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

bosox,

I hope you know the story : between the last publication of Zoell in 1970 and 2004 we can see near 35 years of total blackness about errors and varieties.

I am a collector near 45 years ago and I am member of ANPB ( regional club ) and also of RCNA since 1977. In the period 1990 to 2005, it was clear to me that numismatic was in stagnation, nearly decrease.

Since the five last years, you can see that, following new sites, articles on errors and variety in the Journal of RCNA, and also the new additions at the end of the Charlton's book, we can see young and new collectors interested by this field of collection.

As exemple,on numicanada.com, from 2005 to 2012, we can see in the forums :

1- " Errors and varieties " : 3665 topics and 32,398 posts

2- " Canadian Coins " : 1399 topics and 14,062 posts

I see there a real interest from collectors of differents ages, from 8 to 80.

Despite the fact that the interest of Charlton and dealers is rather timorous, I am convinced that we are now in the beginning of a new time for the hobby. The signs, that I have indicated above, cannot lie : the movement is engaged ! No possibility to reverse this trend : see in your country.

The interest of members of four sites for the 5 cents 1932 Far 2, is an other evudence of this reality.

@bosox - I like the presentation. Great job and info.

It would be interesting to collect several 1926 and 1932 five cents that could be verified (by die cracks, chips, etc.) as having been struck by different dies. Three dies from each year, excluding the far 6 and far 2 which we know to be different, would suffice. The reverses of the 1926 coins could then be successively overlaid photographically over each other to see which of the date digits moved between dies. The same could be done for the 1932 pieces.

If the last digit of the date (6 for 1926 and 2 for 1932) was punched manually into each die, then it should exhibit small translational or rotational differences between each die.

If all the dies of each year are identical, except for the 1926 far 6 and 1932 far 2, then two possible explanations occur to me:

• Two different fully dated matrices were made for each date, one with a near date and one with a far date. Given the scarcity of the two far varieties, perhaps only one die from the 1926 far matrix and one die from the 1932 far matrix were used to mint coins. This scenario begs the question of why did the mint go to the trouble to create these matrices and then only use one die from each.
• In 1926 and 1932 the mint created matrices with the first three digits of the date (192_ for 1926 and 193_ for 1932). In each year, they then created one die and manually punched the final digit (the scarce far varieties) of the date into that single die as a trial of the full reverse. Once satisfied, they annealed the matrix in each year and punched the final digit into the matrix (the more common near varieties). During each year, they then minted coins using the single far dies and the near dies mass produced from the fully dated matrix.

Based on the results of these photographic overlays, a systematic study of the entire series might be in order.

I notice the Charlton catalog states that George V five cents were produced from fully dated matrices, except for 1926 when there were two. Without corroboration from mint reports or published research, it probably isn't prudent to take this at face value. If I collected five cents, I would want to prove to myself how it happened before I promoted either variety. Since five cents are not my series, I leave it to one of you to prove.

I am not sure what the date it first appeared in Charlton has to do with anything, since I already said you should not take their statement at face value.

How do you think the 1932 far 2 came to exist?

Okay, I think we are past productive conversation here. Good luck with your collecting.

@ dialog_gvt,

Thanks for your help !

- Yes, I don't understand very well all the english's expressions, sorry !

- The following notice ( 66th Edition, page 96 of Charlton's book ) , with reference to 5 cents from 1922 to 1936, seem to be very clear : " Fully dated matrices were used for each date, except for 1926 when two were sunk, a Near 6 and Far 6. "

- With this notice, we cannot retain the hypothesis of three digit.

- Consequently, it seem logical to think that the exception that was used in 1926, when two matrices were sunk, was also used in 1932, to strike the two varieties ( Far 2 and Near 2) of 5 cents.

[za75 comment] "- The following notice ( 66th Edition, page 96 of Charlton's book ) , with reference to 5 cents from 1922 to 1936, seem to be very clear : " Fully dated matrices were used for each date, except for 1926 when two were sunk, a Near 6 and Far 6. "

I will add my Two Cents on this subject by presenting yet another year that has different spacing for the fourth digit. Do not confuse this with near rim and far rim!



With 1923, 1926, and 1932 having different spacing of the last digit, this may mean that fully dated matrices were not used and the last digit was punched in manually. This can not be explained by working die wear expanding and displacing the last digit (Theory used to explain near and far rim)

I was not able to do a full research on 1932 since I only have one far 2 out of 100 but I can confirm that the first three digits are identically spaced for the only one that I own.

The problem, I think that these varieties are not popular because it is sometimes hard to distinguish them using only a 10x loupe! It is only when it is properly presented and recognized by authors of numismatic books that collectors take the time to search for these new varieties. Good for me, I can find them for cheap

- Last data for varieties of 5 cents 1932, from two sites :

1 = " Far 2 "

45 = " Near 2 "

- Today, the last statistics are :

23/2390 = 0.96 % for the RARE variety of 5 cents 1932 " Far 2 ".


Note : I obtain, as usual, the photo of the last coin ( variety " Far 2 " ).