| Author |
 Replies: 11 / Views: 2,073 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
This says that the majority of 1948 dollars were actually struck in 1949. I've never heard that before and I can't find any other reference to it. Is this common knowledge that I somehow missed, and is there anything to distinguish the mint years? http://www.coinscan.com/silverd/page21.htmlQuote:
All 1948 denominations, especially the dollar, are eagerly sought by collectors, and this coin is in some ways the prima donna of the series. And here again we have a split mintage, clearly indicated in the 1948 Report, hut not so well indicated in the one of 1949. The split mintage came about because the Mint was rushed for time and found it necessary to put out the remaining coins in the following year. In any event, 8,080-1948 dollars were struck in the year given and the remainder of 10,700 was struck in 1949. |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
867 Posts |
I thought the story was that the 1947 Maple Leaf dollars were minted in 1948 until the new dies were ready?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4233 Posts |
Yes, all the 1947 ML coins were minted in 1948. But 1948s minted in 1949 was news to me.
1949 dollars continued to be minted in 1950 and even a few in 1951, but that is more understandable since 49 was a commemorative.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
4911 Posts |
All 1947 ml coins were struck in 1948 as indicated by the ml, the 1948 dollars being struck in 1949 is new to me mainly because I would expect a split year to yield more than a 18,780 coin mintage. As far as the 1949s being struck into 1951 is correct, the demand for these well crafted commems was great and pushed the orders for them very far which led to them being struck in to 1951. For the 1948 dollar varieties there is the following
.clash in ear
.rotated dies
.small water lines
Along with 2 different date positions.
Hope this helps
Feel free to call me Will.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
The author of the article cited above implies that he had access to the mint reports. I can't find any of this raw data online. He goes on to say: Quote:
The reading of one Mint Report is in some cases not sufficient. For example, very early in my dollar collecting career, I was informed by a prominent dealer that there had been a mistake in the 1948 figure; that it was 8,800 and with the natural result that it created a great scarcity of the dollars. It is easy enough to see how the error was made, and even though an honest one, it was still embarrassing for I so reported it and was later made to feel very foolish. Unluckily, I had only a few copies of Mint Reports at the time the incident occurred. To summarize what he is saying: 1948 minted in 1948: 8080 1948 minted in 1949: 10700 I suppose it's doubtful we'll ever be able to determine whether a coin was minted in 48 or 49, if this is even true. I do love these curiosities. |
|
Valued Member
Canada
386 Posts |
Both the split year 1948/49 minting and low mintage do not surprise me.
I remember reading that the new dies without the "et Ind Imp" suffix were not ready until late 1948. So they probably only minted 1948 dollars between November or December 1948 and into early 1949. Then they quickly ramped up for the 1949 Newfoundland comparatives.
The low 1948 mintage is due to these two events: Delay in the removal of the India emperor reference and the new commemorative coin with the Matthew ship when Newfoundland joined Canada on March 31, 1949.
It is interesting to note that it took the mint such a long time to remove "et Ind Imp", considering India had become independent 4 and 1/2 months before 1948, i.e. August 15, 1947.
Edited by 1945V
02/09/2014 2:07 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
4911 Posts |
I imagine it took so long because they redid the portrait to create better detail.
Feel free to call me Will.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
9864 Posts |
It took long because at the time The Royal Mint in London produced all the master tools for Canadian coinage. The Royal Mint was faced with changing the obverse for most of the Commonwealth countries,seeing that Canada was having no problem issuing the maple leaf coins,our country's requirement was moved down in the pecking order and the new masters weren't created till quite late in the year. The backlog was such that the UK was unable to remove IND IMP from their own coins 'til '49. "Dipping" is not considered cleaning...
-from PCGS website
Edited by DBM
02/09/2014 2:58 pm
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
386 Posts |
Interesting, I thought only the inscription changed, but I confirmed the portrait was redesigned as well, impacting the grading between 1948 and pre-1948 George VI coins.: "The new dies not only had the new "GEORGE VI DIE GRATIA REX" inscription, but a re-designed portrait with more deeply engraved hair on the King. While most grading guides show the same grading standard for all George VI silver dollars, this is incorrect because of these deeper hair lines. Dollars from between 1948 and 1952 would have to wear to VF before the hair looks a muted as it does on 1937 to 1947 dollars when still uncirculated." Source: http://www.calgarycoin.com/modern/cddollar.htmEdited by 1945V
02/09/2014 3:15 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
5394 Posts |
1948 silver dollars were all minted in one week in December of 1948 and distributed as follows 8080 in 1948 rest in early 1949. Bank of Canada distributed 29,956 various dates of dollars through branches in Ottawa(13,956) Montreal (6,000)
Toronto (6000) , Vancouver (2000) and Winnipeg (2000). Presumably mixed 1947 ML and 1948 coins. Source BOC files and Stephan Dushnick "Silver and Nickel Dollars of Canada 1911 to date c 1978 first edition"
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4233 Posts |
Thanks @pacificoin, that seems to be more in line with conventional wisdom. The coinscan.com info above appears to be from the 1961 book "Canadian Silver Dollars" by Starr Gilmore. @1945V, I ran across that same bit from calgarycoin.com a while back, and indeed the hair detail is clearly different between my 47ML and 48/49. It might be true for 50 cents as well, judging by the few examples I have. Edit - belated thanks to @dbm, whose link in https://goccf.com/t/165467 started this for me. Should we presume Gilmore read something wrong, and put this idea to bed? Edited by kbbpll
02/09/2014 7:54 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5394 Posts |
Maybe just a touch of misinterpretation. The Gilmore book is what it is. At least a start to a study of the dollar series. The one problem with the study of Canadian coins is there were never enough passionate numismatists to fully explore the subject back in the day unlike the US series. The neat part is that today, with the internet and forums like this one we are learning new information about Canadian coins all the time.
As an aside the portrait of the first and second George VI obverses are quite different aside from the lettering . I am sure that the 1948-52 portrait is a total makeover from the 1937-47 portrait. Probably a complete new master hub. Also the 1951-52 portrait comes in both high and low relief on certain denominations.
|
| |
Replies: 11 / Views: 2,073 |
|
Posted 02/09/2014 12:21 pm
