Did you buy a coin this weekend? Please post what you got. I went to a coin show in Naugatuck Connecticut & got this Lincoln cud labeled "1987 oddity" for $8. Very best regards, collect89
Nice!! No coin this weekend, but I bought a copy of the Red Book, a 1909-1940 Lincoln holder, and a Mercury holder = )
:loud:That is not a cud that is a major partial obverse indent and a major error. and extremely rare Wondeful find Jazzcoins Joe
It is a cud & photo may be deceiving The dealer asked how much I would be willing to pay. I'm glad I kept quiet long enough for him to say "how about $8". The photo may be a little deceiving. It is a cud that is in relief on the obverse. It is not indented into the obverse of the coin. I find that there is a listed cud LC-87-1 which is actually a later progression of this one. Therefore, If they ever revise the cud book, this one may become LC-87-1A and the currently listed one may become LC-97-1B. Very best regards, collect89
Hello Jazzcoins Joe, Here are a couple new photos. The error is definitely a cud and not an indent. BTW, indents are normally crescent shape caused by a disc being either under or on top of the struck coin. Very best regards, collect89
A cud is produced when a coin is struck by a die that has completely broken (as opposed to a die crack that is produced when a coin is struck by a die that has cracked). The cud will be located at the rim and may protrude into the surface of the coin a little or a lot depending on the size of the portion of the die that has broken off. The cud is raised because the rest of the planchet is under tremendous pressure and the metal flows from high pressure (where it is being squeezed at great pressure between two dies) to low pressure (where a portion of the die has broken off). Think of a balloon. When you squeeze the balloon in one area the unrestrained portions of the balloon expand out. Notice on the reverse of this coin the area directly coinciding with the cud the reverse details are very weak. That is because there was no die on the opposite side of the coin to press the planchet metal into the recesses of the reverse die. Hope this explains to you what a cud it.
No. The opposite. The metal squeezed up at the cud (where the broken die has fallen away) while the rest of the coin was under pressure between the dies. See my balloon example. Does this not make sense to you? If a coin had been "bitten" there would be indentations into the coin, not raised metal where it was "bitten".
What you wrote des make sense to me but the coin looks like its MISSING a piece, not overfilled. BTW - I would think the whole coin would be a weak strike as the metal escaped the die. Ruben
It's an optical illusion. If bronze was super soft (say, like a marshmallow) that might be the case. However, it is hard enough that it will take an impression from dies even though the planchet is not fully restrained. What about Large Cents and Half Cents. They were pure copper - much softer than the bronze used in Lincoln Cents - and they were struck in an open collar. Pure copper is soft and the planchet did expand when the dies came together (because the open collar did not restrain the metal) BUT the copper was hard enough for the dies to impart strong detail on the coin. In other words, the copper did not run like water just because the edges were not restrained.
