Question on Cuds...

Knowing that a Cud involves the rim, does the Cud actually have to enter the field to be officially a Cud or can it just rest on the outside of the rim with some of the rim still showing and not touching the field? If it does not involve the field but is still a Cud, is it still notable enough to send to Bob Neff as a possible inclusion in his listings, provided it has not already been reported? Thanks. Tom

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Are you willing to post a photo of exactly what you're trying to explain? If not, take a look at Wexler's listing for the 72-P DDO 4 (link below); is this what you're taking about? If so, his use of "rim cuds" mirrors my own understanding.

http://doubleddie.com/384301.html

 

I think you mean a rim cud. Here is one of my examples:

Obverse about 4 o'clock

 

Very similar except mine is more rounded. I would have posted a pic but have temporarily mis-placed it. Not fully involved but visible as this example.

 

Yes Evan, it's a rim cud, just not as well defined as yours. I wondered where the "break" point was in actually saying they were cuds or not worth mentioning.

 

Just like even a slight clash is still a clash, a small cud is still a cud. It could involve a piece broken off the collar as well as one broken off the die.

 

@tommyc03

I'm from the "old school" that considers a cud a break which forms on the rim and extends into the field. Yes, there are some people who think that a break on the rim, alone, is considered a cud, and they are entitled to their opinion. I'm not one of them!

To me, it is just considered a minor die break, and the major die break that extends into the field is called a cud. Besides, if you have ever seen a cud from the mouth of a ruminant, you would understand why this major die break got that name.

Chris

 

So the Lincoln Cent in Post #3 exhibits a "minor die break" (4 o'clock on the obverse)?

 

maybe 9 o'clock! Like this.Tommy what date is your coin,is it like this?

 

Correct!

Chris

 

If it doesn't involve the rim, I simply refer to it as a die break. If it involves the rim and the field, I call it a cud. If it involves the rim, alone, it is also considered a die break. The reason I make this distinction whenever the subject arises is just to let people know that there are two schools of thought on the subject, not that one is right and one is wrong.

What I do object to, however, is when one so-called expert bad-mouths another expert who is no longer alive to defend themself even though that person was well-respected by others. To me, that doesn't show much class and speaks to that person's lack of integrity.

Yes, Doug, I'm sure this difference of opinion has been going back and forth as long as we can remember, but the fact remains that the cud of a ruminant from which this error derives its name has been around for many, many centuries longer than coin collecting.

Chris

 

I would like to see a link to a numismatic glossary, anywhere, which does not define "cud" as something involving the rim of the coin. It is the accepted term for the phenomenon. Period. The only arguments against are from those who would rather refer to a horse as a dog.

Chris' distinction is more subtle, and more arguable, although I disagree with his position. I refer to the breaks he's talking about as "rim cuds."

 

@cpm9ball @GDJMSP @tommyc03 @Sheila Ruley

Chris, I have to agree with you. A cud must include the rim and the field. You "old school" fart.

Doug, are we going to start calling every die chip located anywhere a cud? If so, I can pull 50-100 out of any mixed date dime box easily. On another note. Now having a few listings on Wexler and seeing what he lists as "markers", not touching the rim is a "chip". and of course there are the die gouges but that is not pertinent to OP's thread.

Tom, I get where you are coming from and what you are asking. Does it include the rim and field? Something like this 2014 P cent? Same coin, two attempts. If so, it is a cud.



Cheers

 

Found one of these myself recently, did not know what to make of it. At first it looked like damage but closer inspection under the microscope said no.

 

@GDJMSP @tommyc03 @cpm9ball

A die chip is defined by its size? A cud is larger? My thought has always been location plays the only important part. I guess in the end, size does matter. O does it?

Two examples Doug. A 2015 P dime and a 2016 P dime. They got some size but I am still calling a chip...no way a cud.

I am with you Chris. Location, location, location.....field and rim, you can Call Me CUD.

Tommy, do you have any to compare to these two pics and do you agree? The dimes are a chip and the cent I posted is a cud.

Thanks Guys

 

The first is definitely a die chip. The second looks as a die break, more progressive, later stage, with a chip. But I could be wrong. Both nice nonetheless.