Mint Error or Damaged? Decoding the Surface of an Odd 1913-D Buffalo Nickel: Planchet Flaws vs. Post-Mint Damage (Expert Attribution Guide #32/50)

Is that a rare lamination flaw, or did someone just scratch it with a screwdriver? Let’s break down how to tell the difference. As an error attribution expert who has spent decades behind the grading lens, I’m continually amazed by how many collectors confuse genuine mint mistakes with post-mint damage (PMD). The recent forum thread titled “Odd 1913 D Buffalo Nickel” is a perfect case study. A collector inherited a coin from his father showing a strange raised oval on the obverse and an unusual gold patina. Was it a lamination error? A clipped planchet? Or simply a victim of jewelry conversion and tooling? In this expert guide, Variation #32 of our 50-part series on Planchet Flaws vs. Post-Mint Damage, I’ll decode exactly what happened to this piece and give you the tools to authenticate your own finds.

The 1913-D Buffalo Nickel: Context and Composition

The Buffalo Nickel (Type I and Type II Indian Head Nickel) was struck from 1913 to 1938. The 1913-D issue from the Denver Mint bears the “D” mint mark on the reverse beneath the denomination. Composition was 75% copper and 25% nickel (cupronickel), a metal mix prone to certain planchet irregularities but not naturally golden in hue. When I first viewed the images from the forum post, my immediate thought was not “mint error” but “post-mint modification.” Let’s understand why.

Why the Date and Mint Mark Matter

The 1913-D is a semi-key date, with a mintage of just over 4 million. In well-preserved mint condition, it commands strong premiums. However, any alteration—including gold plating or mounting—devastates numismatic value. As an attribution specialist, I always verify the mint mark first. A genuine “D” must be evaluated for original surfaces before any error claim is considered.

Planchet Flaws: What Genuine Mint Errors Look Like

In my experience grading thousands of early 20th-century nickels, true planchet flaws originate at the mint before the strike. They are not caused by humans after the coin leaves the press.

Lamination Errors

A lamination error occurs when impurities or gas pockets in the billet cause the planchet metal to separate in layers. On a Buffalo Nickel, you’ll see a thin flake peeling from the surface, often near the rim or behind the bison. Key markers:

• Sharp, irregular edges following metal grain structure
• No tool marks or symmetrical scraping
• Color consistency (cupronickel silver-gray, not gold)
• Occurs before the strike; design may be incomplete over the area

The raised oval on the forum coin is not a lamination. Laminations don’t create smooth raised ovals integral to the coin; they create delamination voids or peeled flaps.

Clipped Planchets

A clipped planchet is a blank cut from the edge of a metal strip, leaving a straight or curved missing segment. On the 1913-D, a clip would show a flat planar absence of metal—never a raised bump. Clipped planchets are valuable only when unaltered and clearly pre-strike. The forum example shows no missing wedge, so we rule this out entirely.

Post-Mint Damage (PMD): The Real Story of the Odd Nickel

PMD is any alteration after the coin leaves the mint. The forum contributors nailed it: this nickel was likely converted into jewelry or a button. Let’s dissect the evidence.

Gold Patina and Electroplating

Cupronickel is not gold. The “gold patina” described is a classic sign of electroplating. In the early-to-mid 1900s, Buffalo Nickels were popularly mounted as cuff links, tie tacks, and buttons. A thin gold or silver wash was applied for aesthetics. I’ve examined dozens of such pieces; the plating sits uniformly atop devices and fields, unlike natural toning which develops in pockets and affects eye appeal differently.

The Raised Oval: Tooling Marks and Mounting

The raised oval on the obverse is, in my expert opinion, a bezel or solder ring from jewelry mounting. When a coin is set into a cuff link, a metal frame is often fused to the surface, creating an integral-looking raised border. This is PMD through and through. Tooling marks—fine linear scratches from files or lathes—typically surround such modifications. Under 10x magnification, you would see:

• Disrupted luster beneath the plating
• Symmetrical circular impressions inconsistent with mint striking
• Residual solder or base-metal showing at the oval’s edge

Why It Is Not an Error

To qualify as a mint error, the anomaly must exist at strike. The oval and gold film are added later. Therefore, this 1913-D is technically a “damaged coin” with zero error premium. Collectors must learn this distinction to avoid costly misattributions and protect their collectibility.

Tooling Marks vs. Mint Striking Defects

One of the most common confusions I address is tooling versus striking. Tooling marks are post-mint engravings, polishing, or drilling. A mint strike defect (like a die crack) appears as raised metal matching the die’s incuse line.

Identification Checklist

1. Check for symmetry: Jewelry mounts are often perfectly circular; mint flaws are random.
2. Assess color: Added plating changes the alloy’s natural tone and patina.
3. Use magnification: Tooling leaves parallel grooves; laminations show layered separation.
4. Weigh the coin: Mounting adds foreign mass; clipped planchets reduce weight.

Actionable Takeaways for Buyers and Sellers

If you encounter a 1913-D Buffalo Nickel with odd surfaces, follow this expert protocol:

• Buyers: Demand high-resolution images of edges and surfaces. Reject coins with plating or bezels if you seek numismatic value.
• Sellers: Disclose all PMD. Marketing a jewelry-modified nickel as a “lamination error” is unethical and violates grading standards.
• Investors: Only pristine or genuinely errored examples (e.g., legitimate clipped planchet, certified lamination) appreciate. PMD pieces are bullion or craft value only.

Grading Terminology and Attribution Resources

In my practice, I reference standardized error codes from CONECA. For Buffalo Nickels, the authoritative guides are the Cherrypickers’ Guide and NGC Error Census. When attributing, always note the provenance and:

• Date: 1913
• Mint: D (Denver)
• Alloy: 75% Cu, 25% Ni
• Observed: Post-mint gold plating, oval bezel, likely cuff link conversion

Conclusion: Collectibility and Historical Importance

The “Odd 1913-D Buffalo Nickel” from the forum is not a rare variety with a lamination or clipped planchet—it is a textbook example of post-mint damage with historical charm as a jewelry artifact. While it loses formal numismatic value, it gains a folk-history narrative: a father’s keepsake, transformed by earlier hands into wearable art. As an error attribution expert, my charge to you is this: study the planchet, distrust the patina, and always separate mint flaws from PMD. In Variation #32 of our series, we’ve armed you with the forensic eye needed to protect your collection. Remember, true errors reward the informed; damage educates the wise.

Related Resources

You might also find these related articles helpful:

• Will a CAC Sticker Double the Value of Your 1854 U.S. Coin? Green vs Gold Bean Premiums Analyzed – I’ve spent years tracking how a green or gold “bean” shifts both liquidity and price in today’s market. Let’s break down…
• Verdigris, PVC, and the $240K FedEx Theft: A Numismatic Conservator’s Environmental Damage Analysis of Recovered Bronze Coins – Improper storage is the enemy of numismatics. Let me show you the signs of environmental damage I look for in bronze and…
• Advanced Identification: Uncovering Die Marriages & VAMs on the Odd 1913-D Buffalo Nickel (Variety Research #31/50) – For the advanced collector, nothing beats the rush of identifying the exact pair of dies that struck a coin. I’ve spent …