ok i first thought this was a die crack but know i think its a little to big for one of them. Sorry i dont have the program to zoom in on the coins, ill try and find the cd if needed.
guy, What you have is a large cud that apparently separated from another coin in the minting process and got minted into the coin that you have! These error coins are highly collected by some Coin Collectors but ignored by others. Coins with large cuds such as yours' or larger are much more sought after and although lower grade coins usually fetch a decent price, the high grade coins with this error are sure to fetch much higher prices. Although coins with smaller cuds are still sought by some Coin Collectors, they are not as collectible and fetch lower prices. It is hard to put a real value on any of these coins which is highly dependent on the grade, size of the cud and what a Collector is willing to pay to obtain the coin! However, prices will most of the time range anywhere from 25 cents up to a few dollars but can fetch anywhere from $10 or $20 or more for some specimens. Good luck...Frank
Blimy well i would of never of thought it was woth that much (ok im getting my hopes up here ). I'm guessing here but it also looks like something as got on the coin before it was coppered could it be that or is it definently a cud?
If I understand the process correctly the clading is applied befor the planchet is formed and the coin is struck. This means if the peice was there before cladding than it wass there before stricking. The strike would have mashed the cud down into the surface. The coin may have still exhibited clading flaws but the cud would not be rasied nor would it disrupt the pattern of the coin. This is just a theory I may be wrong.
The extra piece of metal or cud can sometimes get stuck to or just fall onto the planchet throughout any one of the processes from the punching out the planchet to entering the collar for striking. However, the most common method for this to occur is that during the minting (striking) process, pieces of metal (cuds) from previous minted coins get stuck to the dies or fall onto the next coin in the process and get pressed into the coin. Another method is when the planchet is improperly punched out and has an extra piece of metal sticking out from the edge or rim which gets folded over the rim and even onto the surface of the coin (if the piece is fairly large) when the coin is placed in the collar and struck. Frank
There's a bit of confusion here I think - cud - (standard definition) An area of a coin struck by a die that has a complete break across part of its surface. A cud may be either a retained cud, where the faulty piece of the die is still in place, or a full cud, where the piece of the die has fallen away. Retained cuds usually have dentil detail if on the edge, while full cuds do not. Cuds are formed, in simplest terms, because there is a piece missing from the die - a hole if you will. And when the planchet is struck, metal from the planchet is pushed up into this hole forming the raised area you see on the coin.
Read this carefully. Most of the explanations preceeding it were incorrect. A cud is not something that falls of a coin, it is an error on a coin resulting from a die break. Also, as had been mentioned, a piece of foreign material that falls on a coin prior to striking would not stick out from the coin's surface - it would be mashed down flat with the planchet. (If it falls out, it might leave an indentation, but in no case would it look like the coin pictured).
I have sold and still have coins with cud errors or whatever you want to call them! Many of the extra pieces of metal on them were pressed partially into the coin but were not part of the coin and were not produced from a crack, hole or imperfection of one of the dies. I have also had coins with cuds that were pieces of metal that never got detached from the planchet, that got folder over the rim onto the surface of the coin and caused weak strike errors on the opposite side of the coin and these were not produced by a crack, hole or other imperfection in the die. I still have a 1999-P Lincoln Memorial Cent that has a piece of the lower roof trim that separated from the Memorial Building that twisted in a half moon shape and got pressed back into coin. Now, if these are not cud errors then you tell me what the heck you would call them??!! Would you call these Struck Thru Errors, Partial Brockage Errors or both?? Why do many Coin Collectors, Dealers and even some Professionals call the "BIE" Error which is found on thousands and thousands of Lincoln Cents a Cud Error when by your definitions, many aren't Cud Errors and are in fact extra pieces of metal from other coins that got struck into the coin??!! I grant you, that some of these extra pieces of metal were caused by a crack, hole or other imperfection in the die but some are not. A piece of metal that gets stuck in a crack, hole or other imperfection on the die and then gets attached to the coin in the minting process, does not cause weak strike errors on the opposite side of the coin unless it falls off the die and falls onto the coin (being minted) in some location other than the area of the crack, hole or imperfection in the die. However, a piece of metal that gets onto the planchet somewhere in the process of producing the planchets up through the striking (minting) process, does cause weak strike errors on the opposite side of the coin. So what do you call this piece of metal on the coin? Frank
All I can report is what they have in the books - which I did. What you are describing are known as strike through errors. As strike through usually leaves a dent in the coin - an incuse spot. A retained strike through is when the piece of metal, plastic, string, wire - what have you, remains embedded in the coin. And of course the retained object can and often does stick up higher than the surface of the coin. As often happens - many different collectors use the same numismatic term to describe entirely different things. And as often happens many collectors use the terms incorrectly - or at least as the definitions are generally accepted. About the best glossary that I know of for error terms can be found HERE A pretty good glossary for general numismatic terms can be found HERE
This is not a cud. A cud is a die break that involves the rim. It may be an interior die break, but I doubt it. From the looks of it, it may be a lamination flap that's been folded over after the strike.
I would buy this explanation also, based on the photos. Back to the original diagnosis/discussion: there is no way that the dies came into contact with this coin as it is. If this had occurred, the lump would have been pressed flat, or if it were big and strong enough, it would have prevented the dies from coming into contact with the reverse of the blank. If this had occurred, then there would not be design elements immediately surrounding the object.
Mike - is this just a question of semantics ? Most of the numismatic community call them internal cuds. I have yet to find a definition for cud that states that it must involve the rim to be called a cud. And any time I see a coin with one - it is described as an internal cud. That includes coins listed by ANR, Superior, B & M etc etc. So who's right ?
do u want me to take more pictures so we can resolve what this is? or is the picture i have got is ok?
To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, we use the terminology we have, not necessarily the terminology we'd like. All standard references, and all of my error coin colleagues, restrict the use of the word "cud" to die breaks that involve the rim and at least a little bit of the field. There are other kinds of die breaks besides cuds, interior (or internal) die breaks being one of them. I don't make the semantic rules, but I have to follow them. If folks use the terms "internal cud" or "interior cud", then they're misusing the terminology. It's not a horrible misuse by any means; folks still know it's a die break that has no direct connection to the rim. There are many other terms that are improperly used, often by people who should know better.
Hey All, I can see where I was mistaken about my view of what a cud is but even though I am still somewhat of an amateur in the Mint Error world and learning, that is still no excuse and for that I sincerely apologize! I guess we all learn valuable information here on the Coin Talk discussion and from GDJMSP's and Mike's statements, it appears that there are some Professionals and even Grading Services that need to come here to gain knowledge. Frank
No worries Frank My dad told me soemthing when I was about 7 that I have never forgotten - " if a man doesn't make a mistake now and then - it's because he's not doing anything " Maybe THAT'S why I make so many mistakes
