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

Re: Retained cuds of the hammer die -- solution to mystery?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.