What is wrong or right with this 1853-C Gold Dollar?

Not a cud. Planchet defect. If it were a CUD it would cover up the "ED" and you would not see that part of the design. Similar to this Washington Quarter below

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

As an Early Copper guy. my first impression is a planchet flaw because of the sharpness of the letters on the depressed area. I'm not familiar enough with mid 19th century gold to know if they were prone to planchet problems. But a lamination or even a strike-through may be responsible.

Many people were never taught that the first gold rushes were in North Carolina and Georgia before the rush to California and later the Yukon and Alaska. The new branch mints may have had issues making planchets if it was done locally.

 

Ok, so a cud can literally only be considered as such if it is a full blown blob like that and obliterates the detail. Good to know

 

johnmilton, posted: "A cud is a blob of metal that results when a piece of the die, usually on the edge, breaks off. It is usually a lump a metal above the surface with no design detail."

This is incorrect with the word "usually" included.

This stuff is basic. I recommend ALL OF YOU should study the minting process and read Error-Ref.com.: Definition: A cud is a die break that involves the rim and at least a little bit of the adjacent field or design. Some cuds are tiny.

"So I take you are voting post mint damage."

I have no idea why you believe that. It IS NOT PMD!

 

The planchet making function was done locally, and the Charlotte Mint had major issues, especially when the gold dollar diameter was increased from 13 to 15 mm.

The Type II Gold Dollar design was dropped quickly because not even the Philadelphia Mint could make it well consistently. The Charlotte coins was the worst. The best thing about this piece is that it has a complete date. Most or many of them don't. This one is graded EF-45. The AUs cost twice as much, and most them are not any better.



It didn't get much better for Charlotte One Dollar Gold Pieces with the Type III design. This is also an EF-45. In its last years, the Charlotte Mint made gold dollars on the odd number years, and quarter eagles on the even numbered years.

 

The reason I used the word "usually" is that the blob of metal is "usually" confined to the edge of the of the coin. It always starts on the edge and can expand a lot further in an extreme cases. But I have not see a lot of extreme cases except on items like Civil War tokens which were, of course, not government products except in rare instances. For example the Philadelphia Sanitary Fair pieces are listed as Civil War tokens and were made with mint dies and equipment.

 

I think (stress "think") Socrates' point is that by definition a cud ALWAYS/MUST include/involve the rim. Otherwise it's not a cud...just a chip. I think.

 

I think your coin is a lamination error where the flake fell off the planchet before the strike.

 

Not sure if that was sarcasm or not but yes, that's what CUD's do. Here's a dramatic example of a CUD for anyone wondering. Note that is doesn't need to be a giant blob to be a CUD either.

 

johnmilton, posted: "The reason [The "reason" is not important AT ALL. The reason does not make misinformation "correct."] I used the word "usually" is that the blob of metal is "usually" [To be a cud it ALWAYS involves the edge. I did not make this distinction - the error guys did! I had to learn the proper terminology from them in order to appear educated. BTW, I always used the term "double dies" too - until I learned better.] confined to the edge of the of the coin. It always starts on the edge and can expand a lot further in an extreme cases. But I have not see a lot of extreme cases except on items like Civil War tokens which were, of course, not government products except in rare instances. For example the Philadelphia Sanitary Fair pieces are listed as Civil War tokens and were made with mint dies and equipment."

If no one comes up with the entire answer to your coin, I'll suggest one tomorrow.

 

I agree with coincorgi with a planchet flaw. Unretained Lamination. Unretained before or after strike is debatable, I think after. The crack line from the right of the 1 to the edge look like a lamination line, at one time this coin was soaked in a liquid that seeped into the crack and oozed out later to stain the coin in that area.
The stained line point to the flaw on the ED which is a continuation of the lamination flaw inside the coin. JMO

 

I also guess that it is a planchet defect involving a slice of pie shaped area around the letters ED. Could the stain be from a glue or something applied to stabilize, or hide the defect?

 

Ginormously amazing, its the half phase.

 

I've heard the term internal cud to describe a piece of the die which breaks out of the die, but not at the rim. It appears to me that a CUD describes any chunk of the die which has fallen away from the die surface. It usually progresses from a break which usually begins at the rim.

Notice this piece (S-166) has a spectacular break from the rim above E(D) to the rim right of the fraction. But an internal CUD develops on the right side of the E because a chunk of the die has failed. While this isn't typical, it happens.
A

S-161 has 12 different die stages.states from perfect to a crack to incomplete filling to a full CUD at different places on the coin.

This is an intermediate Die State with a full CUD from just right of A over TE to just short of S. There is a developing CUD from over T above A.

Here is Die State XII which I recently acquired with a FULL CUD all the way back to the first T and a new, undescribed CUD developing over OF.


Is it a new Die State or just a late XII? Noyes and Breen are not exactly on the same page with their die stages. Uneven wear on this die caused by buckling is accounted for a bit differently by each. This buckling is more obvious on middle grade specimens than high grade specimens which might explain their differences.

OK. I'm showing off, but this is a good example of the progression of die failure to CUD.

ps Since this is educational, what appears to be a CUD over ME is actually from an edge ding which does a good job imitating a true CUD.

 

A planchet flaw of some kind. I do not know whether laminations happened on gold or not, but I'm leaning towards yes because the gold used is .900 fine and alloyed with copper.

The Charlotte and Dahlonega mints weren't exactly known for high levels of quality control. You've got a beautiful coin and one worthy of being jealous of for sure.

 

While I can't see it in the copper, My first impression is a spectacular Lamination/delamination error. it would really depend on whether the blob is raised or incused into the planchet,

 

No, that wasn’t sarcasm- I had incorrectly assumed the term could still apply without fully removing the detail. Thanks for the heads up.

 

Nope, not a cud.

See explanation above. The reasons are clearly stated.

And, no, not PMD, I don't think NGC is that dumb. Although they should have explained their reasoning on the insert.

I think a lamination, starting to detach, with a possible 'bubble' beneath the surface that broke thru with the strike.

 

A note of caution for absolute statements of terminology. Many time the terminology adapts to the area of specialization that first captures your time and devotion to education. Large Cent specialists use the same terms as modern error specialist, but with slightly different interpretations on precise limits.

The internal CUD for Large Cent collectors won't meet the definition of NGC for Modern Mint Errors.

A frequent point of contention is the use of Die State and Die Stage, with Early Copper specialists using the Breen Die State terminology where other specialties use the term Die Stage and will defend their definition to the death.

The process of Die deterioration is the same with a gradual breakdown of the dies and certain markers indicating the degree of deterioration. When it changes from one set of markers to another and what it is called remains a matter of preference, even among experts.

One of the biggest discrepancies is whether either term should apply to the variety (Breen Method) or to the individual dies (one each for Obverse and Reverse)(Noyes Method which traces the die deterioration state/stage across varieties.) My preference is the latter, though the Breen Method is used almost universally for Die State while his new Variety Numbering System never achieved market acceptance over Sheldon's old Variety Numbering System. So we're left with a market acceptable hybrid.

Another is whether it is a Die Break or Die Crack. Does it really matter when it described the same thing?

My own preference is guided by my Early Copper interest, but I now try to use both terms where known to inform a wider collecting audience.

I am not prone to just accepting the terminology of TPGs just because they are TPGs. They set their own Standards, but I do not have to accept them.