Just got this photo back from Todd. As you can see, it has an interesting die cud in the middle of the reverse. I found this 1862 Indian cent at the San Francisco Mint Show and gave it to Rick to attribute. He said it was a new variety, and gave it a Snow 9. I posted the new attribution page of this coin (and another new 1862 variety I found) a few weeks ago, but here it is again. Has anyone ever seen one like this before?
Are you trying to start your own line of attributions? BTW, at least per Mike Diamond's definition, that is not a cud. In his latest Coin World article; "A cud is a die break that incorporates the rim and at least a little bit of the field." His article was about floating die clashes. That is distinctly possible what you have.
Actually, you're right in that it's not technically a cud. You can't read it very well in the attribution description, but Rick calls it a "damaged die": "This is a dramatic die damage variety. It may exist without the die break. The SW corner of the E is raised with the break, which seems to indicate that this is damage to the die and not a die break."
I was going to comment that it did not look like a die break to me, but I did read that in Rick's description. My guess is that the damage was caused by striking something foreign previously. That is why I said yours may be a floating die clash. i.e. a previous die break piece gets struck. In Mike's example, the piece that broke imparted an image of part of the coin on the opposite face like a die clash. If yours is such, it struck a differnt side of teh die piece that broke off.
Die Gouges, some say. I have collected these die gouges, as some call them, for some time. All my examples are on memorials, with a few notable dimes, and some halves. Thse 1862 marks are repeated again and again, and are not clashes. Moreover, these marks are made by tooling used before the annealing stage, as this is the only way the gouges remain so crisp. Most of these coins are discarded by collectors, not being viewed as important. I take an alternate view. Many of the die gouges I see are on doubled dies, and especially rotated dies. I have a series of over 100, year 2000 Wide AM cents with irregular gouges that I call striations, which is the most accurate term. The striations are through the E Pluribus Unum on the reverse, and are all EXACTLY the same, with a clear pattern of die wear vanishing the gouges at a later stage in the minting process. Finally, I have 2000 Wide Am cents with straight rays, which are also gouges, that are especially the same as this 1862 example. One 2000 Wide AM has just ONE RAY, and I call it my illuminated cent. I won an auction this week for a 2000 with what I thought was just one ray, but it had more, matching many of the other with die gouge Rays that are in my collection. The most important aspect of this comment, as I stated earlier, is that these gouges are usually associated with another separate anomaly such as a die rotation or doubling. With my ray cents, the variety is that they are 2000 Wide AM Doubled Die reverse. I commented about this to an EBAYER who sold me some 1998 Wide AM's, and he found doubling on his 1998's. As a real plus, he also had one of the fifty to 100 known 1999 wide AM's and he looked, and though it had no ray, we were able to verify doubling in ALL THREE Wide AM types. The 1999 wide AM has four known die pairs, The 2000 has nearly thirty, of which I have some 10-15. I expect that the 1998 Wide AM will have about half that of the 2000 in doubled die form. The doubling is by Lincoln's statue on the right in the 2000, and on the left in the 1998, of the examples I have found. That 1862 is important, so it is a real keeper. I always felt that the engraver was putting their furtive signature on the die when they left us these beautiful details to examine. After all, it's their only way of reminding themselves of which dies their tools were applied to: a secret conceit, much like the engravers of olden times did as well.
I always thought a cud had to involve the rim. But in looking around (Google) it appears that the definition has expanded to include all parts of a coin. So a professional journal such as Snow's book probably has to stick with the strict definition, but apparently in everyday usage it's okay to use cud for what used to be known as (large) die chips. And on this coin I agree with the analysis of the cause being a damaged die (gouge?)
