Mint Error or Damaged? Decoding the Surface of a 1960-D Lincoln Cent — Lamination, Clips, and PMD Explained

The 1960-D Small Date That Started It All — And Why the Surface Tells the Real Story

Is that a rare lamination flaw? Or did someone just scratch it with a screwdriver? I get asked this constantly. I’ve examined thousands of Lincoln cents over the years. Honestly, no question comes up more often in error attribution than this one.

A flaky patch on the rim. A missing curve on the edge. A rough-looking field. Collectors want to know one thing. Are they holding a genuine mint-made planchet flaw that adds premium value? Or is it post-mint damage — PMD — that actually hurts value?

The forum thread that inspired this guide was titled “1960 D Lincoln cent Small dae” — a typo for Small Date that many of us have seen a hundred times. The poster was asking, in imperfect English, whether his cent was the small date variety.

Experienced members pointed out the key diagnostic right away. On the 1960 Small Date, the tops of the 1 and the 9 are exactly the same height. On the Large Date, the 9 sits noticeably higher than the 1. That simple marker settles the variety question in seconds. It is also why the 1960-P Small Date is famous as the least-minted of the 1960 varieties and a key date to collect in MS-65 or better.

But the variety is only half the battle. I have seen far too many 1960-D cents, both Small Date and Large Date, posted with no clear photos. Or with blurry photos that hide the surface. Then they get described as “lamination error” or “clipped planchet” based on a guess.

Without a sharp, straight-on image of the obverse, reverse, and edge, no responsible attributor can help you. In my experience grading and authenticating, surface clues do not lie. A bad photo will. A true planchet flaw was baked into the coin before it ever struck. PMD happened after the coin left the Denver Mint in 1960. Learning to separate those two timelines is the whole skill.

This article is your field guide. I will walk you through lamination errors, clipped planchets, tooling marks, and the many forms of PMD I see on 1960-D Lincoln cents. I will use the exact markers I use under magnification in my own examination.

What a True Planchet Flaw Looks Like at the Mint

A planchet is the blank disc of metal that goes into the press. In 1960, Lincoln cents were struck on a bronze planchet, 95% copper and 5% zinc, weighing 2.5 grams and measuring 19.05 mm in diameter.

If that blank was perfect, the finished coin is normal. If the blank had a defect, that defect was struck into the coin. It becomes part of its history. That is the fundamental difference I always teach new collectors: a planchet flaw is pre-strike, PMD is post-strike.

Lamination Errors: When the Metal Itself Fails

Lamination errors occur when the metal strip from which planchets are punched has internal laminations. These are thin layers that did not fully bond during rolling. When the planchet is cut and struck, those weak layers can flake, peel, or crumble.

On a 1960-D cent, I most often see lamination on the rim, just inside the border, or in the fields of the Memorial reverse, where the metal flow is thinner.

What I look for with a genuine lamination is texture and integration. The affected area looks rough, pitted, and layered. It is as if tiny sheets of copper are lifting. The edges of the lamination are irregular. They follow the grain of the metal, not a straight tool line.

The patina and toning inside the lamination pit match the patina on the rest of the coin. Both have aged together since 1960. Devices that cross a lamination will be distorted, weakened, or missing in a soft, mushy way. There was no solid metal to receive the strike.

In my experience, lamination errors are also rarely isolated to a perfect circle or a perfect scratch. They tend to be jagged, multi-layered, and often appear in clusters along the rim where stress was highest during striking.

If you tilt a genuine lamination under light, you will see depth and shadow inside the flake. That depth is critical. PMD scratches sit on top of the surface. Laminations eat into it.

Clipped Planchets: When the Blank Is Cut Wrong

A clipped planchet, often called a clip, happens when the strip of metal feeds incorrectly into the blanking press. A segment of the planchet is cut off. The result is a coin that is missing a curved segment.

It is not a straight chop. It is not a bite taken out after minting. It is a smooth, curved absence where the rim is simply gone.

I’ve examined genuine 1960-D clipped planchets where 5% to 15% of the coin is missing. The diagnostics I trust are consistent. First, the clipped edge is smooth and curved, following the original circumference of the planchet.

Second, the rim is missing on both obverse and reverse in exactly the same place. The blank was clipped before striking. Third, devices near the clip are truncated cleanly. For example, the top of the Memorial building or the letters of LIBERTY may be cut off by the missing segment, but what remains shows normal strike detail.

Fourth, the weight is low. A normal 1960 cent is 2.5 grams. A clipped example might weigh 2.3 or 2.1 grams depending on the size of the clip.

Most importantly, the edge of a genuine clip shows no reeding, no tool marks, and no displaced metal pushed inward. It looks like the coin was simply born smaller in that section. The metal at the clip edge has the same color and surface as the rest of the coin.

Post-Mint Damage: The Great Imitator

If planchet flaws are born at the Mint, PMD is everything that happened afterward. In pockets. In drawers. In jewelry. In parking lots. And in well-meaning attempts to “clean” a coin.

PMD is by far the most common cause of what collectors mistakenly call errors. It is the reason professional attribution matters.

