Several errors in recent bulk purchase

No need to waste money. I just gave the explanation in the previous post
Once again.. It is not a CUD.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's great you want to know. I just gave the reasoning why it is not a CUD.

 

Very nicely done! One of the best attempts I've seen at reframing the terms, and having been around the block more than a few times, I've seen some real doozies.

There. Now that I've buttered you up, could you answer the question? Since you admit in a following comment to having bad eyes (which probably explains your personal attacks on me regarding some of my coins), would you kindly answer the question?

In deference to your vision problems, I'll save you the effort of looking for it again:

What is the correct term for a doubled mint mark on a die with doubling that is formed via the single squeeze method?​

 

My answer to you is.. Get lost!

I have no idea.. I know absolutely nothing about mint errors or mint varieties.

 

Chuckle!

Am I to infer from this declaration that "Not a cud" equates to "not an error"?

For a bonus point, can you explain why you type "CUD" as if it were an acronym? (Personally, after ruminating on the subject, I prefer the error-ref.com usage: "cud.")

 

It's a shame that this thread has devolved into such a bickering fest. I am simply looking for some explanation about a very strange coin. Paddy, I appreciate your explanation about the nature of Cuds and see how this coin couldn't be one...impossible for a die that is not present to leave an impression of FDRs head. However, the explanation of damage from heat/bubbling is leaving me a bit unsatisfied. Any other possible explanations?

 

None that I know of. Maybe someone else will chime in. To some members here my 34 years of collecting mint errors is not enough. Nice coins you have shared with us. Thanks.

 

Who was it that said something along the lines of, "When you cannot win, pound on the table, yell, then get up and storm out of the room"? (IIRC there was a chess variant about pounding on the board, sending all the pieces flying.)

I really need to add these to my quotes file (after finding the actual quotes and attributions). They (either) would make a great chapter epigraph in my novel.

 

Select One.

 

I've looked at it carefully, and looked at the corresponding area on the reverse with equal diligence, and the "heat" theory doesn't seem to register with me.

If it was pre-strike heat (i.e., annealing furnace), wouldn't the some sixty odd tons of striking pressure ram it right back into place? And if it was post-strike heat, wouldn't there be dramatic discoloration -- likely a variety of colors -- as well as an equal amount of similar swelling and coloration on the reverse?

I almost forgot -- you said [emphasis added] that "it is either heat damage..." -- but try as I might, I can't find the "or" part of that reply.

 

I am now retiring from this thread.

 

Wonderful!

 

I'm not here to win or lose. Just to give my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you don't want to. I'm absolutely fine. No pounding at all on my side.

 

I would respect 34 years. Now sell me the coin and I will send it in and keep it forever. I would use my wife's money no big deal.

 

Your wife's money spends just fine over here! I'd happily sell the coin if I only knew what it is worth!!!

 

I agree with @paddyman98 that the some is some sort of PMD. Notice how the features on the obv. portrait are flattened and distorted, yet LIBERTY is normally struck. Details on the rev also are flat and distorted. In addition, look at all the digs and marks on the rims.

Whatever caused the flattening and distortion happened AFTER it was struck. Now think about the minting and die making process. What part of the process could explain the appearance of your dime? Even With all his years of experience in errors, Paddy couldn't explain how this could hapoen, and neither can I.

Remember, don't get caught in the mindset of assuming it must be an error if you can't explain how the damage occurred. The minting process is made up of a well understood series of steps. All errors and varieties can be attributed and explained by a specific step. It's easy for some members to say it must be an error, but until they offer a detailed hypothesis that is compatible with the minting process, it's just an opinion. And you can judge their opinion based on the credibility of their previous posts

 

Everything he said, but awesome finds! We like to see actual errors posted when people find them.

 

Glue?

Try a soak in pure acetone and see if it comes off...

 

Closer pics of a few of the coins...just for fun!

 

I would say outer layer of the dime bubbled up from heat and someone squeezed it back with something flat. You can also see evidence on the reverse. There is just no way something like that could have happened in the minting process.