Is this a cud 1985 Roosevelt dime?
Jimnight
Posts: 10,846 ✭✭✭✭✭
I found it going though a roll of dimes. I did try to look it up without any luck.
0
Jimnight
Posts: 10,846 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Looks more like some type of strike error to me. Interesting but I don't think you should quit your day job.
I'm retired and not liking just doing yard work and drinking coffee all day
I honestly don't see anything but a heavily work dime.
Keep searching those rolls!
Later, Paul.
There's no cud die-break on this dime.
Can you tell us what area you're referring to?
If it's either 5:00 or 7:00 on the obv., that's
just die wear/erosion.
@FredWeinberg
Look at the obverse from 12:00 to 4:00 on the rim going into the field.
That is what I had assumed you were referring to (or the small spot under the E in DIME on the reverse).
That obverse area does not have to look of a cud to me. If that part of the die was broken off to that extent, it would have resulted in one heck of a raised area there as the metal flowed upward without the constraint of the die. Also, the area opposite it on the reverse would have had little to no detail struck as well.
@FredWeinberg @JBK
Look at the obverse from 12:00 to 4:00 on the rim going into the field
It's too smooth and sloped downward toward the field. A cud is when that part of the die is missing. If that strip of the die was missing, it would not be a gentle sloping effect - it would be a dramatic bulge with a sharp edge where the die met the missing area. Also, there would be a corresponding weakness on the reverse.
Plus, I have seen lots of diems with weak rim sections on coins struck from heavily worn dies.
If it's not a flattened rim,
it's a minor anomaly.
Many dimes have this 'look'
to them; they're 'as struck'
from used dies.
I wasn't sure. Thank you.
Not a cud... looks like worn die strike as Fred said.... Cheers, RickO