1988 $2 Coin Gwoya Tjungurrayi Eyeball Lump

I assumed it was from a die being chipped, causing extra metal to fill the gap and appear as a raised, often blob-like, blob-shaped, or irregular lump on the finished coin.

I would have thought that was more likely than a lump attaching itself to a perfect coin, from being in a cash register?
It literally looks like a cats ringhole, I don't understand how wear and tear could add metal and make it look like a cats ring? Unless you can explain how wear and tear or mistreatment can add metal blob over his eye?

Take the 50c bubble donut error for example, a die chip even if I couldn't explain how that happened, wouldn't have made it PMD. What would be more likely a die was chipped or someone added a the bubble donut ? Or the flamingo, if I wasn't able to explain how that was formed would it become PMD by default?

Going by definition it's a chip error regardless of my ability to explain how the chip happened.

Raised Surface: Unlike damage (scratches or dents), which are recessed into the coin, a die chip is always a raised portion of metal.

OMG what!

So an error isn't a deviation from what's intended. An error is when something happens that isn't anticipated. Chips, deterioration, is anticipated and they work hard to minimise that, however it wasn't an error any anyone's behalf.

So why is a flamingo an error? Isn't that just from a chipped die?

And so Cuds aren't errors either.

Google is a bad bad compulsive liar!

To clarify

A Cud is from a die chip or damaged die and is an error

But die chips and damage dies don't cause errors ?

Or rather because the eyeball has a pattern to it, suggests it wasn't a chipped die as it would be smoother? Suggesting more so that something crushed it into that shape?

Why am I having trouble understanding this completely lol

Like saying a car with a flat battery isn't a busted car but a car with a kicked in panels is a busted car. Both being undesirable but one being something that happens to all cars and you wouldn't consider the car to be busted up.

Best analogy I can come up with.

But I actually understand what you are saying.

Cuds technically will always come from the outside inwards.

So what's a spew roo or backpack roo lump called?

Is that not an error and Die Deterioration at the same time?

And it also isn't called a Cud technically is that right?

I don't really want to get in the weeds on this discussion.
HOWEVER, I couldn't miss this...


ABSOLUTELY Google is a bad search engine, even if not lying.
I recommend anyone's final Google search be, "alternatives to google".
I did that more than a dozen years ago. Never looked back, and don't miss it.

JustRandomCoins, you've found a great place to get information and answers to questions. The knowledge base here is outstanding.
But, maybe you could pace yourself a bit.

Yes, some die chips are considered collectable varieties (rather than errors), especially if they happen to create some interesting design feature. The "spew roo" Australian dollar is an example of this; in the American series, we have "BIE cents" (where the die chip appears to create an extra letter "I" in the word LIBERTY) are also sought after.

An important thing to note about such things is that they are often over-hyped. Someone comes up with a catchy name to market them under (like "spew roo") and suddenly everyone's crazy about them. This is merely a testament to some people's ability to conduct good marketing, rather than any scientifically measurable "this die chip is better than that one" logic. The "alien" 5 cents die clash is another excellent example of good marketing "adding value" via emotion rather than logic.

However, in the case of your specific coin, I'm not entirely convinced that it isn't simply PMD - that the coin has taken a knock on the eyebrow that has indented metal on the nose-bridge and "raised" the adjacent eye socket.

Part of the issue here is the condition this coin is in. It is always easier to prove a newly discovered error or variety if the coin is still mostly-uncirculated and undamaged, which is not the case for this coin - it's got nicks, gouges and scratches all over it. It's clearly had a rough life, and any odd lumps or bumps will likely be dismissed as similar circulation damage. Again, that's Occam's Razor at work.

The technical difference between an "error" and a "variety" is that errors are one-off: off-centre strikes, mis-strikes, bitten rims, brockages, that sort of thing. The odd event happens, boom, an error is made, but the next coin coming out of those dies is going to be perfectly normal. Errors are thus "unique". "Varieties", on the other hand, occur when something happens to the die, (cud, die chip, die crack, die clash, grease-filled die, etc) and then every coin struck by that die afterwards has that exact same damage on it. It's also possible for a die to be made that's somehow wrong or defective in the first place (eg. mules, hub doubling). Dies, even damaged ones, might last for tens of thousands of coins before being replaced, thus, "varieties" are always going to be more common (and therefore in theory less valuable) than "errors".

How much more common depends on how badly the die was damaged, and whether it got replaced shortly after the damage happened. That die-crack shilling above, that die is pretty much spliutting in two and wouldn't have lasted much longer, so it's probably not too common. In the case of the "spew roo", we have a point on the die that is prone to breaking off because it's sharp and prominent, so that exact same (or very similar) damage can occur on multiple dies over multiple years. It is thus a "common variety" that is made valuable by clever marketing, as well as certain variety specialists who have taken an interest in studying this particular variety family.

In terms of "using Google for research", I do trust it's search results for the most part - but I don't trust the AI (which is where you've cropped your spew roo info page from). Always go to the original source websites where the AI is getting it's information. In this case, it's getting its information from "echo chamber" groups like Facebook where hype is magnified and inaccuracies and outright misinformation often goes unchallenged.