2016 rotated reverse w retained cud rotation in coin world article wrong?

I’ve got a 2016 retained cud with rotated reverse. the coin world article wrote up says the coin has a CCW of 95°. I believe that’s wrong tho.
I came to measure the rotation after a 2015 penny I have with a rotation of 115°. The 2016 looked the same.
Am I measuring the rotations wrong? I can’t seem to find where the 95° rotation in the article came from.

first image is that of the 2015 115° rotation.


Here is the 2016 rotation of CCW 115° that has the retained cud on the obverse.


This coin is the 2016 listed on cuds on coins where it is flipped upside down as if the reverse was normal but with rotation.
It is also the same coin written up for the coin world article by mike diamond.
you can see it also has a 115° rotation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

How about a link to the article?

 

https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-c...ror-coin-lincoln-cent-die-break-rotation.html

 

Thanks for the link. The article says the coin was flipped from left to right when photographed. The article image shows slightly less rotation than your images.

Best I can do with Paint is superimpose it on your protractor. The article coin seems to be more like 105 degrees CCW. Either way, I think they probably just guesstimated it visually when coming up with 95. And who knows if they flipped it exactly correctly when imaging it.

 

The article coin is the same one that is on cuds on coins as well and it’s flipped down and up instead of left and right.
And the coin imaged in the article is the one I’ll post again here. And the flip is marked with a line as well. The obverse is correct then flipped you get this.
Weird I wonder if the people writing up the article provided the degree and did it with there pics.
The cuds on coin coin and the article coin r the same coin.
So that’s weird.

i just noticed something. The coin images used are not of that of the rotation listing on cuds on coins.
The images used in the article are that of the 2016 retained cud with no rotation.
So it’d be safe to say it most likely 115° and not 95 bc the right coin wasn’t used for the article.
first screenshot is that of the retained cud no rotation but the same reverse used in the article.
Doesn’t state a rotation
Second screenshot is the retained cud which states the rotation which is about 115° when measured CCW.
So it doesn’t matter bc the original images for the article aren’t even that of the actually retained cud with the rotated reverse that is stated.
They’re using the images of the 2016 with just the retained cud…
I’m gonna stick with 115° for the actually rotated one now.

 

If the correct and images were used for the coin world article from what is listed on cuds on coins it’d come out to 115° give or take for sure.

 

I’d like to add Steve smith was listed in the coin world article as finding the 95° rotated 2016 retained cud.
Which is the coin listed on cuds on coins without the rotation listing the images add up with the zinc showing on the die break, and contact marks and environmental damage below the the U on the reverse.

The 2016 retained cud with a rotation listed on cuds on coins was found by lindsey slentz. Clearly shows a 115°

could there a miss communication here?
The 2016 retained cud listed on cuds on coins found by Steve smith has a 95° rotation wasn’t listed as such??? and the 115° makes it a dynamic rotation then.

So there’s a 2016 retained cud with no rotation on cuds on coins listed those images are used for the coin world article and saying 95° rotation.
But the listing from Lindsey with an actual rotation listed is clearly 115°.
Is it a dynamic rotation error. What happened here .

in short coinworld used the wrong coin bc the coin they imaged in the same from cudsoncoins provided by mike but not listed as a rotation on cudsoncoins. If it is a rotation at 95° it should be fixed bc we also have 115° rotation of the same coin then.

 

I don't think it really matters exactly how many degrees of rotation there were. If multiple examples could demonstrate some progression in the rotation, would you be able to determine if it was the hammer or the anvil die that rotated? Interesting maybe, but not sure why that matters either.

 

I’m getting at the fact the images used in the coin world article were of the coin without rotation but they did state it was rotated 95°. Bc on cudsoncoins the listing images they show has no rotation listed. until the second listing with a rotation, which clearly shows a 115° never stated anywhere

 

Show us images of your own example. That seems to have been lost in all of this.

https://cuds-on-coins.com/pre-cuds-on-lincoln-cents-1959-present-rcd-2/
What I glean from your posts is that Cuds On Coins could correct their info on this. They are showing the Coin World example but not showing it rotated, and there's a second RCD-1c-2016-01 listing specifically differentiated as "rotated." The Coin World article is only addressing the "rare combination of errors" - both a broken die and a die rotation. The two Cuds On Coins listings imply that there exists both rotated and not rotated examples, but that seems to be wrong. Who knows. I'm guessing only rotated examples exist.

Bottom line - there's a ton of mistakes in numismatic publications. They found something new to publish and slapped it out there.

 

That’s what I gather from the cuds on coins there’s one with not rotation and one with rotation.
This is my coin below also I’ve seen one other example of this 2016 retained cud with rotation in an anacs slab and the rotation is exactly the same as mine and the one listed with rotation on cuds on coins.

 

Nice example. So the question is whether a non-rotated example actually exists, and my hunch is that it doesn't. Maybe they didn't notice the rotation when the first Cuds On Coins example was posted? Perhaps @mikediamond will weigh in, since the original example was his, and he wrote the article.

 

Yea I’m thinking maybe the rotation of the first coin never got onto the site so it’s 95°.
But then why list a rotated one after the first listing. Unless JC forgot it is rotated. not sure