It wouldn't be surprising if the shapes and lengths of dies bearing the same denomination vary with press design. The anvil die should have the longer neck in most press designs in order to move up and down within the collar.
--- In email@example.com, Michael Evanchik <ivan0000013@...> wrote:
> im not exactly sure if theres is a difference. and I don't own them anymore. but I have had examples of Lincoln cent dies.some were very fat at the base and some more slim.ive had both obverses and reverses of each. when I first collected them, it was always the reverses that were the fat variety. but I eventually encountered both types.
> From: "innff@..." <innff@...>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 8:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [Error Coin Information Exchange] Article on retained cuds of the hammer ...
> Mike,Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â I do agree
> with your theory on hammer die retained cuds; the die doesn't produce a magical
> glue to hold that small piece in place and must adhere to Newton's laws.
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The only
> logical explanation that I can think of is that the obverse dies that do have
> retained cuds are actually anvil dies. Is it possible that the mint did make
> some obverse dies on reverse dies bodies?
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Also, have we seen
> the same retained cud on two or more Â coins? If so, this would bolster the
> factÂ that the obverse die was not the hammer die but in aÂ different
> position that did not allow that piece of die to fall out.
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â There is one
> more scenario that I would contemplate. It would be possible for the die to
> break during contact with the planchet during the strikeÂ and have a
> retained cud being formed and held in place by the planchet itself. However,
> after the strike, that piece would fall away from the die leaving you with a
> In a message dated 6/30/2013 3:03:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> mdia1@... writes:
> upshot of this analysis is that the vast majority of alleged retained cuds of
> the hammer die are nothing of the sort. I'm not entirely sure that any
> actually exist, although I do hold out the possibility for some extreme
> >Commments and critiques are welcome.
> >In the next issue I
> trash the concept of "abrasion doubling".
> >It's always useful to clear
> out theoretical clutter that hampers understanding of minting errors and the
> minting process.