1899 Newfoundland 20 Cents... Again

Hi Malissadawn. An interesting debate has been waging for some time about this coin/coins. My opinion is thus......(just my opinion) The Large 9's and small 9's are the same.....the differance being created with worn dies only. The variety of this date is the "Hooked 9's". I realize that this contradicts both ICCS and Charleton's, however, they look at things with eyes wide shut so to speak :-) I am lead to believe a "New price list" as well as a "New Publication" is in the works for the entire Newfoundland series. Just my thoughts :-)

Sending it to grading (at ICCS) will not settle the issue. Again In My Opinion, ICCS will attempt to differentiate with no logical explanation available. Markers so to speak. Charletons and ICCS wag each other. :-) Here is a challenge for you Malissadawn. Email Louis at CCCS, ask him what he says? May be interesting! :-)

I know absolutely nothing about this coin, so am only offering what I see. Both the coin from the catalogue listed as Large 9 and the coin from the photograph listed as #2 has the second 9 slightly out of alignment with the other numbers. I would say they are the same size numbers, it has just moved north a little. The small 9 has all the numbers in perfect line, as well as the slight flat spot. Just my 20c.

as of yet...
lots more to come, including surprises !! later when the waether is not so good anymore..
when one is told by " the powers of Canadian publishing and grading" to look at very obvious differences as worn out dies, one is entitled to a different opinion... right? Especially when the "die wear" is very crisp and without any tolerance...and the difference is very, very obvious.
One just starts to question their answers....

Part of the problem with figuring it out is the amount of wear on both coins (and it looks like Charlton's has a lot of wear as well). The differences get harder to spot that way. And Charest is no help - he has the hooked 9's in the small 9's picture.

The main visual difference that I can tell is in the shape and height of the last 9's tail (large 9 appears thinner), and a slight difference in the direction of the last 9's tail end. The last 9 also appears just a tad shorter.

Latman.. I think Malissa's pic of the small 9's or the actual one in the book she took a picture of is slightly crooked, so that might throw us off a little.

So.. here's an overlay example using Charlton's pictures on a non-worn coin:

overlaid with Large 9:


overlaid with Small 9:


And Malissa's 2nd 1899:

overlaid with Large 9:


overlaid with Small 9:


I'll see if I can do the first one before I fall asleep..

just for completeness, here is the picture from the Charest book. That computer currently does not have connectivity so I had to take a picture of the screen.