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
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      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 2 of 9 , May 9, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 9 , May 9, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 9 , May 29, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 9 , May 29, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 9 , May 29, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 9 , May 29, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 9 , May 29, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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.