Dang! Dang! Dang! That mudslide thread got closed yet none of you of you folks stepped up to state that those 4 little nicks, mountains or "whatevers" on the rim of that coin were not cuds! I did not see any definitions of what a cud is either (not that it would have mattered). CUD: "The cud error itself is the result of a die failure. When a die crack forms in the die metal, that crack is aggravated by successive strikes. In each strike the planchet metal is forced into the die crack, and it acts like a wedge. The power of the strike and the wedging action of repeated strikes, causes the die to fail. This failure consists of a segment of the die actually breaking away, leaving a void in the die face. It should be noted that for the purpose of these discussions the die break willl always include a portion of the rim area of that die design. The broken away segment will always carry a portion of the rim area design of that die with it. All coins struck by that defective die will have an area on the struck coin which has not been shaped into a coin design, since the die was missing that part. The "unstruck" area of the coin will retain the unformed shape of the Type Two blank planchet with the upset rim. It is this unformed area whih is the "cud" about which we speak." - The Error Coin Encyclopedia by Arnold Margolis, NLG and Fred Weinberg. NLG I don't interpet ANY of what was stated above to mean that "mountains" (either big or very small) could be interpreted as true "cuds". Whatever occurred to that poor coin was NOT the result of a die crack, a die break or die failure. Neither was it the result of the coining process and it most assuredly occurred post strike which by definition is not a mint(ing) error.
My entire arguement was that there were no mint errors on the coin so yes I did state that they were not cuds. Every thing on that coin was post mint damage. I would leave it at that so as to not stir up anything Richard
