled. That is PMD via falsification, not a mint error. Its eye appeal is gone.

Tooling Marks: The Counterfeit’s Fingerprint

Tooling marks are intentional post-mint modifications. I’ve flagged 1931-S Lincolns where the S was punched with a modern stamp. The forum’s diagnostic—darkness around mint marks—is classic tooling residue, not natural patina.

“The 1909-S VDB has the ‘Deep N’ – All S-VDB’s had the ‘Shallow N'” — forum contributor with die marker knowledge.

That single observation invalidates the coin as a mint product. For collectors: never buy raw key dates (1909-S VDB, 1914-D, 1916-D Merc, 1937-D 3-Leg, 1931-S) without certification. As one respectful suggestion in the thread noted, submit to PCGS, CACG, or NGC to protect collectibility.

Actionable Takeaways for Buyers and Sellers

From my desk to your collection, here is the protocol when facing “Part 2: Are these real?” scenarios:

1. Photograph under 10x with side lighting to reveal lamination vs. scratch direction.
2. Compare mint marks to variety files (e.g., VAM for Morgan, Lincoln cent diagnostics).
3. If planchet flaw suspected, weigh the coin—clips show weight loss; laminations do not always.
4. Reject any “error” coin with linear shiny grooves—that is a screwdriver, not a strike.
5. Consign only through agents who submit to third-party grading, avoiding misrepresentation.

Conclusion: Collectibility and Historical Integrity

The “Part 2” collection reminds us that numismatic value hinges on separating planchet flaws from PMD. A genuine lamination on a 1937-D 3-Legged Buffalo elevates it; a tooled 1909-S VDB is an artifact of fraud, not history. In my professional opinion, the coins discussed—save the counterfeit VDB—are likely genuine circulation pieces with dirt, not errors. Their luster may be dimmed, but the historical importance of correctly attributing them protects seniors and novices from costly mistakes. As Variation #32 concludes: know your planchet, suspect your tooling, and when in doubt, certify. That is how we preserve the hobby’s integrity, one diagnostic at a time.

Related Resources

You might also find these related articles helpful:

• Insuring and Appraising Matte Proof Buffalo Nickels: A Grading Reconsideration & Regrade Protection Guide for Collectors – A standard homeowner’s policy simply won’t cover the full numismatic value of a rare collection. Let me show…
• Advanced Identification: Discovering Rare Die Marriages & VAMs in “Part 2: Are These Real?” – A Variety Researcher’s Deep Dive into Overton, Sheldon & Micro-Varieties – For the advanced collector, identifying the exact pair of dies used to strike a coin is the ultimate thrill. In this sec…
• Capital Gains, 1099-Ks & Cost Basis: The Tax Survival Guide for Selling Regraded Matte Proof Buffalo Nickels (1913–1916) – I’ve watched too many fellow collectors get blindsided by tax rules the moment they sell a prize coin. If you’re dealing…