1896 1 Cent Which Is A Far?

SPP: my question was actually very simple and obviously asked before any detailed replies were offered.

I had no idea it was going into a ton of "technical" aspects and die cracks etc. Otherwise, I would have posted every one of the coins individually, both sides.
Was looking for a way to show all 6'es in the date together, as, again, the question was about identifying a possible FAR 6 in the image. It is obvious now that there is a lot more to it than just distance to the 9.
Thanks everyone for some great information.

Your question was simple, your image was not. There are literally thousands of posts on this site reminding people to post photos of their entire coin(s), both sides. Yours was no exception.




This is the main criteria, which some of your photo collage does not show.

Bosox .. yes, the 65 Brown that you attached is not, in my opinion, a "far 6. It is one of the plethora of coins that has a tad wider space between the 9 & 6 and the 8 & 9., but not wide enough or high enough. It is for this exact reason that ICCS quit certifying far 6's because it became the "eye of the beholder" rather than specifics that came to dictate what was put on the holder. That's like saying that there are a multitude of 1859's that can be called "far 9's". I also think that there is no other marker for the far 6 that can be specified. The initial certification by ICCS was a coin that had a D/C between the D & A of Canada (a heavy one), but had nothing to do with the variety itself. PCGS can do and say what they want, but the initial find and the more than a year discussion on what could be called a "far 6" and what wasn't had specifics and dictates of the width of the spacing, the height of the 6 and the clockwise rotation or canting to the right. You should remember this and all the surrounding CCRS discussions as well as I do, bosox. And then we all celebrated when Brian C from ICCS actually certid it for our friend from Hamilton (who no longer collects BTW). I was there when we passed all the info to Rick Simpson from the ONA , Bill Cross from Charlton, and Brian from ICCS. At the time Rick S was a major dealer and ICCS customer.

I remember well the initial find and the discussions. Confusingly, after that one or two other dies came to light with the 6 just as far out there as the initial find. As you say, ICCS chose to stop certifying Far 6s at that point. PCGS began certifying the two or three dies that were way out there (minus the occasional mistake like the 65 brown). I really have no problem with PCGS doing so, since more than one die struck coins with the six about equally as far out as the initial find. I don't think there is any right or wrong here. Nor do I see the big attraction with this variety, since as you pointed out, each 1896 die had the six in a different spot.

this coin has some serious cracks.

I've never studied or looked at the hair on 1876's. It is probably just a factor of how crisp a strike and how new the die. However, ALL 1876's for circulation were Obv 1's. The 1876 specimens (with no H) were struck as Obv 1A. I was not aware of any significant differences between the portraits on 1's and 1a's except the neck truncation and angle. Without going back to bosox's Dies and Diadems, I don't know if any of the "specimen" Obv dies were used for circulation strikes. I personally have never seen an 1876 Obv 1a circulation coin and I've looked at 10's of thousands.

okiecoiner I want to explain see this way you can help me learn how to use that die catalogue. I hoping thank you so much

okiecoiner thank you so much. I appreciate all your help. yes Okiecoiner I am going to try to find away to get videos up. I am going to see if I can sink a video enough to fit here. if not I may have to load videos to youtube. I could do it that way. see videos I will show you guys what happens when you populate between 2 images. there is nothing that is not uncovered. right down to the fines detail. I hope I can show you that. thank you for all your help.