Die error on 1866 3c piece

errormaven

I'm trying to figure out the cause of the raised anomaly seen on the reverse face of this 1866 3c piece.

http://www.coinworld.com/articles/wear-porosity-impedes-understanding-of-raised/

Wear and porosity are preventing a secure diagnosis. If anybody is familiar with this particular die, or has an example in better condition, I'd appreciate hearing from you.

-- Mike Diamond

ricko

Link a dink..... null

Cheers, RickO

seanq

I was going to say I saw a coin like that on ebay recently, until I read the article and realized you'd purchased it. Do you have any bigger photos you can share?


Sean Reynolds

CaptHenway

Can't see a dang thing in those photos.

errormaven

Here's a picture of the entire reverse:



Here's a close-up of the anomaly:

seanq

How strong is the strike opposite that area? It looks to me like the die began crumbling or laminating (laminations like you would ordinarily see on a planchet). The most bizarre thing to me is the way the denticles disappear, yet the inside of the rim is filly formed.

Is it possible that those aren't cuds or die breaks at all but waves of molten metal? If the metal was heated up and pushed toward the center of the coin (or allowed to flow that way) it could account for the string rim and weak denticles.


Sean Reynolds

errormaven

<< <i>How strong is the strike opposite that area? It looks to me like the die began crumbling or laminating (laminations like you would ordinarily see on a planchet). The most bizarre thing to me is the way the denticles disappear, yet the inside of the rim is filly formed.

Is it possible that those aren't cuds or die breaks at all but waves of molten metal? If the metal was heated up and pushed toward the center of the coin (or allowed to flow that way) it could account for the string rim and weak denticles.


Sean Reynolds >>



The strike is perfectly normal on the opposite face.

I've never seen anything resembling a delaminating die, but I guess there's a first time for everything. However, I wouldn't expect such a defect to be associated with wide die cracks. Nor should it have had any effect on the denticles.

If this was molten metal deposited on the coin, then the die cracks should have been obscured.

Die deformation (die subsidence; sunken die error) still seems to be the most likely explanation. But again, my level of certainty is pretty low.

commoncents05

Looks like a retained cud to me.

-Paul

errormaven

It's not a retained cud because there's no connection to the rim, no vertical displacement, and no horizontal offset.