Retained Cud Study - 1921-D VAM-1-H

Regarding the coin presented here, then: I postulate that the die broke in a fairly long wedge shape (in terms of depth). If it were a shallow break, very few LDS examples would have survived, certainly less than the half-dozen or so known. A small, shallow Cud would have been chewed up in two or three strikes.

The broken metal migrated downward and clockwise up the die, causing a buildup towards E PLURIBUS and away from the date. That end was raised higher than the other, as a result. Not a huge amount; just enough to establish a height difference, preventing the strike from affecting the original upset planchet in the area immediately north of the break, while not enough for the planchet metal to fill the newly-deeper rim void of the broken piece. Using the terms very broadly (when we consider how little metal was involved), the gap was large enough for metal to flow into without being stopped by the retained-cud die, small enough to still strike an accurate coin, large enough to accommodate all the possible metal flow and leave behind untouched rim upset next to the break, with the exception of the little metal left which formed the thin line along the outside edge of a die which was no longer at the closest point of contact in that area.

IB of PLURIBUS figures prominently in many 1921 break scenarios; my head is too clogged at the moment to extract any specific information easily.

This is not exactly pertinent to the discussion. However, it seems most descriptions of VAM die markers/features are descriptive of the feature on the die, not the coin. Die scratches, die polishing, die cracks, die breaks, die gouges, etc. We see the results of those markers on the coins themselves of course.

Rim Cuds are descriptive of the feature on the coin itelf, "extra metal", i.e. not the feature on the die. Just thought I would point that out. It might be described as "lost denticles" if describing the feature on the die that results in a rim Cud. Of course, this is like a contest to name a new stretch of highway. We all can come up with a name for it.

An interesting point, VAMsforMoney. We call them "die varieties" for a reason, of course, but the ones (like this coin) which don't fit that generalization are the most fascinating of all to me. Die scratches and the like are mundane events in the life of a die. It's the things whose existence is not so easily explained which have the greater attraction.

Cuds - we know how they happen, but how do they survive 150 tons of pressure and still strike multiple examples? Pitting - how can "multiple states" exist? We've batted that one around here before, and will again. 1878-S oddness - Spaghetti Wings, Dragon Scales, Molten Lava (that one's absolutely fascinating, and the next time we discuss it won't be the first). The Belly Button.

"Denticle clashes." Another non-die thing, in the sense of origin - what were they doing, jousting with dies tied to the end of a stick?

Scribbles. Oh, scribbles. The VAMming equivalent of Star Trek's "The Trouble With Tribbles."

Thornheads. I envision some poor technician at the SF Mint being handed the same darn die for the 4th time and he's like, "Oh, really?"

The fascination is in the process as much as the result. Non-die varieties are the most interesting in terms of process, because an appropriate scenario can very quickly be theorized into the realm of the absurd. The intersection between Murphy's Law and the Mint.

It's just_plain_cool.

Dave there are 2 types of this one as you know. Well many in the die progression but "2" Vams.

Everyone, once you hold and look at the non Retained Cud, compared with the Retained Cud the difference is one that you really do not need a glass to see. Dave is studying the 21's if I am correct and is the reason I started looking at them. I never took notice of many of the 21's until I picked up this VAM it's very cool and not terribly costly.

BVD means Big VAM book. VAMsformoney is specifically refering to the Encylopedia of Morgan and Peace dollars 4th edition by Leroy Van Allen. I read the revelvant page. It is a page worth reading.

I believe this is probably closer to the truth of the matter that what has been bandied about on this same subject at the dealer site.

I wonder if the term "pressure" is a misnomer here. As far as I understand the Morgan and Orr design, "pressure" was a fixed mechanical function of the shape, size and leverage of the toggle. The only adjustment was physical travel of the hammer die assembly, changed through an adjustable wedge. Arguing semantics, yes, but there it is.