Tooling Marks and Screwdriver Scars

Tooling marks are my red flag for PMD. When someone uses a screwdriver, a knife, pliers, or a file on a coin, the tool displaces metal. I see this constantly on wheat and Memorial cents that spent decades in a junk drawer.

A screwdriver scratch is sharp, straight or slightly curved, with raised burrs of metal pushed up along its edges. Under 10x magnification, the scratch has a bright, fresh-looking interior that cuts through original patina and mint luster.

Tooling is different from lamination in three ways I always check. One, tooling has direction and intent. It starts and stops abruptly, often with a gouge at one end where the tool slipped.

Two, tooling displaces metal upward, creating a ridge, whereas lamination removes metal in layers. Three, tooling ignores the design. A scratch will cross LIBERTY, the date, and the rim with equal violence. A lamination will respect the metal’s structure and often distort the design rather than slice through it cleanly.

I also see tooling used to try to create a fake error. Someone will pry at the rim to simulate a lamination, or file the edge to simulate a clip. In my experience grading, those fakes fail. The filed edge is too straight, too bright, and shows parallel file lines that a mint blanking press never produces.

Cleaning, Polishing, and Environmental Damage

Not all PMD is dramatic. The most expensive PMD is the subtle kind. A 1960-D that has been polished will lose its original mint luster and show hairlines in the fields. Those are thousands of tiny parallel scratches from a buffing wheel.

A coin that has been dipped or chemically cleaned will have unnatural color, with patina stripped from recesses but left in protected areas.

Environmental damage is another imitator. Corrosion, verdigris, and pitting from moisture can look rough like a lamination. The difference I teach is pattern. Environmental pitting is random, often starts at the rim or high points, and is accompanied by discoloration and surface roughness across wide areas.

Lamination is localized, layered, and follows the metal. A coin that sat in the ground for 40 years will look sick overall. A lamination error coin will look healthy except for that one flawed area.

• PMD scratches: Sharp, bright, linear, with displaced metal, cutting through patina
• PMD dents: Round or irregular depressions with raised rims, often from being dropped or struck by another object
• PMD bends: The coin is not flat, the design is distorted across the whole surface, not just at a clip
• PMD tooling: Raised letters or numbers that were pushed up from the field, often around the date or mintmark
• Cleaning hairlines: Fine, parallel lines in the fields that catch light differently than original flow lines

My Step-by-Step Attribution Process in Hand

When a coin like that 1960-D Small Date lands on my desk, I do not start with a guess. I follow the same process every time. I recommend you do the same before you list it as an error.

1. Weigh and measure first. A genuine 1960-D should be 2.5 grams and 19.05 mm. A clipped planchet will be underweight. A normal-weight coin with a “clip” is almost certainly PMD — a piece broken off after minting.
2. Examine the edge completely. Rotate the coin slowly. A genuine clip has a smooth, curved, unmarked edge. A broken or filed edge will be rough, bright, or show tool lines. A lamination on the rim will show flaking layers, not a clean cut.
3. Check both sides for alignment. On a clipped planchet, the missing segment aligns perfectly on obverse and reverse. On PMD, damage is rarely aligned. A dent on the obverse will not match a dent on the reverse in the same spot.
4. Look at patina continuity. Original patina should flow into a lamination pit or across a clip edge naturally. Fresh PMD will be bright and interrupt patina abruptly.
5. Use magnification and raking light. I tilt the coin under a single light source. Laminations show depth and layered shadows. Scratches show bright lines and raised burrs. Polishing shows hairlines.
6. Confirm the variety separately. For 1960, confirm Small Date vs. Large Date by comparing the height of the 1 and 9. Do not let a surface flaw distract you from the hub variety. A Small Date with PMD is still a Small Date, but it is not an error coin.

This process takes two minutes with a scale, calipers, and a loupe. It saves you from the most common mistake I see. Paying error money for a damaged coin. Or selling a genuine error as damaged.

Lamination vs. PMD: The Side-by-Side Markers I Trust

Let me give you the direct comparison I use when I am teaching a grading class. Print this in your mind.

A genuine lamination error on a 1960-D will have a rough, flaky, layered texture that looks like peeling paint, but in metal. The affected area will be dull, with the same brown toning as the rest of the coin. The border between the lamination and solid metal will be feathered and irregular.

If the lamination is on the rim, the rim will be weakened and crumbly, not sharp. The coin will otherwise have normal strike, normal luster in unaffected areas, and normal weight.

PMD that mimics lamination will look different. A scratch or gouge will be sharp and bright. A corrosion pit will be accompanied by green or dark discoloration spreading beyond the pit. A tooling attempt will show metal pushed up around the damage.

A polished coin with a lamination will have hairlines everywhere, proving it was cleaned after minting, which does not create the lamination but does affect grade and value.

In my experience grading, the question is never “does it look rough?” Many coins look rough. The question is “was the roughness created before the strike, in the planchet, or after the strike, by damage?” That timeline is everything.

One more marker I rely on: flow lines. When a coin is struck, metal flows outward and creates fine lines in the fields, especially visible on Memorial cents. A genuine lamination interrupts those flow lines because the metal was weak. PMD scratches cut across flow lines.

