Would this be a rim cud?

May I have answers?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

On the left side of cent.

 

No, it is not a rim break. If it were, there would be two breaks. One on each end. So, where does it begin and where does it end?

Chris

 

no

 

And no.

 

I have noticed different forms of rim anomalies in early Cents from the 1970's. Anything from misaligned dies to partial collars. A picture of the Reverse side and a side view would help.

 

What you see there is called " Finning " .....

 

I thought that also. Finned Rim from the 7:00 up to the 12:00 position with folded over fin around 8:00

 

I would bet that at least half of theses coins, have finning

 

Quite a pleasure to see someone actually offer an idea as to what it is, rather than just posting what it isn't.

 

It could be a rim cud in which one end of the break isn't recognizable because of slight die tilt. Notice that only the upper left quadrant has a slight fin. Elsewhere the design rim has a more rounded look, indicating the coin metal didn't fully occupy the rim gutter. If the missing end of the rim cud occupied this zone, it likely wouldn't be expressed.

Anyway, this is the only possibility I could come up with that matches the appearance of this defect.

 

And as additional info your term "rim cud" is superfluous.
By definition a "cud" has to involve the rim, ergo the word "rim" is not necessary.

Saying "rim cud" is like saying "big enormous".

 

Incorrect, kanga. A "rim cud" is a die break that carries away part of the die's rim gutter and nothing else. A cud proper involved the rim gutter and at least a little bit of the adjacent field and/or design.

 

Interesting.
I've never encountered that differentiation.
Makes sense.

 

With all due respect, Mike, I prefer to use Alan Herbert's definition of a cud which identifies it as a major break (Herbert's II-E-5) because it serves to simplify the definition. However, if we are to accept the definition that a rim break (Herbert's II-E-4) can be called a "rim cud" because it includes the "gutter" then why shouldn't we allow a definition of a "field cud" if that, too, included the gutter?

TIA!

Chris

 

Herbert's terminology is a mess. Many "major die breaks" are trivial in size. He never defines, nor even mentions, what a "minor die break" would be. An adjective denoting size or severity should never be permanently attached to an error type, especially when there is no relationship between the commonly-understood meaning of that adjective and the actual size of the defect.

Tiny die breaks that do not directly connect to the design rim are referred to as "die chips" while larger ones are called "interior die breaks" or "internal die breaks". Naturally, Herbert has his own hopeless terminology for these deficits.

If you want to replace the term "cud" with something more descriptive like "marginal die break", "peripheral die break", or "corner die break", be my guest. I'll keep using cud, as its meaning is well-understood in the hobby.

 

Happy Easter everybody .

 

rim cud?

IMO, yes. Due to the lighting, it appears that the lower part of the break is no as pronounced as its top.

 

I disagree, see above. I use that term to describe a THIN, raised lip at the boundary of the edge and rim, often covering several degrees. This is a blob going into the flat rim.

 

I graduated this class 10 years ago and look at thread #9 .
If you looked at my images, their all in focus now .

Just a place for me to practice down-sizing my images .....