Question About Coinsandcanada.com

So I guess that I should think of this 1996 attached 6 along the same line as the US Lincoln B"I"E.

All hail the book.

Not.

Does a die chip always occur at the same spot....I have several of them 96 "attached ones" with that particular "error"

I personally consider a mule to be in a class of it's own and a well defined type of mint error.

I don't think it'a a variety nor is it a damaged die error ala the 1996 attached six and so on. There is no intent (supposedly) to make a mule, the mint claims this is human error. Also, there could be distinct varieties and damaged die variations of a mule coin.

I would have to say a mule has to be an intentional error, or at the very least poor control on the mint's part.

Fast answer - nope!

But after seeing it - I think it would be neat to find one.

I admit one of my loves in the coin collecting hobby is Canadian Nickels, and I have yet to figure out why! However, when I tried to get back into coins a few years ago, I got tired of seeing all the minutiae that were being recognized and, at least I thought, considered part of a complete set. The only thing I was missing from 1922 up was a 1951 high relief. And even this was something I was not sure I wanted to pursue. I am old fashioned enough that if it is easy to see (far vs near 6, EWL, 47 dot), then I like it. But if it is obviously from a die being chipped - like this attached 6 - then it just sticks in my mind as mechanical "error" and not really a part of the "real" (to my mind) set. To me, the EWL looks like it was engraved this way, although I see from a post in this topic that this actually was a die break - oh well. This attached 6 obviously looks like the die broke.

I think what discouraged me was on varieties is that I used to go to a coin shop in Niagara Falls (at top of the hill - across from the bank - on Lundy's lane). So after re-entering the hobby, on my first visit North, I went to this shop. They had a lot of nickel varieties for sale I had not seen/heard of. I knew I had to get them to "complete" my set.

One of these was a 1963 which they had boldly written on the 2X2 that it had an "attached AD." After inquiring they said that the A preceding the D in Canada - above the date - were attached at their bases. Sure enough the letters were attached! Hmmm... only $3.00. I found it unlisted in the Charleton I had just bought. But I thought that surely something this major would be a good variety to have ... so I bought it.

I went to the bank in Canada before returning to the States and bought 100.00 worth of nickels to roll search. Every single 63 I found has the attached AD! So I spent 3.00 at the coin shop for something I found 20+ of in bank rolls! And to this day I have yet to see an "unattached AD 1963. Has anyone seen one?

Anyway, this experience taught me to be a lot more educated before buying. Granted, it was only 3.00 I threw away, but it left a bad taste in my mouth for Canadian nickels varieties. So I tend only to like the official ones listed in the book. And even these I want to be something that looks not to be caused from mechanical error/chipping. The 1951 high relief might be nice - but would I be able to pick it out of a crowd of 1951's? I do not know.

The hardest part of all this is having to recognize that the deeper the hobby goes into the micro-minute differences, the farther I get from ever being able to say I actually have a "complete set."

No one said any of these errors have to be mutually exclusive and all varieties can be combined will all mint errors for their type. So a matrix of two square can potentially be a matrix of 5-8 square if there is a possibility for that much variance within the making of that coin.

And that is the hunt for Red October, difficult but not impossible to find combinations of readily attributed variances from standard in the least common combinations possible.