Cracks or Cuds, Where's the Line?

I can't tell you why, from certain angles, it looks like a stain. I can tell you that I didn't spill my coffee on it because I would have licked it off. There are very heavy flow lines where this piece is and they have a look of light toning. Struck into the zink layer? Maybe y'all can figure that one out. I can only get closeup photos of small areas in focus, with my phone.

There is another crack visible running from the rim to the A, end of the scroll, and on to the shield.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Maybe it's struck through coffee. Who knows. The luster on the obverse, clearly shows where this piece is.

 

The new photos definitely eliminate this anomaly from being a retained Cud because there is no vertical or lateral displacement of the design elements. That being said were it a crack there is not enough displacement of metal to have an affect on the obverse .
I bath in acetone may clear things up

 

Ha ! A bath in acetone

 

You could be right, but I would like to see a better close-up of each one to be sure.

Chris

 

Well I was voting coffee, tea or coke stain until I was the second set of photos. I think we all see that crack on the shield you were talking about. The first photo in the second set almost looks struck thru with die scratches. Something like this one:



I can't see it, but you describe a crack from the rim to the A to the shield. This is fairly common if it looks something like this:



One other thing. I also see a small die chip on your shield, something like this:



Hope this helps.

 

In fact the photos clearly show vertical displacement. I'm far from a newbie, and wouldn't waste my time or anyone else's with a stain.

 

Lordy , not saying you are Hommer but I have seen a build up of residue at the edge of a dried spill that can mimic a crack. Hope this turns out for the OP

 

Whether it is a stain or a crack, one thing is sure. It doesn't add to the value! So, what difference does it make.

Chris

 

Exactly, It's worth a penny. Having grown tired of taking photos of this coin and trying to help some see what I saw, I did the numismatic "no no" and rubbed it with my thumb to get some of the discoloration off. Now I can show photos of a harshly cleaned coin and have someone tell me it isn't.

 

I would need to see the coin in hand to determine what is going on as I am between a die crack and a stain, although with the zinc pennys you can get lamination issues too.

Just to further the discussion on die crack, versus retained cud, versus cud, just keep in mind it's a progression with no discrete states. The die first cracks, then starts to shift, then falls away completely, with coins being struck the entire time. I tend to think the crack and the cud are stable states while the retained cud is more of a transition state.

With that said, and my experience is in large cents, the retained cuds are less common. Lots of varieties have coins showing the cracks outlining the cud, and coins showing the cud, but no coins showing the retained cud. And as with any rule there are exceptions, so some varieties have the retained cud much more common than the final state with the cud. For example 1846 N15 is very common with the cracks, rare with the retained cud, and extremely rare in the final state with the cud (just 2 examples known). Not my 1846 N15, but here is an example of the progression, from cracks (through the U and E in united), then the retained cud, followed by the extremely rare final state:

1846 N15 cracks: http://early-copper.com/coinpics/46N15.jpg
1846 N15 retained cud: http://early-copper.com/coinpics/46N15c.jpg
1846 N15 cud: http://early-copper.com/coinpics/46N15d.jpg

 

Thanks for your reply, progressive evidence is the key to education here. I only had the one so was unable to show progression. As @cpm9ball stated earlier, it would have been really cool to have found it in a roll with others of the type, to show progression to the point of failure.

 

OK, with the new photos you have me thinking. They display the displacement reflectivity I was referring to, when your first set of images didn't (at least on my phone). Let me throw this out: how about a lamination detached before the strike, or very soon after? I could see something sticking to it which you could rub off, which might not stick to the smoother original field.

 

Another point. A die crack should be raised off the surface of the coin for the whole crack. Based on that last photo I think it's more a plating issue than a die crack. A die crack would be confirmed if you found another coin from that year with the exact same die crack.