Several errors in recent bulk purchase

I picked up a large bulk lot of coins from a dealer and it contained several very interesting errors. I have a couple of questions about value on these. I particularly like the double cud on the Jefferson nickel and what appears to be a completely contained internal cud on a Roosevelt dime. His face is really having a hard time! Also any input on the mint mark on the 1953 quarter would be appreciated. I know there's a lot to process here so feel free to weigh in on any or the pieces in particular.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nice assortment of coins! The double-cud nickel is cool. Also like the off-center quarter, and lamination buffalo.

 

The Dime is damaged. Not a Mint Error.
There is no such thing as a Doubled Die Mint Mark so that is incorrect.

Both Quarters seem to be slight Off-Center strikes Strikes.
The 2 CUDS are very Nice
The Buffalo Nickel Lamination Crack is huge. Nice also.

 

1996 Quarter Off Center.. $8.00 - $10.00
2000 Quarter slight Off Center.. $4.00 - $6.00
1983 Nickel Double CUD Die Breaks.. $30.00 - $40.00
1990 Cent CUD.. $10.00 - $12.00
Buffalo Nickel Lamination Crack.. $12.00 - $14.00
SBA? Blank Planchet.. $20.00 - $25.00
Quarter Blank.. $8.00 - $10.00

1967 Dime Not an error.. Face value (edited)
1963 Quarter Not a Doubled Die variety.. Face value + silver melt value

IMHO

 

I've never heard of an internal cud. The fine is damaged in my opinion. The Cent is different, the Quarters are struck off center, the double cud nickel is very nice as is the lamination on the Buffalo.

 

All very cool and I’m jealous! I especially like the Lincoln! Well done, I hope the buy didn’t break the bank so to speak.

 

Not at all, as far as breaking the bank. These guys were buried in a huge lot of coins.

 

Thanks for the input on value.That really helps.
The dime is really confounding to me. The metal on the obverse is clearly raised like a cud, but not pushed through from the reverse like damage would indicate. Also, the year is 1967, so no silver there.
The quarter is 1953 which has several over mint mark varieties. D/D D/D/S D/S Not sure if this is any of them, but it is worth considering.

 

I'm curious as to just what sort of "damage" would cause the "96" in the "1957" dime (as well as its "OD" and "TRUST" in IGWT) to be thrust upward as it is on that coin, without a corresponding concavity on the reverse. (USA at the top of the reverse seems bereft of a matching depression, and in general, I see no "negative" concavity on the reverse to correspond to the large plateau on the obverse.)

Also mildly interested in knowing the melt value of that coin.

I'm glad you qualified it as such! And lest I myself forget, the above is all IMO.

 

Buried, you say? In coins? If I mail you a shovel, would you... dig it?

 

You're seeing the same things I'm seeing, so I guess you must be delusional, ya poor guy!

 

Maybe not delusional, but definitely cross-eyed after spending the better part of the day with a big box of coins.

 

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

 

Better than spending two minutes with a slug! <g>

WRT that dime, my guess (not being able to see the actual coin) is that the dies "feel so break up" and they "wanna go home" -- but since they already are home, Plan B was implemented, and the coin went home with you.

Man, you really scored on that heap! I envy you.

 

Very nice haul! I will concur that the nickel is very sweet! Congratulations!

 

Sorry to keep pestering you in this apparently concluded thread, but I keep thinking about that IMO unique dime, and I want to urge you to send it in to a good TPG for attribution.

 

Alright Paddy...another teach/learn opportunity please. How would you describe to a newbie the reason(s) for calling the dime as damaged? When I first saw the pics, I thought “OMG! So cool! Can’t wait to see what type of error it gets labeled as!”, then my jaw dropped when the general consensus was damage. I’m so confused! Thank you Paddy!

 

Mint Marks in 1953 were hand punched into the die. They were not created as part of the over all design during the hubbing process. So it cannot be a Doubled die issue as all else can be a Doubled die issue when it occurs during the creation of the hub. It's so very simple.. It is probably a Repunched mint mark or damage.

 

Haha.. My eyes are bad. I corrected the list I gave you. But It is still not a CUD.
Reason I know this? First you must understand what a CUD actually is!
It's a piece of the Die that broke off. It would leave a raised piece on the edge of a coin. What happens during the strike is the metal from the blank planchet flows upwards into the void of the break. Same for die chips and interior die breaks. If you look carefully at your 1967 Dime you can still see the ear, profile and date. Any error specialist will quickly know that it cannot be a CUD.
Since it's a Cupro-Nickel Clad layer dime it is either heat damage to the surface which created a bubble between the clad and the inner copper.

Look at the area in question carefully and you can see what I'm talking about..