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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.