Interesting cud comparison on two 1984 Lincoln Cents

commoncents05

I recently bought the left coin, a new cud Lincoln to add to my collection. This is the second large reverse cud I have for the date. At first glance, I thought it might have been a later die state of the one I already owned (MS62BN imaged right). Because of that, I was going to pass, but upon closer examination it is definitely from a different die. Interesting that there two reverse dies failed in nearly the exact same pattern in the same year.

-Paul

LochNESS

Maybe the problem with the first one wasn't fixed, so when they put the new die into the machine, it failed in the same way?

Billet7

I think a lot of dies from the same design have the tendency of failing in similar areas, it's not hard to understand why. Weak spots will be inherent depending on the surface topography of the die. This is evident by the fact that most cuds form at the rims, its a weak spot...almost never in the center. I'm sure different machines also have a slightly different allignment, however miniscule, which might compromise the dies from uneven striking as well.

Interesting topic, really cool coins.

commoncents05

I thought the same thing too, Simon.

-Paul

Billet7

<< <i>I thought the same thing too, Simon.

-Paul >>




Great minds...as they say!

Tdec1000

Sweet Cud!

oldsubguru

One of the areas of die stress in the Lincoln cent (post 2008) is the upper part of bay 1, which is prone to form die breaks. Another area that is subjected to die cracks and die breaks is the upper shield boundary lines on the reverse of the new (2010 to present) Lincoln cent. I have seen quite a few with varying degrees of breaks and cracks.