5 Cents 1932 ( Varieties : Far 2 And Near 2 )

@ nickelsguy,

Following comment of SPP-Ottawa, you have many numismatic friends

I hope that one of them will help you to present here the photos of your four coins ( 5 cents 1932 Far 2 )

You will understand that my request is very important to vouch the credibility of the statistics on the 5 cents 1932 Far 2

Finally got around to checking my one example - looks like a near 2.

I will post images when able.

wert - It'd be super neat if it was that clipped, 91% of a nickel that was the far 2 :P

Aren't the majority of Numicanada members from Quebec? How many of those members have searched and picked through the same coin dealers' inventory, and then reported the statistics? For example, If I go to Boucherville, and search through 50 1932 5-cent coins in various coin dealers inventory, and then report I found 1/50 coins, and then nickelsguy, at the same show, does the same thing, at the same show, and reports finding 0/49 coins. Then, you are at the same show, but you don't search, since you searched all the dealers's inventories at the previous show. Is my report, accurate? What about nickelsguy at the same show? That is but just a single example... Do you not see the error in collecting data this way? What if then, I went to Nuphilex and searched some of those same dealers' inventories, who may or may not had a 10% turnover of new stock, I would be counting 90% of the same coins, twice.

I have a single question. Do you personally own all, or a majority of, the 1932 5-cent coins used in your statistics? The answer is probably no.

That is why I, among others, are concerned that the statistics are flawed. To do this properly, you would need buy several unsearched rolls of 1932 5-cent coins, search them all, and keep them out of the way other other members who doing the same thing. Frankly I think that until a reasonable population is established over time, the best chance at valid statistics now would be to go through the 23 rolls that nickelsguy has (and he will keep them, so they are not counted twice) and report a percentage base upon that, with a respective confidence interval that 23 rolls can offer (920 coins out of the total mintage for 1932).

When I provided Canadian Coin News Trends prices for the 1929 High 9, I had bought 20 rolls of 1929 1-cent coins (7 years ago) and based a rarity factor on that, as well as knowing that only a handful of mint state coins had been found. Now, that exercise would be impossible to duplicate, because most 1929 1-cent rolls, have been searched.

There is no harm in promoting the variety, and that is what it will take, to gain popularity, but data collection from the masses of collectors or ebay listings or coin show inventory is flawed. We know it is scarce, so rather than trying to obtain absolute population data, why not try promoting the variety itself?

The paper on 1859 large cent compositions that I co-authored with bosox earlier this year in the CN Journal, we used 450 1859 1-cent coins, primarily from a hoard from a single collector. My point is, if you are going to apply statistics to data, you have to be rigorous with how that data is collected, interpreted and applied.

I understand SPP's point that stats gathered that way can be faulty, but so long as the method is known, you know how reliable the data is. The thread on the other site has been going on since 2009, so for sure it's not a rigorous scientific method.
You say Za shouldn't bother with an unreliable statistic and just promote the variety, but I think asking everyone to look in their own collection and contribute to the global numbers does exactly that. It promotes the variety. This thread has 13 pages, if it wasn't for this gathering of data, there'd be one, at best, and it'd be all the way at the bottom by now. The numbers we get out of this are flawed, that's for sure. But they won't be quoted by Charlton, they'll only give a rough estimate of how many coins you should go through to have reasonable odds of finding it.
But if the goal is to bring awareness to a variety, I think this method is worth a try.
Now, if you think Za has been hunting down that variety for years, has gathered a stash of 100+ coins and is now looking to pump up the price before selling, I would understand that concern. Having met him a couple times, it would surprise me if it was the case. I think he's just really interested into promoting variety awareness, and he's doing just that.

Also, for statistic's sake, my only 1932, which I've owned for several years and shall remain in my possession for several more in all likelihood, is near :P