I'm new to collecting the errors but is this what would be classed as a laminate lift?
Cheers, Matt
[attachment=1720]
Quote from: 'MattGold' pid='12592' dateline='1366543895'I'm new to collecting the errors but is this what would be classed as a laminate lift?
Cheers, Matt
Not sure on this one Matt, I am not super error savvy, Nevol is the guru on this site for errors and cuds etc:angel:
It is hard to say. Looks like the peel has been completely removed from the coin. Usually the peel is still on the coin as I have had several cuts on my fingers to prove it.
Definitely a planchet flaw. Die cracks produce raised lines where the metal was forced into the crack, or raised cuds if a piece of the die has broken off. These flaws however are tears in the metal, and completely unique.
Depending on the orientation of the flaw in the planchet, they can look quite different. Anything from a tiny flap at the rim which may or may not have lifted, right through to the coin being split into two halves. However most tend to be at shallow angles close to the surface, producing either what looks like a crack across the coin, or what you have here, where a thin layer has peeled off. You can even get sort of a wave inside the coin, which comes to the surface in multiple places, producing a series of parallel or intersecting lines, perhaps with peeled metal between them.
I'll see if I can dig up a couple of examples and snap some piccies for you.
Quote from: 'MattGold' pid='12592' dateline='1366543895'I'm new to collecting the errors but is this what would be classed as a laminate lift?
Cheers, Matt
(http://i38.tinypic.com/xdwisy.jpg)
here,s a better pic for you to look at matt ,, kel ,,
that is a planchet flaw ,
well worth keeping if you don't have many of them
they can be found on all parts of a coin .. ,, kel ,,
Yep, that's a lamination peel/flaw, still intact.
Ones that have detached look like this:
$1 2007 APEC Rev Lam Peel
(http://i38.tinypic.com/2qi48y1.jpg)
This is one that's lifted but is still attached.
$1 1985 Obv V4 Trio Lam Peel
(http://i50.tinypic.com/k2mo2a.jpg)
Thanks for the replies everyone, I've had a couple of these errors in the past but this is the first I have decided to put aside as it's the 1985 10 cent and I figure it being the lowest mintage of the 10 cents I would keep it or hold it until someone else is interested in it.
They're all worth keeping. One day everyone else will wake up to how unique they really are, and demand will far outstrip supply.
Love that coin Nevol.. what was your address and alarm code again? ;)
WOW they are some nice photos Nevol, did you get that in change? Also, by the looks of the photo of my coin, do you think it would be in good enough condition to send away to PCGS? I've been thinking of sending a few away but I don't want to waste my time getting it slabbed if the grading will cost more than the coin value.
Your coin is probably only worth $5-10 max. The cost of grading would be many times this. Having said that its a nice little coin, worth hanging onto for sure!
Would they even be in a position to grade something like that? Planchet flaws are unique. As connor Macleod says "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!", so what's the point of grading?
They grade other types of unique errors, why not a lamination?
I've no doubt they'd grade anything for a buck.
But if its unique, its pointless. Its like grading the Mona Lisa... if it comes up VF, what you gonna do, hunt down another one??????
Its still a guarantee of grade and clarification of the error.
Quote from: 'Fulvio' pid='12897' dateline='1366792290'I've no doubt they'd grade anything for a buck.
But if its unique, its pointless. Its like grading the Mona Lisa... if it comes up VF, what you gonna do, hunt down another one??????
My oath :good:
I may come up with an EF on the wrong canvass :laugh2:
Come on Guys this TPGing mindset is getting bloody ridicules :angel:
Im not advocating for this coin to be sent to PCGS just saying that for some unique errors its not a bad idea.
I hate to disagree, but I do think its a bad idea, and here's why.
Grading services exist because they can make money off ignorance. People are unable or unwilling to grade for themselves, and will happily pay someone else to do it. The problem is that if everyone decides slabbing is necessary, it becomes a tax on every coin. Any coin not slabbed gets downvalued considerably, and therefore the pressure is on to get everything graded.
That might be fine for investment bankers trading in what's just another commodity to them, but we're supposed to be collectors, aren't we? We shouldn't be making it any easier for the bastards, either the ones grading or the ones demanding it. And sending off things like unique errors just encourages them.
No, the only justification I can see is if you are selling something rare enough that a very slight variation in grading makes a huge monetary difference. In such a case the difference between the seller's grading and the buyer's can be a fortune, so bringing in an umpire to call it makes some sense.
But seriously, how many such coins do most of us possess?
Fulvio Mate I could not agree with you more:yahoo:
I have been an anti slabber or slobber ( a well known entity on CCF used to use this term, God rest his soul) since its inception, for exactly the reasons you have stated in your post.
Good to know That I am not the only member on this site that has a set of balls to say how they feel on the slabbing issue without fear or favour :yahoo:
Well done Mate :good:
The 2007 $1 was a gift from a forum member, I bought the 1985 $1 on Ebay.
that is what I love about errors Nevol
they add variety to your collecting
and I got into errors after noticing the coins that i'd remove from my albums - i'd remove the ones with mistakes on them
after time I learnt that the mistakes were almost more fun than the perfect ones