2008P CUD

[fiddle-fart]

Big 'ol cud







Mike

[coop]

More like a big ol' die break. A cud involves the edge of the coin where the die has broken off the outside edge.



Note how the die with the break even affect the reverse as the are missing, doesn't make a complete strike in that area.

[fiddle-fart]

So with a Die break, the following coins will have a hole in that area?
or
This is the result of die missing a piece and the surrounding coinage just filled in that area

MIke

[coop]

Mike: Correct. With the die design missing, the devices are not formed in that area. With continued use the die erodes even more like a pot hole. With the area getting deeper, the higher the break becomes. Eventually the die is retired, but makes a lot of weird coins till then.

[fiddle-fart]

That is why I love this forum.
You learn a lot and there is a lot to learn

Thanks Coop

[eagames]

Mike,

[Dick]

Nice going Ed! here, I thought I was the only "caveman" in the bunch!
Mike, notice the dime cud. The one side seems to be "rising", like dough in a loaf of bread. the other side of the area seems to "sag". I don't know for sure which side is the anvil, but the indications are that the "missing part of the die, will allow the "dough to rise", indicating that the reverse die is the "tails", in this case the anvil die. This brings up a question: Is there a known case where the anvil die was the die with the broken , and missing piece? I ask because the DDR's of late are rev, and the cent shown has the "sag on the rev die, indicarting the lack of 'equal, and opposite pressure was from the anvil die. Maybe the die positions are chenged at times.
Dick

[CoinboyJay]

Way cool pictures Coop. Thanks for posting them!!

JAY

[mikediamond]

[coppercoins]

Chalk it to being my fault in training people that a small 'piece out' is a die chip, while larger ones are die breaks.

Does all of the authoritative community now follow this convention? I know I had to have learned it that way from somewhere, and obviously my definitions don't follow yours. So somewhere I got the wrong idea through reading. I believe it was either something Wexler or Wiles wrote.

As long as all the authoritative folks follow the same convention, I would be glad to change the way I define these things.

[mikediamond]

My usage seems to be in accordance with how most other folks use these terms nowadays. However, I can't say it's been universally adopted. Part of the problem lies in Alan Herbert's totally unworkable terminology. He calls any cud a "major die break" even if it's trivial in size. He has other terms like "small die break" for tiny die chips like those that form in the loop of the 9, and "large die break" for larger die chips. You should never, ever incorporate an adjective denoting size or magnitude into any term, especially if the term has no connection to actual size.

[Dick]

All the above says in effect, "That unless, and until the terms are standardized, it will be a case of "semantics". It would be better if everyone used the same term to describe what they are seeing, thus the one heariong, or reading will know what exactly is being described. One of my biggest, (amongmany) problems, was, an fact is, todat, in the difference between a "die break, and a die crack". I contend that a break will allow a large amount of metal to be extruded, whereas a crack will show very little, by comparison. Please correct me if, ( as usual ), I am in error.
Dick

[mikediamond]

There is no disagreement as to what constitutes a die crack and what constitutes a die break. A die crack is a linear fracture in the die face, with no metal lost. A die break is a void in the die face -- metal IS lost.

[fiddle-fart]

Too many terms
So little time
I'll get it right one of these days

Thanks Mike D., Chuck, Dick, Coop, eagames. Thank God you all are here and helping us.

Mike

[Dick]

Mike, you have placed me with some very high caliber folks, and I can only say I am not worthy of that credit! I am barely a learner, but thanks for making my day!
Dick