| Author |
 Replies: 33 / Views: 5,226 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
745 Posts |
Well we all know for sure NO 2008 CPZ exists.
There where some 2010 CPS in mint sets only
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
838 Posts |
I contend those 9 million were produced bearing the date 2006. Read the two tables' captions (and numerical contents) carefully!
I've mentioned this many times on here, but nobody seems to pay attention. The figures for production in a given year do not correspond with the number reported bearing that given date. So the mint must produce some coins a year late sometimes. This is the case with 2006/7.
Edited by bibd
06/10/2012 3:13 pm
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
331 Posts |
Quote:
The figures for production in a given year do not correspond with the number reported bearing that given date. True. This would certainly explain the lack of finding them in practice from my own experience. If this is the case, it's too bad a reference like Charlton took those numbers at face value like some of us did. These mintage numbers are still being printed several years after the fact. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1620 Posts |
I found another one today a 2008 though and a 2008 nickel in au condition I see alto of Canadian change in rolls. I'll be leaving Alaska in a few months and I'm driving to my new duty station what's the best place to get some coinage during my travels
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
610 Posts |
[quote]I've mentioned this many times on here, but nobody seems to pay attention. The figures for production in a given year do not correspond with the number reported bearing that given date. So the mint must produce some coins a year late sometimes. This is the case with 2006/7 2007-zinc=9,625,000 2006-zinc=176,000,000  "I don't know I just work here"  AS they say! |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
838 Posts |
collectall:
I'm not claiming that 2006-dated zinc cents were produced ONLY in 2007. They were produced in both 2006 and again in 2007.
I am in the process of making a graphic from the 2007 mint report to illustrate what I mean in more detal.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
838 Posts |
OK everyone... Once and for all! You will find this table on page 44 of the 2007 AR. (some irrelevant lines are omitted)  You can see the total production in 2007 is 947,895,000, *BUT* over 100,000,000 of these bear the date 2006! Now, as Penny4Me pointed out, you will find this on page 50.  The total in this (Table 7) is 947,895,000, the exact same as the annual production above. So, it is safe to assume that Table 7 indicates total production in the calendar year 2007, regardless of the date on the coin. (After all, don't forget this is from a corporation's 2007 annual report.) Therefore, it does not follow that there were 9 million zinc 2007-dated cents. That 9 million may be included in the 101 million dated 2006.Does this make sense? Stay tuned for more evidence from the 2006 2007 AR (see below). Edited by bibd
06/13/2012 2:32 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
838 Posts |
My last dagger of evidence against the notorious "9 million" bearing the date 2007 is to look at the thousands place (fourth digit from the right) in the reported mintages above.
The "5" in the 101,475,000 cents dated 2006, produced in 2007, seems to come from the "5" in the reported 9,625,000 zinc cents produced in 2007. The other relevant quantities are reported in the even tens of thousands.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1581 Posts |
Interesting forensics. You would think such a thing wasn't needed nowadays.
The 2006-dated/2007 produced cents would almost certainly have the mint logo (2006L). Anyone know whether the CPZ/CPS usage for 2006L was spread throughout the year, or a switch occurred part-way?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
838 Posts |
dialog_gvf: This is a very interesting question. I can almost remember getting both varieties of 2006L cents, and one came later than the other. A theory: Perhaps zinc was first, and the first 9 million of 2007 were the last 2006L zinc cents; then, steel came and there were 92 million more of those. But: there seem like more than 92 million 2006L steel cents. I think the planchets were all mixed up in 2006 (hence the errors in that year -- similar errors not seen since or before).
Anyway, unless someone super-heated and destroyed magnetism on a bunch of 2007 cents (see the research of Danica McKellar a.k.a. "Winnie") kind of like what happened with the 2006P (just kidding), then I think the circulation strikes will be all magnetic.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2427 Posts |
Ok so the question remains... Is the 2007 Non Magnetic penny rare or scarce?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
838 Posts |
Yes... if being in sets only counts.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
745 Posts |
 2007 Non Magnetic penny is semi-rare, thus being in sets only ! So here is the next question... how many 2007 Non Magnetic were in sets only ? Edited by Penny4Me
06/14/2012 12:24 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
838 Posts |
I know quite a few sets had the magnetic (steel) variety. In fact, around 2007 the RCM really liked to brag about their "multi-ply plating process" -- or whatever they call it -- on their sets. I have a question for the crowd too: Why do you think the mint produced so many 2006-dated cents in 2007? That huge 101 million figure I pulled from the report seems really unprecedented for a stale-dated run. My guesses: (1) dies for 2007 were substantially delayed and/or (2) an attempt was made to beef up the mintage of a scarce issue in 2006. In this day and age, the dies should be immediately available. So I lean toward (2). |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
838 Posts |
By the way, I don't know the technical meaning of "rare" and "scarce". Sorry if I failed to answer which one of these I think the 2007 non-magnetic is.
I'd agree with Penny4Me's language: "semi-rare".
edit: I'll go out on a limb. This coin might price in the hundreds of dollars in a short while. Collectors seem to want both compositions (when available) and even composition errors, as in 2006. So when the bottleneck is finally identified with the 2007 zinc (and people stop being misled by the so-called mintage figure of 9 million)... well, as they say... the sky's the limit.
Edited by bibd
06/14/2012 02:43 am
|
| |
Replies: 33 / Views: 5,226 |
First Page
Posted 06/10/2012 3:07 pm
