1951 Fifty Cent Varieties

Hey SilverDon that's great, the more the merrier! Yes, Pg's section in the 2014 Charlton definitely helped me along as well.

Yep, sure looks like a narrow date high 1, does it happen be rotated as well?

Next on my list is 1952. I hope you (or anyone for that matter) might like to contribute.

HI Torgemco! That certainly looks like a vise job, although it's hard to understand the point. Just to see it if would bend I suppose. Another narrow date, the 1 is so high it's seems ready for blast off!

Anybody notice any die cracks?

Resurfaced Die
Occasionally, used and damaged dies were totally resurfaced and replated.
Fine details are sometimes removed and elements may appear smaller.
http://www.coinscan.com/err/rsd.html

According to this link, resurfaced dies are the cause of, for example, no design in 50c, plus SWL and Arnprior of $1.00.

Might any of the numerous knowledgable forum members here kindly offer any additional insight into resurfaced dies in general?

Nice one Torgemco! I also find proper lighting to be a challenge, some days are better than others, reason still unknown. (You got any 1952s to post on the 1952 thread, head on over:-)

But your photo has gotten me once again wondering of the Great Mystery of the RA.

More on that.

This one the RA is joined.


A 2nd photo of the same, slightly different angle.


Another one, a survivor, same RA joined.


Where I remain perplexed - If die surfacing removes detail, what accounts for the joining of RA? Or would this be an example of when it would become obvious that die resurfacing was required, in order to attempt to perfect the die, so to speak (in layman's terms)?

Anyone?

You have 3? Fantastic!

By the way, the last 2 you posted here. What do you think is the variety, narrow date or wide date, high or low 1?

As far as cleaning, seems to me that a circulated George VI coin - I'm not an expert at grading but say F or VF, showing signs of wear might be considered "cleaned" if it looked, well, too clean. Particularly 50c with so many nooks and such, it would not be natural for a circulated coin to remain so clean while becoming worn. But the other type of "cleaned", far worse, is where you can see scrub marks, usually horizontal lines, scratched right into the surface of a coin. I can't notice that type of cleaning on the pics you've posted, although at some point in time it may have been washed. I'd suppose that sometimes washing may have been necessary to preserve a circulated coin.

Thanks Jimmy! I think you're right, and I very much appreciate you and others joining as I think the 50c is deserving of any and all attention that it's given.

*******

The following is a reply pginrh sent by email, in response to The Mystery of the RA, because he's experiencing some computer issues.

"In reference to the R and A anomaly on WildflowerAB's coins. I examined over forty 1951 50c coins .. on the dies, the foot of the R and the foot of the A were relatively sharp and were in quite close proximity, and as such they were susceptible to the stresses of the repeated strikings. I can see a several coins where different early die cracks have started to develop and another where the toe of the A is crumbling. This is a prime location for a die crack or a die chip to develop.. I do not have a coin where an early die chip has developed as in the photos, but I am pretty sure that this is what has happened."

Yes torgemco, I think yours are both high 1s and narrow date. Notice the placement of the "1" is closer to the "5" than to the hoof. In the wide date variety the "1" is more centred. Over time I searched ebay looking for wide and narrow dates that I was missing, very often my eyes deceived me and I ended up with an assortment of extra extras! lol!

*******
About die resurfacing, in answer to my own question. Resurfacing is common to the 50c from 1950 to 1952 beginning when the mint resurfaced (or polished) some of their obverse and reverse dies. (good example, no design and half design of 1950). As for the obverse, resurfacing becomes evident by the effigy of George IV beginning to become washed out, to the fullest extent "deep resurfacing".

I've tried to capture it and this photo was taken through a magnifier lamp because the difference is obvious, yet very difficult to capture in a photo. I notice the faded appearing point of the profile between the neck and chin, also the upper bridge of the nose and the wider open lips. The definition of the upper forehead is weaker as well, giving almost a bushy eyebrow appearance although my photo didn't capture that too well, but I thought it rather interesting.