If you Like Cuds on Bust Coins, Click Here
Barndog
Posts: 20,525 ✭✭✭✭✭
got this from ebay. Seller photos were less than stellar. Obverse cuds are tough to find on capped bust half dimes, so I am fortunate to be able to add this one to my collection.
The "will it grade?" question matters not one iota here.
0
Comments
Seated Dollar Collection
That is an awesome cud.
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
<< <i>I like that! How rare is it? I don't think I've ever seen one. >>
in a yet-to-be-published article in the "John Reich Journal" in which I give my opinion on rarity of 25 different capped bust half dime cuds, I estimated the rarity of the 1831 LM-3 with cud as R-7...IIRC
I have had better-than-average luck in finding these. First time I found one was at the Denver ANA. The coin in this thread, however, is way later die state...latest I have seen.
What is your opinion on why obverse cuds are so much scarcer than reverse cuds?
<< <i>Barndog,
What is your opinion on why obverse cuds are so much scarcer than reverse cuds? >>
In another "soon to be published article" I will attempt to explain why obverse cuds are so much scarcer on Capped Bust Silver Coins as
opposed to FH/Draped Bust Silver Coins. It essentially comes down to position of the dies, force and pressure exerted from each die to the
planchet, as well as an open or closed collar. These elements all affect die life and die deterioration, and the mint did a pretty good job
producing roughly the same number of obverse dies as reverse dies for any given year; this roughly boils down to that each die struck roughly the same number of coins and thus in that respect does not affect die deterioration as much (although not every die struck the same
quantity as other dies, and some dies were retired rather quickly or were used for a long time depending on the strength of the die steel).
In this case, the reverse dies suffered far greater pressures than the obverse dies, and when the dies are retired at approximately equal
rates, you will more often than not see reverse die deterioration more pronounced than obverse die deterioration, thus obverse die cuds are
very rare relative to reverse cuds.
There's also the element of the mint wanting to push dies to their limits because producing a new die was time consuming and expensive!
<< <i>Cuds are not often seen on the obverses of early half dollars also. Congrats on a nice addition to the collection! >>
Is there any possibility that the QC issue was simply that the guys looked more closely at the obverses as they were producing the coins, therefore fewer problems slipped through?
Maybe there really doesn't have to be a mechanical reason for the problem and it's more of a human nature issue.
Just a thought. Be nice, I only get one thought per week, so I've either used mine for the next 7 days or just produced my first one in the past 7, either way, I don't wanna put too much thought into it
I look forward to STONE's article too. Specialists have noticed and discussed that cuds tend to form in the same general locations, but I don't think too many have researched, cataloged, described, and attempted to make conclusions based on the observations, so being able to read such an effort will be very cool!
Someone mentioned hammer vs. anvil...so let me quote Steve Crain and Glenn Peterson from an article they wrote: "the capped bust half dimes were struck with the obverse die in the upper (hammer) position in the coining press and the reverse die in the lower (anvil) position of the press. Since the collar surrounded the anvil (reverse) die, if that die suffered a severe die break, separating a portion of the die at the rim, it would generally be retained by the collar, unable to fully break away. Thus, many severely broken reverse dies were able to remain in service, held together by the collar. The same would not necessarily be true for the obverse die, however. With no collar to retain a broken piece of die, broken pieces of obverse dies would simply fall away due to the force of gravity. Once noticed by the coiner, the shattered obverse die would usually be removed from the coining press and substituted with another serviceable die. Therefore, it is generally observed that there are a greater number of cuds on reverse dies, and that they tend to be more severe than those seen on obverse dies." (John Reich Journal Volume 16, Issue 2, Pages 8-9)
The cud presented in this thread is one of only five known obverse die cuds in the capped bust half dime series (1829 LM-18, 1830 LM-5, 1832 LM-4, and 1835 LM-5.2 are the other four)
I think most theories have to be considered as holding some water. We don't have great records, so we have to draw conclusions. I think LanLord's point is likely valid too...to a degree
When the hammer clashes with the anvil on an assumed (more common) normal rotation, specific areas of the hammer hit specific areas of the anvil.
As has been said, cuds tend to be seen in specific areas on a series. I am contending that the hammer has different reactions when hitting the anvil
depending on the specific design of the series. A CBH vs a DBH heavy clash will yield different stresses on the dies which should result in different
damages to the respective "hit" die.
The same can be said for each series regarding different focal points of energy resulting from the clash itself.
I have a newspaper column describing mint visitors' description of half dollar minting circa 1833 in the 2nd mint and there are a few interesting observations which I had never heard before. However, photobucket won't let me upload right now. I'll post it later.