Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Error Coin Information Exchange] Retained cuds of the hammer die -- solution to mystery?

Expand Messages
  • Jon P. Sullivan
    Mike, I have never seen an obverse die retained cud. I suppose the only way to tell that the retained cud was from a hammer die would be if the cud was found
    Message 1 of 9 , May 8, 2003
      Mike,

      I have never seen an obverse die retained cud. I suppose the only way
      to tell that the retained cud was from a hammer die would be if the
      cud was found in combination with another error type, such as an
      off-center or a partial collar error? Is this correct, or do you have
      some other way of telling?

      Jon

      On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 09:33 AM, Mike Diamond wrote:

      > One error type that has puzzled me over the years is retained cuds
      > affecting the hammer die.
      >
      > A retained cud is produced when a piece of the die breaks off, but is
      > held in place by....something.  A retained cud is recognized as an
      > island of design that stands at a level above the rest of the
      > design.  In other words, it sits on a "plateau", because the die
      > fragment has sunk below the level of the die face.  Another indicator
      > is if the contiguous parts of the design on either side of the die
      > break are offset from each other.  It is NOT sufficient for there
      > simply to be spread between the contiguous parts of the design.  This
      > could be due to a wide die crack or an asymmetrical split die.  In
      > niether case has the die fragment broken off.
      >
      > There's no problem figuring out retained cuds in the anvil die.  The
      > loose die fragment is held in place by the collar.  However, it's not
      > clear what, if anything, would hold the piece in place with the
      > hammer die.
      >
      > Now, I think, I have a solution.  Each retained cud of the hammer die
      > might be a unique event (no repetitions) and there is, in fact,
      > nothing holding the die fragment against the side of the die neck. 
      > How is this possible?
      >
      > Imagine that you've got a pre-cud die crack or an asymmetrical split
      > die.  Imagine that the die strikes a coin (leaving a complete
      > design), and at that precise moment, also breaks apart.  If the die
      > breaks apart at the moment of the intial impact, and then completes
      > the downstroke a millisecond later, then the design imparted during
      > the initial impact would be left elevated on a plateau (or offset),
      > despite the fact that the die fragment was no longer present.
      >
      > Obviously, this hypothesis would be falsified if you can find two
      > identical retained cuds of the hammer die.  So far I haven't found
      > any repeats.  However, this is a rare error type and my sample is by
      > no means sufficient to eliminate the possibility of a repetitive
      > error.
      >
      > Anybody out there have any duplicates of a retained hammer die cud?
      >
      >
      <image.tiff>
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > errorcoininformationexchange-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • Mike Diamond
      One error type that has puzzled me over the years is retained cuds affecting the hammer die. A retained cud is produced when a piece of the die breaks off, but
      Message 2 of 9 , May 9, 2003
        One error type that has puzzled me over the years is retained cuds
        affecting the hammer die.

        A retained cud is produced when a piece of the die breaks off, but is
        held in place by....something. A retained cud is recognized as an
        island of design that stands at a level above the rest of the
        design. In other words, it sits on a "plateau", because the die
        fragment has sunk below the level of the die face. Another indicator
        is if the contiguous parts of the design on either side of the die
        break are offset from each other. It is NOT sufficient for there
        simply to be spread between the contiguous parts of the design. This
        could be due to a wide die crack or an asymmetrical split die. In
        niether case has the die fragment broken off.

        There's no problem figuring out retained cuds in the anvil die. The
        loose die fragment is held in place by the collar. However, it's not
        clear what, if anything, would hold the piece in place with the
        hammer die.

        Now, I think, I have a solution. Each retained cud of the hammer die
        might be a unique event (no repetitions) and there is, in fact,
        nothing holding the die fragment against the side of the die neck.
        How is this possible?

        Imagine that you've got a pre-cud die crack or an asymmetrical split
        die. Imagine that the die strikes a coin (leaving a complete
        design), and at that precise moment, also breaks apart. If the die
        breaks apart at the moment of the intial impact, and then completes
        the downstroke a millisecond later, then the design imparted during
        the initial impact would be left elevated on a plateau (or offset),
        despite the fact that the die fragment was no longer present.

        Obviously, this hypothesis would be falsified if you can find two
        identical retained cuds of the hammer die. So far I haven't found
        any repeats. However, this is a rare error type and my sample is by
        no means sufficient to eliminate the possibility of a repetitive
        error.

        Anybody out there have any duplicates of a retained hammer die cud?
      • Mike Diamond
        I have two unambiguous retained hammer die cuds in my collection. One is on a 1998 quarter with a partial collar. The partial collar tells me that the coin
        Message 3 of 9 , May 9, 2003
          I have two unambiguous retained hammer die cuds in my collection.
          One is on a 1998 quarter with a partial collar. The partial collar
          tells me that the coin was minted with a normal die installation --
          obverse die as hammer die. The retained cud is on the obverse die.
          The other is a 1966 nickel. It comes from a period well before the
          earliest recent case of inverted die installation, which is 1992.

