DVC-
Thanks for adding the photo, though I'm still not sure what to think. Between yours and mine, I would say yours is smallish and oval while mine definitely looks roundish. However...
This is the only other photo I could find floating out there on the internet- it's from the catawiki.com site:
http://www.catawiki.com/catalog/coi...1955-small-9 (sorry, still learning how to embed photos in replies)
This link claims the pictured coin is a "small oval 9", but it looks a lot closer to mine (roundish) than to yours (smallish oval). Again, the position of the first 5 is quite different between mine and this image. So, I guess I still don't know which is which. My hunch is that there are probably lots of variants out there and the three described in the catalog do not adequately cover them.
Speaking of the catalog: what does it mean if values are listed for only two out of the three varieties? I'm supposing it does not mean one is necessarily much more rare (in this case, the round 9 variety), just that not enough is known about the variety to assign a value to it. Is this an appropriate interpretation? I suppose I'll have to crack it open and read the fine print again...
cheers,
tbg
Thanks for adding the photo, though I'm still not sure what to think. Between yours and mine, I would say yours is smallish and oval while mine definitely looks roundish. However...
This is the only other photo I could find floating out there on the internet- it's from the catawiki.com site:
http://www.catawiki.com/catalog/coi...1955-small-9 (sorry, still learning how to embed photos in replies)
This link claims the pictured coin is a "small oval 9", but it looks a lot closer to mine (roundish) than to yours (smallish oval). Again, the position of the first 5 is quite different between mine and this image. So, I guess I still don't know which is which. My hunch is that there are probably lots of variants out there and the three described in the catalog do not adequately cover them.
Speaking of the catalog: what does it mean if values are listed for only two out of the three varieties? I'm supposing it does not mean one is necessarily much more rare (in this case, the round 9 variety), just that not enough is known about the variety to assign a value to it. Is this an appropriate interpretation? I suppose I'll have to crack it open and read the fine print again...
cheers,
tbg





















