As I said, there are several other cud/"floating die clash" combination errors known. In addition to this 1987 cent, there is a 1974 cent, a 1989...
The photos are useless. You may be describing die scrapes. These may be caused by a mistimed feeder finger scraping across the die face.
Your summary of the chain of events is correct. The blank area on the reverse opposite the cud in vertical space is due to the fact that the...
It could be a strike-through or a lamination error. Hard to say given the resolution of the photo and the state of wear.
The raised dot is interesting. A die chip seldom develops in the middle of the field. It could be a small, circular die dent. Or, most...
Struck through grease.
It may be a lamination error, but the resolution of your photos is too poor to be sure. It's definitely not a die crack.
It looks plated.
It's a die chip.
This one of approximately six known cuds in which the broken-off die fragment was struck by one of the dies. The phenomenon is known as "floating...
It appears to be a very long, bi-level die crack. Instead of the lateral spread that is typically seen in die cracks, you've instead got vertical...
It appears to be machine doubling (strike doubling). It's caused by a loose die.
Is the weight the same as a normal Euro cent?
Since you indicate that these gouges show a consistent position relative to the incuse design elements on the edge, that would support your idea...
These striations are much coarser and straighter than scratches associated with intentional die abrasion ("die polishing"). They show a...
The gouge is definitely post-strike damage and probably post-production damage. The straitions on the reverse face are die scrapes, possibly from...
I'd go with a die gouge or a narrow die dent. If it's a blister in the plating, it should flex when gently pushed with the tip of a toothpick....
Separate names with a comma.