          Since the retained cud on the nickel was on the obverse die, and
          since the obverse die was always the hammer die in this period, it's
          safe to assume that it is a retained cud on the hammer die. It's a
          base-of-bust retained cud that left the design sitting on a plateau
          well above the rest of the bust.

          You're right that a suspected hammer die retained cud must be
          accompanied by some other error that indicates the manner of die
          installation after 1992. Certainly after 1995 when inverted die
          installation starts to get more common.

          My scenario that predicts that every hammer die retained cud is
          unique accounts both for the existence of this error (which is
          undoubted) and the rarity of the error.

          I've seen some possible hammer die retained cuds on 1943 cents, but
          can't be entirely sure since I could only detect the design spreading
          apart at the break. There has to be "uplift" of the design or the
          design has to be out of register either side of the break to confirm
          the diagnosis.

          --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, Jon P. Sullivan
          <errcoins@b...> wrote:
          > Mike,
          >
          > I have never seen an obverse die retained cud. I suppose the only
          way
          > to tell that the retained cud was from a hammer die would be if
          the
          > cud was found in combination with another error type, such as an
          > off-center or a partial collar error? Is this correct, or do you
          have
          > some other way of telling?
          >
          > Jon
        • Mike Diamond
          Mercury dimes were minted with inverted dies. They were last produced in 1945. After that, there isn t a single coin that shows any sign of having been
          Message 4 of 9 , May 9, 2003
            Mercury dimes were minted with inverted dies. They were last
            produced in 1945. After that, there isn't a single coin that shows
            any sign of having been minted with inverted dies until 1992, when a
            quarter with a reversed partial collar appears (reported by Arnie
            Margolis). The next oldest specimen I've come across is a 1994 dime
            with a reversed partial collar. I haven't found any examples of
            coins minted with inverted dies in 1995. For 1996 there are a fair
            number of dimes and nickels. 1997 brings nickels, dimes, and
            quarters produced by inverted dies. I haven't seen any cents minted
            with inverted dies earlier than 1998.

            I expect the various gaps will be filled in eventually by future
            discoveries.
          • Mike Diamond
            Another theory of mine bites the dust. There ARE repetitive retained cuds of the hammer die. In the July/August 2002 Errorscope Robert Knaus penned an article
            Message 5 of 9 , May 29, 2003
              Another theory of mine bites the dust. There ARE repetitive retained
              cuds of the hammer die.

              In the July/August 2002 Errorscope Robert Knaus penned an article on
              cuds in Standing Liberty quarters. In that article he presents an
              unmistakeable retained obverse cud in a 1930-S quarter. SLQ's were
              minted with a typical die set-up (obverse die as hammer die). So
              this is definitely a retained cud of the hammer die.

              This exact same retained cud is found on quite a few quarters. So
              something was holding the die fragment in place and it certainly
              wasn't the collar.

              The mystery endures...

              --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
              <mdia1@a...> wrote:
              >
              > Now, I think, I have a solution. Each retained cud of the hammer
              die
              > might be a unique event (no repetitions) and there is, in fact,
              > nothing holding the die fragment against the side of the die neck.
              > How is this possible?
              >
              > Imagine that you've got a pre-cud die crack or an asymmetrical
              split
              > die. Imagine that the die strikes a coin (leaving a complete
              > design), and at that precise moment, also breaks apart. If the die
              > breaks apart at the moment of the intial impact, and then completes
              > the downstroke a millisecond later, then the design imparted during
              > the initial impact would be left elevated on a plateau (or offset),
              > despite the fact that the die fragment was no longer present.
              >
              > Obviously, this hypothesis would be falsified if you can find two
              > identical retained cuds of the hammer die. So far I haven't found
              > any repeats. However, this is a rare error type and my sample is
              by
              > no means sufficient to eliminate the possibility of a repetitive
              > error.
              >
              > Anybody out there have any duplicates of a retained hammer die cud?
            • Jon P. Sullivan
              Mike, ... Do you know if all the cuds were found on coins from the same die? Jon ...
              Message 6 of 9 , May 29, 2003
                Mike,


                > This exact same retained cud is found on quite a few quarters.  So
                > something was holding the die fragment in place and it certainly
                > wasn't the collar.

                Do you know if all the cuds were found on coins from the same die?

                Jon


                On Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 09:36 AM, Mike Diamond wrote:

