Post Your Canadian Tokens

@1960NYGiants:
In my opinion, you were right, it is indeed the Courteau #030 variety.

In addition, I believe it is also the same token that I presented in my previous commentary (The second token).

@Wade:

To date I have listed nearly forty Proof tokens for this series. And the particularity you mention is often present on Proof tokens for the 1 Penny, but it is also present on several 1 penny tokens intended for circulation. This is not a decisive factor for sure.

Concerning your token (Courteau #249 / Heaton Mint), in my opinion it is not a Proof token. The main element that leads me to believe this hypothesis is the fact that the rim of your token is not well enough defined, at least via your photos. It is not always easy to detect this type of coin via photos. So, with the coin in hand, it would be possible for my opinion to be different, although I doubt it.

Also, it should be noted that I am aware of one token Courteau #249 identified as Proof by NGC. But, the photos I have access to it are not of good enough resolution for me to determine whether or not this is really the case, but I'm inclined to say yes.

However, the striking of your token is quite successful, and, as you mention, the dies used to strike your coin did not yet have much wear and tear (+/- Early stage). Its a beautiful token.


It is not easy to simply describe how to detect a Proof example for this series of tokens. Indeed, in my current book, I devote an entire chapter to the question.

Not to mention that some tokens are really on the border edge, and to my knowledge, for this kind of case, it is very difficult to decide definitively, especially when the dies used have also been used for tokens in circulation.

Thus, some of the dies used to strike Proof tokens were also used to strike coins for circulation. Three examples among others illustrating this fact with the varieties Courteau #218, #244 and #303.

However, some die combinations have only been used to strike Proof tokens. I describe some of them in my book (They are not present in Courteau's book). Fortunately, thanks to this element, it is possible to be categorical fairly quickly for some tokens.

The field of the coin is also sometimes different on Proof examples. There are often many "polishing lines".

I did not have the chance to acquire the weight of a large number of Proof tokens, however for some of them, I found that their weight was sometimes slightly higher than the norm (+1g to 2g for the one penny from The Royal Mint).

In addition, it is recognized that the Proof tokens of the Heaton Mint were generally of lower quality than those of The Royal Mint, and therefore more difficult to detect.

In short, there are many other elements, but we will have to wait until my book is published for them. Moreover, it is a subject that I have not yet finished studying. I still hope I was able to answer some of your questions.


Note: Sorry for my English and my multiple updates, I'm particularly tired tonight.



As an example here is a Proof token (PC-6B4 / Narrow «2» - Heaton Mint) that was present in the John Ford collection (One of the most beautiful I've ever seen):


Or this beautiful Proof Courteau #244 (PC-6B2 / Large «2» - Royal Mint) (Also one of the most beautiful I've ever seen ):





Update: I just found another picture of your token in my archives, when it was offered in a previous sale. Your token was previously certified «MS-64-BN» by NGC in october 2009, and mistakenly identified as PC-6B4. It had the serial number 1906263-001. Source: https://www.NGCcoin.com/certlookup/1906263-001/64/

@1960NYGiants:
In my opinion, it is indeed the same. This can be seen by comparing the location of some discolourations on the obverse of the coin.

However, the photographs were taken under completely different lighting conditions, resulting in confusion. In addition, it is also the variety Courteau #030.

@1960NYGiants:

Since for my book I try to list as many «Proof» example as possible of this series of tokens (and their pedigree when possible), I have to compare a large number of photos. Thus, over time I have improved my ability to detect the same token through different photos, in order to avoid duplicates.

A good example illustrating this is the token below. This is a «Proof» example that was part of Don Flick's collection in the 1970s.

- The first photo comes from an auction catalogue.

- The second photo is from PCGS and its TrueView service. However, the token had not been identified as «Proof».

- A few years later, the token was sent back to PCGS to receive the «Proof» identification. Thus, the third photo was taken on this occasion, again through their TrueView service.

couple more bits of eye candy,

first is mine '57 half, second 57 1p (extensive die cracks) I was the under-bidder.

(all photos courtesy of heritage auctions)

the 57 1P isn't mine (under bidder)

the 57 1/2 is mine