2017 P Lincoln Shield Cent Pre Cud Die Crack?

Sure looks that way Dearborn. An island of metal surrounded by a die crack that sinks into the die face. A retained interior die break may or may not be connected to the rim by die cracks or a split die. If such a connection is absent, it is called a freestanding interior die break according to error-ref. https://www.error-ref.com/retained-...r-die-break/

Interesting find. Agree with the assessments above.

Very nice find, TippyCanoe! I have never seen this die before. Maybe removed after pumping just a few out? Here is a link to the listing on COC.

After looking at you "chip" and comparing the weakness on the reverse, yours would appear to be a little further along than the listing.

LINK http://cuds-on-coins.com/lincoln-sh...010-present/

I was asked to comment on the weak southern hemisphere. Bifacial, unipolar design weakness can have a number of causes including (1) a tilted die error, (2) bifacial grease strike, (3) tapered planchet, (4) die subsidence error. Since there's no signs of increased localized striking pressure at the opposite pole, and since tapered planchet errors are very rare on zinc cents, option no. 2 would seem to be the most likely. I see no evidence of a die subsidence error as there is no bulge evident on either face and such errors are usually located near the center of the coin. A weight would be helpful. Also, see if the coin rocks when placed on either face.

datadragon, if the OP's coin and the listed coin, on COC (DC-1c-2017P-02), are in fact the same die, which I would find it hard to believe they are not, the OP's is definitely a later stage. You can easily see that the OP's "die chip" is longer and would have to be a later stage. I believe that Dearborn was referring to the fact that the die crack did not complete it's journey through the bust, back to the rim, which would have made it a pre-cud. JC, on COC, made changes a couple of years ago to the size a die chip had to be, in order for it to be considered an IDB but thought it odd that this is only considered a "die chip", I would have thought it would be large enough. Side by side pics below.

The below text from Cuds-on-Coins gives their information on the difference they use between a die chip and an interior die break. So using the actual size below might help to determine which it is if we are going by cuds-on-coins as the reference site, but yes it is interesting (depending on the actual size) that the similar coin on Cuds is listed as die chip only (starts with DC) unless its an error, and certainly in appearance differs from your typical die chip and is attached to die cracks. In the side by side image on this coin it appears longer as well. The prior error-ref link I added and here in this link as well below both mentioned that when none of the cracks reach the rim, the island of metal they radiate from is considered a freestanding retained interior die break not IDB so again just posting the info and try to apply it to this coin. Mike Diamond is here in this thread also so I'll just sit back and see what others have to say

Cuds-On-Coins:
Since voids left in the die face by natural fractures span an unbroken size continuum, there is no clear boundary between a "die chip" and an "interior die break". Any void encompassing an area of 4 square millimeters or more qualifies as an interior die break. Any void that covers less than 1 square millimeter is a die chip. In between is a gray area. Die chips are commonly encountered in all denominations. In Lincoln cents they include "BIE" errors, "plugged" 5's and 9's, and "bugs in the wheat ear".https://cuds-on-coins.com/retained-...-die-breaks/

I ended up acquiring this coin from the OP. And thought that the same thought's read in the discussion from others.
I would like to say that the coin indeed does rock slightly more so when the reverse is facing up and you touch the bottom of the reverse.