1853 seated dime Large CUD at top of head !

Paddy how many times have you said there are so many undocumented errors out there , I believe this is a cud and just hasn't been documented . IMHO

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The Red Book won't list minor varieties like this. This would be in a specialist's book.

 

The Red book reference I was referring to is the list of errors in the rear of the text. There's no listing for a cud being a mint error.

 

That's true however to my eyes and knowledge I believe that this is damage . Until I studied the rev. After another poster pointed it out I said cud. Now I've changed my opinion , and it's just an option not stating I'm an expert here. I've have seen cuds before never with an off set damage in the same area obv. Or rev.
I have seen quite a few of seated dimes and half dimes tooled, holed and holes even filled..... Love tokens etc.
One must remember that during this time period a half dime or dime was a lot of money. But still affordable to the common man to make into jewelry etc.

 

Ah, gotcha, I misunderstood your post. It's not listed as an error because it isn't really considered an error.

And, in my opinion, I don't see anything off in the pics - it looks like a genuine cud, not damage.

 

It has a depression on the reverse. Almost like it had a piece of metal retained on the dies I'd ask Gerry he's my go to seated dime guy. And lives 20 min away

 

Rusty a cud is not an error,more of a die state ,as it's the die that has an issue or damage. That transferred to the coin being minted. I personally have never seen the word cud used in conjunction with the words error or variety .
The op stated it's a "new variety" it's not,nor is it a new error find. If anything it's a new die state or marriage .
On these coins there's a lot of variables to determine the coins die state, LG. Date,SM. Dates, die cracks, berries and placement of the date,and other devices .
Again it's just my opinion ....

 

no, the reverse is weak because the broken part of the die fell away [creating the cud] and there wasn't anything opposite the reverse die to cause pressure for he design to be created.

therefore the weak area, or missing detail

 

ditto, in all facts.

 

Whatever it is or turns out to be, it's super neat!

 

The coin in the OP post is a CUD, rather nice one at that. When a cud is created you have to think backwards. there is a piece of the die that is broken off, when the other die comes down it pushed the metal down to create the coin and there is no resistance from the broken off piece hence that reverse looks void. If you don't understand let me know and I will post a picture of a broken die that would cause this to happen that I have here.

 

Sounds good Jim .

 

Ok , I shouldn't have said error . I was typing fast and that's the word that popped into my head . My bad .

 

It does in my copy (2014 p418) TYPES OF ERROR COINS Under defective die "Prices shown here are for coins with very noticeable, raised die-crack lines, or for which the die broke away producing an unstruck area known as a cud."

And large cuds should always or almost always have an area of weakness in the same spot o the other side of the coin.

 

As many of the others said, coins with cud errors (I would consider die failure to fall under the scope of "error"), almost always have telltale signs of weakness on the opposite side of the coin in the same area due to metal flow. Physics-fan did a nice writeup and I agree with pretty much all the points he made.

 

It's more of an error than the waffled coins that so many call errors

 

I didn't realize anyone considered those errors? Those are intentionally made by the mint, and is their process for destroying coins.

The confusion might come because many of the coins that they need to destroy are errors, or sub-standard product.