Mint Error or Damaged? Decoding Planchet Flaws vs. Post-Mint Damage on an Early ANACS Photo-Certified Coin (Gen 3, July 1979)

Is that a rare lamination flaw, or did someone just scratch it with a screwdriver? I’ve asked myself that same question countless times. Let’s break down how to tell the difference. As an error attribution expert who has spent decades behind the loupe examining everything from early Type 3 ANACS photo certificates to raw key-date Morgans, I can tell you this: the line between a genuine mint mistake and post-mint damage (PMD) is where fortunes are made—or lost. In this study, I’ll use the recently surfaced July 1979 ANACS photo cert (Generation 3, with grade opinion) as our case file, and show you exactly how to separate lamination errors, clipped planchets, and other planchet flaws from tooling marks and scrub jobs inflicted after the coin left the mint.

The Historical Anchor: Early ANACS Photo Certs and Why They Matter

I’ve examined dozens of early ANACS photo certificates over my career. The one that sparked this discussion—purchased at Summer FUN and quickly flipped—is a textbook Generation 3 example. Per research shared by CaptHenway (a former ANACS insider) and corroborated by OldSlabHolders.com, the template we’re looking at was printed with a one-line “In our opinion…” disclaimer because office manager Mary Thompson quietly rewrote it in December 1978 to make room for “GRADE:” entries. Graded opinions began March 1, 1979; this cert shows a July 1979 issue.

In my experience, these early photo certs are not just paper—they are a time capsule of 1970s attribution standards. The coin pictured (a key-date silver dollar, likely a Morgan given the thread context) was off the market for ~40 years and carries a VF35 opinion. But the real question for collectors is: are the surface irregularities we see planchet flaws or PMD?

Why Generation 3 Certs Demand Scrutiny

• They were typed on a template, photographed as a sheet, and cut individually—errors in matching coin to cert were rare but possible.
• Grade opinions like VF35 reflected a policy of dropping cleaned coins to the lowest number in the letter grade (e.g., EF-40 details cleaned became EF-40 cleaned).
• They predate modern slab holders, so the coin itself is exposed to new PMD risks during storage and handling.

Planchet Flaws 101: What the Mint Actually Did Wrong

When I train new error collectors, I start with a simple premise: a planchet flaw is a defect in the blank disk before or during striking. It is not the collector’s fault. Three categories dominate our discussion:

Lamination Errors

A lamination error occurs when impurities or gas pockets in the strip steel (or silver planchet) cause the metal to split in layers. I’ve examined 19th-century silver where the lamination peels like onion skin. Tell-tale signs:

• Parallel separation lines following the contour of the coin, not random directional scratches.
• Discoloration at the fissure (toning follows the exposed interior).
• Origin at the rim or edge, where rolled strip edges trap inclusions.

On the July 1979 ANACS coin, forum member MFeld noted the coin “looks scrubbed.” If that scrubbing follows a lamination line, it’s PMD over a flaw—not a flaw itself. That distinction directly affects numismatic value and eye appeal.

Clipped Planchets

A clipped planchet is a blank punched from the strip with part of the edge missing. In my attribution work, I look for:

• A smooth, crescent-shaped void with blast-white fresh metal at the clip (if untoned).
• No corresponding forced metal flow elsewhere (unlike a hit).
• Alignment with the reeding or denticles showing abrupt termination.

None of the forum photos show a clear clip, but early photo certs often obscure edge details—always demand current images before buying. A genuine clip can turn a common date into a rare variety with real collectibility.

Post-Mint Damage (PMD): The Collector’s Curse

PMD is any alteration after the coin left the mint. As an expert, I see it daily: jewelry mounts, drill holes, screwdriver slips, and yes—scrubbing. This is where mint condition and original luster go to die.

Tooling Marks vs. Lamination

Tooling marks are sharp, V-shaped incisions from steel implements. They differ from laminations because:

• They cross design elements arbitrarily (a lamination respects metal grain).
• They show bright, unnatural shine inconsistent with 100-year-old patina.
• They often appear in clusters where someone “tested” the coin.

“The coin looks scrubbed.” – MFeld, forum observation that triggered our PMD debate.

Cleaning and Surface Scrub

Braddick and CaptHenway clarified that ANACS in 1979 would assign EF details cleaned then drop to EF-40 cleaned. On our VF35 cert, if the coin had XF details but was cleaned, the VF35 is the top of VF—a classic downgrade. Scrubbing removes luster and creates hairline PMD that no lamination ever shows. The strike may be strong, but the surface tells the truth.

Side-by-Side Attribution: Flaw or Damage?

Here is my field checklist, honed from attributing Variety #32 of 50 in our planchet series:

1. Trace the line: does it follow the metal’s rolled direction? Lamination yes, tooling no.
2. Check the edges: clip = planchet, mount mark = PMD.
3. Assess toning: continuous toning over a fissure = mint flaw; broken toning = PMD.
4. Magnify 20x: lamination shows stratified layers; screwdriver shows displaced metal burrs.

Actionable Takeaways for Buyers and Sellers

If you’re chasing an early ANACS photo-cert coin, do this:

• Request macro photos of both sides and the edge before bidding.
• Compare the cert photo to the coin—generation 3 certs are easy to swap.
• Have an error specialist differentiate lamination from scrub; a falsely labeled “error” drops value 70%.
• Document any clipped planchet with calipers; genuine clips command premiums in VAM circles.

Grading Policy Context: Why VF35 on a Scrubbed Key Date?

CaptHenway’s insider note is gold: “We determined letter grade by design details, but if a problem such as cleaning, we lowered to lowest number within letter grade.” Thus a key-date Morgan with XF details cleaned could be VF35 if details merited high VF. This historical context is vital—modern graders use “Details” labels; 1979 ANACS buried the problem in the number. The provenance is solid, but the grade hides the story.

Conclusion: Collectibility and Historical Importance

The July 1979 Generation 3 ANACS photo cert with grade is a relic of transitional third-party grading. For the error attribution specialist, its value lies not just in the slab-less paper but in teaching us to interrogate every surface mark. A genuine lamination or clipped planchet on a key date elevates the coin to a five-figure rarity; PMD like tooling or scrubbing relegates it to filler. As we close Variation #32 of our 50-part planchet study, remember: the early ANACS cert proves provenance, but your loupe proves authenticity. Buy the flaw, not the damage—and when in doubt, attribute before you accumulate.

Related Resources

You might also find these related articles helpful:

• Advanced Identification: Decoding Rare Die Marriages & VAMs on an Interesting Early ANACS Photo Cert with Grade (3rd Gen, July 1979) – For the Advanced Collector: The Ultimate Thrill of Die Marriage Attribution For the advanced collector, identifying the …
• Verdigris, PVC, and Early ANACS: Saving a July 1979 Photo-Cert Morgan from Environmental Damage – Improper storage is the enemy of numismatics. Let’s identify the signs of environmental damage specific to this me…
• The Science of the Strike: Metallurgical Breakdown of an Early ANACS Photo-Certified Key Date (July 1979, Gen 3 VF35) – Introduction: Why Alloy Dictates Everything The way a coin ages, tones, and wears is entirely dependent on its metal all…