| Author |
 Replies: 26 / Views: 15,678 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
287 Posts |
I looked over the pictures again this morning and I think #4 and #5 show a reasonable difference. What I see there is a rounder interior circle on #5. The interior of #4 is more of a pronounced vertical oval. The curves of the interior on #4 are tighter. The top arc of #4 is thinner. Agreed, #5 is worn, but the thickness appears more than the wear would provide for.
I also noticed the shape of the bottom circle on the '8' is different, with #5 being more oval horizontally.
|
|
Valued Member
 Canada
426 Posts |
In #5, the '0' looks to be hanging a bit, whereas with #4 it is on the same level with the other numbers.
Further, #5 shows the circular part of the '9' with the same thickness around, whereas #4 has a more oval centre, with the rounded part thinning out in the top and bottom. The bottom of the '9' in #5 also curves upward a bit (as I described above).
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
838 Posts |
This topic inspired me to buy 20 rolls of dimes yesterday. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the narrow date variety of 1980. The difference is fairly clear from the pics on here: simply inspect the tail of the "9". Out of nearly 50 searched in my life as a coin collector, I've never found a narrow example. Quote:
My charlton seems to suggest the wide 0 is rarer (at least giving it the higher value) Guys (and gals) -- don't listen to the Charlton on values of these varieties. They must usually just make a wild guess. For instance, the 1977 low-7 nickel is dead-easy to find. But Charlton (at least my older edition) makes it look like some kind of a key date. I actually smell a conspiracy... dealers must love the idea of charging big $$ for pocket change. I'll gladly sell all my bold date 1980 dimes for half of Charlton's prices, and gladly buy the narrow date for 10x its listed price. A bit off-topic, but for what it's worth: I found one silver (1962), one tough date (1970), and exactly one full roll in total of Roosevelts. No jackpot (2000P or 1969 large date). One thing I noticed is that older dates (even 1970s - 80s) seem to vanish much more rapidy with dimes than cents or nickels. |
|
Valued Member
Canada
426 Posts |
Quote:
One thing I noticed is that older dates (even 1970s - 80s) seem to vanish much more rapidy with dimes than cents or nickels. I've noticed that too. I went through a box (50 rolls) of dimes and found maybe a hundred from the 70s, 300 from the 80's, and the rest were newer. The clear majority were post 2000. Some of the 2001 volunteer dime's had the die break error mentioned here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dime_(...otable_dates . I didn't find any silver but I also found a single 1970 (In 6 boxes of nickles I haven't found a 1970) I have all my 68/69's in one cup and my 80's in another cup. I have an eye thing going on, when it's cleared up I hope to examine them closer for varieties |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
838 Posts |
Whether it's because of the attrition we observed, or a somewhat low mintage, I can't seem to find 1969 very often.
The 1980 is a neat variety and it gives me a great excuse to buy more dimes! Thanks for the topic, splatto!
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
426 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
306 Posts |
hi Excuse my error for nickel. Now the dime.  |
|
Valued Member
Canada
426 Posts |
Hey castor - where do you find out about these varieties that are sadly unrecognized by charlton?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1733 Posts |
They are in the the 64th edition for sure.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
426 Posts |
The dime is, but the nickle isn't. This isn't the first time castor has shown varieties that aren't recognized, and in one post lambasting the relationship between charlton and the appraisers, others talk about 'very obvious varieties' that aren't officially recognized. I'd like to see a list of these somewhere so I can keep an eye out for them.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1733 Posts |
Yeah but when I look at the two nickels in that picture I see an error coin and normal coin as opposed to seeing two varieties when I look at the dimes.
Errors happen every year with every denomination, varieties not necessarily so.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
426 Posts |
Interesting, I'm learning so much here. Why would you consider the nickel an error?
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
95 Posts |
Thanks for discussing these coins,2 years ago! Anyone know anything new about any of this? Is there a vatiety of 1980 wide/narrow 0 nickel?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4870 Posts |
Thanks Castor for the image depicting the wide and narrow dimes. Very helpful!
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
306 Posts |
Quote:
Thanks Castor for the image depicting the wide and narrow dimes. Very helpful! Hi TheForce I have recently redone this montage for Numicanada which shows more details.  |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 26 / Views: 15,678 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 05/11/2010 12:08 pm