If you can see flow lines running uninterrupted up to the edge of a rough area, that area was damaged after striking. If flow lines disappear into the roughness, it is more likely a planchet flaw.

Clipped Planchet vs. Break, Bend, and Bite: How to Be Certain

Clips are desirable. They are also faked and misidentified more than any other planchet flaw. I have seen coins described as “clipped planchet” that were actually broken in half and glued, bent, or bitten by pliers.

A genuine clip is curved. The missing segment follows the circle of the planchet. The edge is smooth because it was cut by the blanking press, not torn. The coin’s thickness at the clip is the same as elsewhere. The design is truncated, but the truncation is clean.

A post-mint break will have a jagged, crystalline edge, often bright where it broke. A bend will show stress lines and the coin will not sit flat. A plier bite will show two opposing dents and displaced metal. A filed clip will be too straight and will show file marks under magnification.

• Genuine clip: Smooth curved edge, aligned on both sides, underweight, no tool marks, devices truncated cleanly
• Broken coin: Jagged edge, often misaligned, may show glue residue, weight may be normal if rejoined
• Bent coin: Whole coin distorted, design stretched, not just missing at edge
• Filed or sawn: Straight edge, parallel lines, bright metal, wrong geometry for a blanking press

For the 1960-D specifically, I also check the mintmark. The Denver mintmark is below the date. If a clip removes part of the rim near the date, it may also affect the mintmark area, but it will not create a new mintmark or move it.

Tooling around the mintmark to try to create a “repunched mintmark” is PMD, and I see it often. A genuine repunched mintmark shows doubling in the metal from the hub, with normal patina. Tooling shows pushed-up metal and a bright interior.

What This Means for Value, Grading, and Buying a 1960-D

Attribution is not academic. It directly affects money. A normal 1960-D Small Date in circulated condition is a common coin, worth a few dollars.

The same coin with a genuine lamination error or a nice clipped planchet can bring a significant premium, especially in uncirculated condition, because error collectors compete for them. That premium is real numismatic value, not hype.

A 1960-D with PMD, on the other hand, will be graded as damaged. It will not be slabbed as an error. It will sell for less than a problem-free example — sometimes much less. Its collectibility drops fast.

For buyers, my actionable advice is simple. Never buy a “lamination” or “clip” from a blurry photo. Demand clear obverse, reverse, and edge photos, plus weight. If a seller cannot provide those, walk away. I have examined too many coins where the “error” disappeared in hand.

For sellers, be honest about PMD. A 1960-D Small Date with honest wear but original surfaces is far more collectible than a polished coin with a fake error story. The market for original 1960 varieties, especially the Small Date, is strong in high grade, but only when the surfaces are original.

Cleaning and tooling kill that value instantly. Eye appeal matters here. A coin in mint condition with strong luster and natural patina will always beat a roughly handled example with a good story. Provenance helps too — a coin with a known, documented history carries more trust.

For graders, planchet flaws are noted but do not always prevent a numeric grade if they are minor. A major clip or lamination will be noted on the holder and may affect grade depending on severity. PMD, however, is damage, and damaged coins are graded differently.

That distinction is why TPGs — third-party grading services — require in-hand examination. They are not being difficult. They are protecting you.

Conclusion: Collect the Process, Not Just the Story

The 1960-D Lincoln cent, Small Date or Large Date, is a wonderful entry point into American numismatics. It is the era of the Memorial reverse, the bronze composition, and the famous Small Date vs. Large Date varieties that every Lincoln collector learns to spot by the height of the 1 and 9.

It is also a coin that lived hard. In change, in jars, in drawers — for over six decades. That means PMD is everywhere.

Learning to tell a genuine lamination error from a screwdriver scratch, and a true clipped planchet from a broken edge, is what separates a collector from a speculator. It is a skill built on magnification, weight, edge examination, patina, and patience.

I’ve examined enough of these cents to know that the genuine errors are obvious once you know what to look for: layered, integrated, patina-matched flaws that were born in the planchet. And the PMD is obvious too: sharp, bright, displaced, and created long after Denver struck the coin in 1960.

Take your time. Photograph your coin clearly. Weigh it. Look at the edge. Compare the 1 and the 9 for the variety, then judge the surface for the story. If you do that, you will not just own a 1960-D cent — you will understand it. And in collecting, understanding is the real premium.

Related Resources

You might also find these related articles helpful:

• Spotting the Difference: Proof vs. Business Strike in a 1920 Standing Liberty Quarter – Mirrored Fields, Frosted Devices, and Square Rims Explained – Sometimes Early Proof Coins Look Like Business Strikes, and Vice Versa. Here Is How Experts Tell Them Apart Sometimes ea…
• Mint Error or Damaged? Decoding the Surface of a Gem 1920-S Standing Liberty Quarter — Lamination, Clips, and PMD Explained – Is that a rare lamination flaw? Or did someone just scratch it with a screwdriver? I hear that question constantly. In m…
• Advanced Identification: Discovering Rare Die Marriages for 1960-D Lincoln Cent Small Date – For the Advanced Collector, Identifying the Exact Pair of Dies Used to Strike a Coin Is the Ultimate Thrill For the adva…