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

I agree with everything you say here.
TD

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here are a couple of other mint related errors.

The first is from a really bad batch of copper planchets used in early 1794 and usually found on S-17. This one managed to make it to S-18. It has large laminations on both the obverse and the Reverse. It appears to me that the laminations broke off after striking, though it is difficult to be sure due to it's condition.:



This is interesting because it has a CUD, a strike-through and a broken planchet lamination which is not parallel with the surface. It does a good job of looking like a new die break through the date. The reverse had a CUD over ST. It also has a regular break and regular lamination. It has it all.

 

Back to OP. My best analysis from the photo is a lamination broken away before the strike but with a retained fragment which is what looks like an internal CUD, but isn't.

ps I think it has better details than a typical AU55. They sometimes give it a straight grade at what they believe to be market value rather than a details grade that is higher. Essentially they believe the market would deduct for this lamination error. I don't necessarily agree. They probably get less blowback from an undervaluation than full evaluation if a buyer does not recognize it as a mint error.

Also, I don't believe they designate a mint error unless you pay for for it.

 

I would suspect it was a poor gold mix which caused a planchet lamination which fell off before striking and a slightly cracked planchet. Poor gold and silver mixes which lead to laminations are not post mint damage. Another question arises, When did the lamination become detached? If it detached before the strike, would the die have smoothed the surface? What was the striking pressure at the time? It is unfortunate the planchet wasn't rejected for being defective. As for what appears to be a raised metal, I would suspect it is part of a retained lamination on the surface of the coin in that area. I don't recommend trying to raise that part and look underneath to see if the planchet continues to laminate. It's an interesting error on a C mint mark gold coin.

 

Who cares what happened to it, that is one beautiful gold coin, lucky you! Thanks for sharing it with us.

 

Lamination that fell away post strike. The layer was very thin which is why the lettering is still strong, but it shows the roughened and depressed surface that was below the lamination. It also appears the edge of the lamination passed over the lower left corner of the E.

The buckle right of the D probably occurred when the lamination was broken away, What ever broke the lamination off hit it with a sideways moting causing the buckle to form at the right edge.

The line going up toward the rim at 1:30 appears to be a lamination crack as well.

 

Marshall, posted: "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. [What you heard is totally incorrect. There is no such thing as an "internal cud!" Leading you to believe:] 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."



This coin has a broken die with a chunk missing at the "E."

From MacMillan Dictionary of Numismatics: A cud is "an abnormally raised area of metal at the edge of a coin,...a sign that the die used to strike the piece broke completely at that part."

Retained cuds are different. Look it up. Die chips are raised on the coin where other parts of the die broke away.

As for terminology, it changes. Much of the time the change occurs because new information became available. The other reason is when misinformation takes over.

Large cent collectors of today and long ago are possibly the most informed numismatists as a group (along with ancient collectors). If they call the die chip break on the cent above a "cud" as you imply, it is probably from a very long usage before the correct terminology was assigned by the folks who studied how coins are made and their characteristics. That makes the use of "cud" in any way besides its true meaning just uninformed misinformation.

It is very unfortunate that numismatic education in this country is so lacking in spite of what is available to anyone who desires to learn.

There are many good replies about the gold dollar. I'll post my thoughts shortly.

 

I agree that it is a planchet flaw. The ED appears to be struck over the recessed area in the planchet. Apparently NGC do not see it as PMD; otherwise it would not have received a straight grade.

 

I will admit that I didn't read every post until now...so I may have missed some things.

But, here is my take on this coin. The "damage" (for lack of a better word" is under the "ED" and pressed into the coin. So, either there was a positive on the die (but under the ED) or there was a recession in the planchet before it was struck. If there was a positive on the die (which would basically be impossible) other examples would be known.

So, there must have been a flaw in the planchet.

 

Planchet flaw would be my guess. If it was damage then it would have been body bagged when this coin was slabbed.

 

Could the planchet have been damaged in an upset mill? Lamination separation then into the coining chamber. But with this damage wouldn’t the weight be light? Was the coin weighed before encapsulation?

 

I always appreciate your thoughts.

To anybody else reading this, I trust Conder's analysis even more than my own. He is a true numismatist at the next level.

He's the one who speculated that a planchet flaw might be the cause of the apparent Break through the date of the S-167 before I saw the edge verification and identified the chunk behind Liberty's ear as a strike-through rather than PMD.

 

The OP's post has been answered above.

This coin is an expensive filler. The dealers I showed the image to said they would have no interest in the coin UNLESS it was discounted OR they had a customer who collected Mint Errors on better coins (White Elephants).

Technically, the coin is NOT DAMAGED. It was struck on a flawed planchet. At 1 o'clock the rim is incomplete due to the laminated planchet. The lamination continued into the coin to the "1." A major "de-lamination" is present across the coin on the "ED." The fact that the surface "split" is turned up at the "D" indicates that the missing part was still attached to the planchet when struck. As it peels away, probably assisted by the hand-of-man, it leaves a rough surface in the field and it LOOKS LIKE a rough surface on top of the "ER." The surface of the "ER" is the clue to when the missing piece broke away.

The coin is not damaged (unless you wish to correctly note the up turned metal). The area under the "ED" did not happen with chemicals or mount removal either.
I still cannot believe the problem with this coin was not mentioned on the NGC label or listed in the auction.

 

I hate snobbish behavior. They would hate my pitiful collection. They are not worthy of having such a special coin.

 

I am glad this coin has not fallen apart after 168 years. I agree that the planchet issue is probably a pre-strike lamination, but to listen him it would better if it had been whizzed.

 

It’s a crack not a cud. I can’t be wrong all the time. That’s a crack

 

My first reaction is about the grading as well and why isn't this taken into account? Do CUD's, PMD's (I assume any post damage would highly effect grading/value), etc., figure into the grading?

Sorry, probably a noob question. As a noob, just curious as to what the value is on this (if this is inappropriate... PLMK).

 

calling one of these with a pcgs pop of only about 120 an "expensive hole filler" because of a mint made flaw is way off base. I'd be proud to have it in my collection.

 

Traditionally, coins with mint damage are treated very differently than coins with Post mint damage. They often have a premium in common and modern coins. Post mint damage is treated quite severely.

I don't mind preference since I like detail over wear which is not reflected in pricing.

But to single out this beauty for mint damage like it has PMD is beyond my understanding.

They might as well buy from the Franklin mint so they can get all the benefits of modern improvements so it meets their standards. But it has no numismatic interest or historic appeal to me.

I'm sure they can find a really nice chinese counterfeit that's worth their interest.

Heck, even the US Mint is in on the Collector only fake rarity sham. Almost all are MS70. Go for it! I detest Modern Mint Collector market only coins.

 

A lamination is a planchet issue, a CUD is a die issue as is a crack, a strike-through is a striking issue and a mount is PMD. This is a planchet issue.