1992. Die crack

I am probably wrong again but I have high hopes for this one ..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That’s a really nice rim to rim die crack. At least that’s my opinion. For some reason it just doesn’t have the look of a plating blister to me.

 

Would that be considered a retained cud? Or just a rim to rim crack?

 

However, isn't it strange that all the minor lines in the plating are running parallel to the suspected die crack. That would make me question it.

 

I call it a rim to rim die crack but I do wonder as it’s copper plated zinc. It just looks more like an die crack to me than a plating blister.

 

Can't tell from a photo.

 

Yes, best to have this coin in hand.

 

I would call it a pre-cud die crack. Nice!!!

 

@1stSgt22 You are probably correct.

 

Are these often found?

 

I haven't seen any of CT members ever mention

 

Die cracks are found rarely but they are out there. I searched cuds on coins and did not find any evidence to support my earlier post but I still think I was right. Maybe the die was changed before an actual cud coin was struck.

 

Die cracks are quite common, but usually not quite so dramatic.

 

I was referring to what @1stSgt22 stated

 

The ‘crack’ extends through the rim on both sides. This would suggest to me that we are looking at something else.

 

Perhaps subsurface corrosion - https://www.error-ref.com/subsurface-corrosion/

 

I read your article and it does seem to fit the description, however I need better pictures to be certain if it is raised or not.

 

I suspect if it was subsurface corrosion, the linear line would have more more right angle protrusion. The line does seem to go to the edge, but photos do not show enough of the thickness edge of the coin to say it is subsurface or not to me. I still think "crack" at this point. Jim

 

Maybe. The involvement of the rim has me thinking it’s something with the plating or the planchet.

 

Very nice. Rim through rim. Quite a find.