For as long as I can remember there have been knock down, drag out fights among the experts as to exactly what constitutes a cud. It used to get downright bloody on rcc when this subject was discussed. For many years the name "internal cud" was constantly being proposed as the way to distinguish between the two types - those that involved the rim and those that did not. And never was an acceptable consensus established. To me it's common sense. A cud is simply the result of piece being missing from the die when it strikes the coin. Think of it as a hole in the die that is not supposed to be there. Now regardless of how that hole in the die got there, or where it is on the die, the end result is always the same - a raised spot of metal on the coin. Thus that raised spot of metal is called a cud. Now you can say that die chips are not cuds, but we all know and agree that die chips are quite common and they result from a tiny piece of the die breaking away. OK, that's fine, but how big does that piece that broke away have to be before it is called a cud ? In that regard it's kind of like the damage thing. How big does a contact mark have to be before it is called damage and not a contact mark ? Or how big does a scratch have to be before it makes a coin ungradeable ? You're never going to find an answer because there isn't one. And there will never be one because people simply cannot agree on something that seems so simple. And they cannot agree because if they did it would mean that some of their own coins, or coins they want to buy, or coins they want to sell, or coins they have graded, will suddenly no longer be gradeable. And that they are not willing to accept. It's OK if it happens to somebody else's coin, but not one of theirs, no sir. So we shall forever have these arguments about what is and what isn't.
My initial comment about the cud were done mostly just to poke Charmy :hug: (sorry) and because I thought Mike's article interesting. That being said, I do not believe her coin even qualified as a cud even by your definition. You say, "A cud is simply the result of piece being missing from the die when it strikes the coin." I see no evidence that any piece is missing. In fact, the evidence presented is that nothing is missing. The corner of the "E" is still there in the middle of the damage. Rick Snow's analysis says the same thing.
What about The Cent Queen? Naw, that doesn't have the ring to it either. I've seen a lot of 1862's, and never seen this one. Very cool by the way. :goofer:
Yeah the corner of the E is kind of there, but something is definitely going on in that spot. It's certainly not a normal corner of the letter. I could see a couple of possiblities happening. One - maybe the die was damaged by a strikethrough. But maybe that piece of the die just broke in a weird way. Imagine if you will, when the die breaks the corner of E remains but the metal underneath it goes with the piece that breaks away. This leaves the corner of the E overhanging a hole. Such a break could happen because when metal fails it fails in all sorts of weird ways. The break will follow whatever underlying cracks or weak spots there are. And if the weakest part was under the corner of the E and the metal that formed the corner was sound - yeah the piece under it could fall out. Now look at the corner of that E. There seems to be a line running across the corner. A line that would be there is my theory is correct. Because when the die struck that coin the corner of the E, being unsupported, would be bent back into the hole under it. But as the metal began to flow, the flowing metal filling the hole would force that corner back towards the coin. This would result in a deformed corner of the E which is exactly what we have. Now the reason I think my theory is more likely is because if the hole in the die was caused by damage to die, then whatever it was that dented the die would have pushed that corner of the E deep into the hole. Thus when the coin was struck, Charmy's coin, the corner that E would not be visible as it is now. It would just be part of the depression caused by the damage and simply show as a lump of metal like the rest of it does. This is the key to me. I would also submit that the edges of that raised metal are way too sharp and clean cut for it to have been formed by a strikethrough. Strikethrough holes or damage to the die almost always has much softer and rounded edges than die breaks do.
Thanks for all the input everyone, there were a lot of very interesting and diverse explanations. Personally, I think the term "cud" has a broader usage and doesn't need to be limited to the rim of a coin. According to aboutcoins.com: A cud is a damaged area resembling a blob on the surface of a coin which is raised above the field a little, and which obliterates the device or inscription where it appears. Cuds are the result of die cracks which have become severe, or from die chips where part of the die surface has become damaged and broken away. Some experts in the error-variety hobby insist that for the blob to be called a cud, the damaged part of the die must include part of the edge of the die. Although this is the purist definition, in common parlance you'll see the term "cud" used to describe the blob created by any die chip or serious die crack, regardless of its placement on the die or coin. http://coins.about.com/od/coinsglossary/g/cud_defined.htm
I posted the coin on the CU forum (http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=780959&STARTPAGE=1) and received a lot of interesting explanations as well. And here are Rick Snow's comments: The rounded appearence of the cud tells me that the die may have had a hidden defect that may have manifested itself when the die was hardened, after it was hubbed. The hubbing process would shape the metal below the surface as well as on the surface. This is why part of the E is present on the "top" of the cud (below the original surface of the die) The die broke off when the metal shrunk. I listed this as a die defect, pre-hardening die damage. which it could be as well.
