1932 Near 2/Far 2 5 Cents.

Sorry, forgot to attach this one too.


Cheers, Zonad! Much appreciated.

Exact same coin, yes. The mandatory shrinking of the picture, I think, is effecting it. But yes, same coin.

No problem.

I'm getting the pics from my buddy who is emailing them to me.

Y'know, I hate to say it, but flipping back and forth from CaC and to his second picture, then one that's for sale online and the pics they have... I'm starting to wonder here?

I would HATE to be be wrong, of course (lol)... but I'd also be happy for him. Although I'd never hear the end of it. Haha.

They're drawn point-to-point, across the highest point of the one, directly to the lowest point of the opposite leaf. No matter what I do, I can't get the 2 on or above the line. I've taken photos of all of my 32 nears and all the twos' are above the parallel line.

Okay, now I'm REALLY starting to wonder? :-/

I've tried to 'optimize this'. Hope it works so you can see it.

@za75 That is a lovely coin you referenced on ebay.

Thanks guys!

I shall enjoy rubbing this in. lol

This whole thing has gotten me thinking though... Just another 'meh' manufactured Canadian variety?

1. My near 2.
2. My buddy's coin.
3. The coin offered on ebay.
4. Buddy's coin with thinner parallel line.

Now that I see them all together... I'm just as un-thrilled as with the far 6 et al. This is barely a differential at all, in the broad scheme of things -- taking into consideration the premium commanded. Plus the photos can be manipulated. Perhaps this is why it's not a recognized variety by the major TPGs (yet)? :-/

What I mean, to be clearer is, for example, a definitive differential such as large/small bust Mounties. Or in American coinage, such as, Wisconsin 'extra leaf'. Those are clearly different varieties -- with clearly different features. This appears to, based on what we have here, varying degrees. Shouldn't we perhaps call it the "farther two"?

Using a thin red line (which I did for pic #4), as with the ebay photo, there is a much greater appearance of a gap (although a gap between the parallel and two does exist on my friend's coin w/the original thicker line). Not the same amount; but I think this may raise question(s) as to varying degrees -- As my friend's coin illustrates with the fact that no matter what I did I could not get the parallel to touch the top of the two; as it does with a 'normal' near 2 (my personal coin). With that said, there is a clear(er) difference between my friend's coin and the ebay offering. But, there is also a clear difference between the three separate coins. I think there's some numismatic food-for-thought/room for discussion, or even perhaps potential room for investigation here?

After seeing all of this in the past 24hrs I'm beginning to feel it's definitely not worth a premium to the tune of hundreds of dollars for a VG etc., IMHO.

Nonetheless, I do appreciate all the help folks. Sincerely. A great learning experience, and now, eye opener!

"The variety will be recognized in charlton next year so it has the support of the community."

And that, as they say, is that. ;-)

I'm very cynical of the Charleton. But that's an entirely different topic of discussion.

I am curious, and PLEASE believe me, not being curt or anything like that... you would still support it being classed as a variety despite (while preliminary thus far) credible evidence (at least valid questions now exist) that this may, in fact, not be a black and white variety (per my earlier examples of the '73 Large/Small Bust - Wisconsin 'extra leaf' et al.)?

If questions of there being gray area variances have been raised, I think the community may have possibly failed here given this discussion which only arose yesterday due to a general question.

I personally feel further investigation is in order. Given that while most will only pay what they will, others do put a lot of weight into what price guides say to assist in their decision. Charleton's mission is to sell books. Collector's mission, by and large, is to improve the hobby.

As of this morning, I'm not 'buying' that this is a black and white variety at all. And may only perhaps be worth a footnote at best. Just my humble opinion.

Also, again, simply food-for-thought.

Cheers.