1820 Capped Bust Half Dollar O-104 - Die Rust or Die Chip?

Davidk7

Hello everyone, bought this O-104 within the last year or so, and I was wondering what people’s thoughts were on this raised area near the rightmost set of leaves. I will attach some photos. Thanks! (Yes this coin also has a planchet flaw on the obverse, haven’t seen many Bust Halves with this).

BustHalfBrian

It looks more like a die lump than a crack, chip, rust etc. I'm unsure if this lump appears on all examples of this die marriage.

Davidk7

@BustHalfBrian said:
It looks more like a die lump than a crack, chip, rust etc. I'm unsure if this lump appears on all examples of this die marriage.

I have not seen any other examples with this lump. Would a die lump depend on the die state?

OKbustchaser

You have the latest die state of the marriage. Overton says that the latest die state of the 104 has a die chip below the center set of olive leaves. The Bust Half Nut Club, however, says that none are known to exist with this chip. Did Overton mean this chip when he described the 104A and simply misplace it?

lilolme

Being that I am looking at a picture and have difficulty determining these things - could it be verified that this is a lump and that there is (edit any not to not any) not any contact mark pushed up or some added piece of metal.

So as OK said above I see the same information on the die chip. I went looking for some examples. This one in coinfacts looks to be a later die state due to the die crack through the 50 appearing heavier / thicker. I don't see a die chip on it. But once again dealing with pictures. If it is a later die state without the chip, then the die chip would have to been filled (grease or something) or it is not a die chip. Anyone see anything else?

PS this one appears to have a small dot below the right set of leaves, but....?

Davidk7

@OKbustchaser said:
You have the latest die state of the marriage. Overton says that the latest die state of the 104 has a die chip below the center set of olive leaves. The Bust Half Nut Club, however, says that none are known to exist with this chip. Did Overton mean this chip when he described the 104A and simply misplace it?

Thanks for checking the die state progressions, I do not have that book. Perchance he did mean that chip, I wondered that as well. Are there pics of the latest die state? Since this appears to be right of the rightmost set of leaves.

@lilolme said:
Being that I am looking at a picture and have difficulty determining these things - could it be verified that this is a lump and that there is (edit any not to not any) not any contact mark pushed up or some added piece of metal.

So as OK said above I see the same information on the die chip. I went looking for some examples. This one in coinfacts looks to be a later die state due to the die crack through the 50 appearing heavier / thicker. I don't see a die chip on it. But once again dealing with pictures. If it is a later die state without the chip, then the die chip would have to been filled (grease or something) or it is not a die chip. Anyone see anything else?

PS this one appears to have a small dot below the right set of leaves, but....?

@lilolme Thank you for taking time to look into this! In the second photo taken under the loupe it appears raised. It also appears raised in hand with no magnification. I do not see a hit that shows raised metal. I don't see anything to show it is a randomly added piece of metal, no glue or adhesive etc. How would a die lump form, as opposed to a chip or rust?

lilolme

A little slow on the response but...

I don't know what is going on. If the OP coin is a raised lump and appears to be as struck (and not due to something post mint) and if the coin from coinfacts is a later die state without the lump, then I don't know how to provide any more information as the two don't appear to match up.

It could be that I am wrong and the coinfacts coin is not a later die state. But from the pictures below the crack at the 50 appears heavier / thicker on the coinfacts coin which normally implies a later die state. I tried to make them about the same size for comparison. The coinfacts coin does have some wear on the crack(s) in other areas which can distort (wider...) the crack sometimes.

Or as previously noted the die chip / rust the formed the lump became filled (grease or something) and did not appear in some later strikes.

One other possibility is the lump on the coinfacts coin was 'removed' (wear, contact or miscellaneous...) but I don't see signs of that. But still a possibility maybe.

If you can make it to show, then maybe someone who is familiar with or expert in these or this type of stuff could provide more information.

Sorry I did not understand the question - How would a die lump form, as opposed to a chip or rust?

jacrispies

Here are some other examples to compare with.

OP coin:

Slightly later die state:

Slightly earlier die state:

@Davidk7 It seems obvious that the lump is not in the die itself because it is not repeated. We can now narrow the question down to: How can a unique die lump form without causing significant damage to the die? A strikethrough of a very small object such as a metal shaving or small rock seems to check all of those boxes.

telephoto1

Struck through metal imo. My guess is a small piece of metal temporarily adhered to the die.

lilolme

The OP stated it is a raised lump on the coin. So for a struck through would not it have be a retained struck through (the raised lump on the coin is the 'retained')? Otherwise would not the struck through create a dimple in the coin?

Edit:
Thinking about the struck through, would not a retained struck through be nearly flat to the surface of the coin? The pressure of the strike causing either the retained struck through to be pressed into the coin or the struck through object being flattened to the coin surface.

Davidk7

I will attach more photos.

@lilolme I was just asking if there are differences in how die lumps form as opposed to die chips. I know how die rust forms, and I know die chips come from metal that broke off I believe, but what is the difference between that and a die lump? Here are more photos.

EDIT: I have a hypothetical here. Do you guys see the little divot near the beginning of the '5' on the reverse? What if a piece of the die broke off and ended up moving a bit during the striking process? The divot looks about the same size and incuse into the coin, while this little lump is slightly raised.

jacrispies

@lilolme said:
The OP stated it is a raised lump on the coin. So for a struck through would not it have be a retained struck through (the raised lump on the coin is the 'retained')? Otherwise would not the struck through create a dimple in the coin?

Edit:
Thinking about the struck through, would not a retained struck through be nearly flat to the surface of the coin? The pressure of the strike causing either the retained struck through to be pressed into the coin or the struck through object being flattened to the coin surface.

I forgot strike throughs are incuse, duhh! Thank you for correcting me.