                > Another theory of mine bites the dust.  There ARE repetitive retained
                > cuds of the hammer die.
                >
                > In the July/August 2002 Errorscope Robert Knaus penned an article on
                > cuds in Standing Liberty quarters.  In that article he presents an
                > unmistakeable retained obverse cud in a 1930-S quarter.  SLQ's were
                > minted with a typical die set-up (obverse die as hammer die).  So
                > this is definitely a retained cud of the hammer die.
                >
                > This exact same retained cud is found on quite a few quarters.  So
                > something was holding the die fragment in place and it certainly
                > wasn't the collar.
                >
                > The mystery endures...
                >
                > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
                > <mdia1@a...> wrote:
                > >
                > > Now, I think, I have a solution.  Each retained cud of the hammer
                > die
                > > might be a unique event (no repetitions) and there is, in fact,
                > > nothing holding the die fragment against the side of the die neck. 
                > > How is this possible?
                > >
                > > Imagine that you've got a pre-cud die crack or an asymmetrical
                > split
                > > die.  Imagine that the die strikes a coin (leaving a complete
                > > design), and at that precise moment, also breaks apart.  If the die
                > > breaks apart at the moment of the intial impact, and then completes
                > > the downstroke a millisecond later, then the design imparted during
                > > the initial impact would be left elevated on a plateau (or offset),
                > > despite the fact that the die fragment was no longer present.
                > >
                > > Obviously, this hypothesis would be falsified if you can find two
                > > identical retained cuds of the hammer die.  So far I haven't found
                > > any repeats.  However, this is a rare error type and my sample is
                > by
                > > no means sufficient to eliminate the possibility of a repetitive
                > > error.
                > >
                > > Anybody out there have any duplicates of a retained hammer die cud?
                >
                >
                <image.tiff>
                >
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > errorcoininformationexchange-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
              • Mike Diamond
                The cuds are identical and the dates are identical (1930-S) so it has to be the same obverse die. Robert Knaus presented two of these 1930-S retained cud
                Message 7 of 9 , May 29, 2003
                  The cuds are identical and the dates are identical (1930-S) so it has
                  to be the same obverse die.

                  Robert Knaus presented two of these 1930-S retained cud quarters in
                  his article. The eBay auction is another. I presume that the one
                  that Arnie lists is still another specimen. Arnie lists it on page
                  186 of The Cud Book as SLQC-30S-1R. He identifies two stages, A and
                  B. The auction appears to be the later stage.

                  --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, Jon P. Sullivan
                  <errcoins@b...> wrote:

                  >Do you know if all the cuds were found on coins from the same die?

                  > On Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 09:36 AM, Mike Diamond wrote:
                  >
                  >Another theory of mine bites the dust.  There ARE repetitive
                  retained cuds of the hammer die.
                  > >
                  > > In the July/August 2002 Errorscope Robert Knaus penned an article
                  on
                  > > cuds in Standing Liberty quarters.  In that article he presents an
                  > > unmistakeable retained obverse cud in a 1930-S quarter.  SLQ's
                  were
                  > > minted with a typical die set-up (obverse die as hammer die).  So
                  > > this is definitely a retained cud of the hammer die.
                  > >
                  > > This exact same retained cud is found on quite a few quarters.  So
                  > > something was holding the die fragment in place and it certainly
                  > > wasn't the collar.
                  > >
                  > > The mystery endures...
                • pwrwgndrvr
                  Any idea what differentiates the 2 stages A and B? ... has ... and ... Sullivan ... article ... an ... So ... So
                  Message 8 of 9 , May 29, 2003
                    Any idea what differentiates the 2 stages A and B?

                    --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Diamond"
                    <mdia1@a...> wrote:
                    > The cuds are identical and the dates are identical (1930-S) so it
                    has
                    > to be the same obverse die.
                    >
                    > Robert Knaus presented two of these 1930-S retained cud quarters in
                    > his article. The eBay auction is another. I presume that the one
                    > that Arnie lists is still another specimen. Arnie lists it on page
                    > 186 of The Cud Book as SLQC-30S-1R. He identifies two stages, A
                    and
                    > B. The auction appears to be the later stage.
                    >
                    > --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, Jon P.
                    Sullivan
                    > <errcoins@b...> wrote:
                    >
                    > >Do you know if all the cuds were found on coins from the same die?
                    >
                    > > On Thursday, May 29, 2003, at 09:36 AM, Mike Diamond wrote:
                    > >
                    > >Another theory of mine bites the dust.  There ARE repetitive
                    > retained cuds of the hammer die.
                    > > >
                    > > > In the July/August 2002 Errorscope Robert Knaus penned an
                    article
                    > on
                    > > > cuds in Standing Liberty quarters.  In that article he presents
                    an
                    > > > unmistakeable retained obverse cud in a 1930-S quarter.  SLQ's
                    > were
                    > > > minted with a typical die set-up (obverse die as hammer die). 
                    So
                    > > > this is definitely a retained cud of the hammer die.
                    > > >
                    > > > This exact same retained cud is found on quite a few quarters. 
                    So
                    > > > something was holding the die fragment in place and it certainly
                    > > > wasn't the collar.
                    > > >
                    > > > The mystery endures...
                  • Mike Diamond
                    More of the date is visible in Stage A. I presume that the die fragment hadn t sunk in as far, permitting a decent strike in that area. In stage B it appears
                    Message 9 of 9 , May 29, 2003
                      More of the date is visible in Stage A. I presume that the die
                      fragment hadn't sunk in as far, permitting a decent strike in that
                      area. In stage B it appears that the fragment had sunk farther below
                      the plane of the die face, producing a weak strike in the date area.

                      Part of the weak appearance may also have to do with wear. The date
                      sits on a higher pedestal in Stage B, and is therefore more
                      susceptible to early, severe wear.

                      --- In errorcoininformationexchange@yahoogroups.com, pwrwgndrvr
                      <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                      > Any idea what differentiates the 2 stages A and B?
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.