Single Nickel Dollar Case

Montgomery, frankly it frustrates me that there is so much ambiguity surrounding Canadian numismatics in general. Why that might be I have no idea but I suspect it's caused by a lack of a strong and united organization leading the hobby, caused by too many egos in the way. TPGs, prominent Canadian publications, major dealers each going whatever direction they choose.

Something so simple such as $2 cased RCM collector dollars issued over 40 years ago and yet there's disagreement over what to label to call the finish? If I was just entering this hobby I might be inclined to shake my head and just walk away.if major players can't build consensus, where does that leave the typical collector - shrouded in the same ambiguity.

Anyway...I do have a minor personal vested interest in that I've spent countless hours studying and documenting my collection. I'm the type of person who relies on reference material as opposed to "he or she said". So I'm going to make this a project (thank you CPP for the inspiration!) and take a second closer look. I've chosen the year 1971 because that's the year with the largest quantity of samples that I have to work with.

These were all originally purchased new by my father. He worked in the post office until he retired in the mid 70s and I strongly suspect he bought all the excess RCM coins and sets rather than sending back whatever didn't sell as he collected other coin as well.

Source:
2 Prestige Sets (2 nickel dollars in each) = 4
1 Custom Set
5 Uncirculated Sets
1 MS circulated
4 cased nickel dollars
TOTAL = 15 1971 nickel dollars




Later...

I see it more like a challenge... you have a puzzle, but are not given all the pieces...

When you dive neck-deep into a series you not only want to collect, but study, you will find a whole world of ambiguities...

1971 is a fairly easy year to differentiate the PL strikes, they tend to be weakly struck like the business strikes. 1974 is another easy year... but try 1978... the reverses in the PL strikes are "soft" and even in the specimen strikes appear to be the product of over polished dies. Same goes for the specimen strike for the 1979 nickel dollar, the RCM literally used that obverse die until the bitter end....

I think it is the deteriorating quality of the dies, that probably caused the change in nomenclature. Specimen dies first struck the coins, then some of those same dies struck the PL coins... (none of this is documented in any RCM report, however).

There is one consensus between all those you listed... they are businesses, and are in the business of making money with money....

Very few coin dealers ever contribute to numismatic research (publications)... Charlton Press is now owned by a coin dealer, make no mistake that they are in the business of selling books. Several of us have lobbied for corrections to the catalogue over the years... with limited success.

That is where the CN Journal (publication of the RCNA) fills a nice niche...

@ wildflower I believe Dr. Haxby is also a member of this forum. I have read his postings in the error section. It would be great if he would weigh in on this discussion. Especially since he has written many books.

Well Montgomery, I hope this is helpful but I think I get it....

An interesting study! First I think it's helpful to reflect back on history. In the mid 60s RCMs Numismatic Division was moved from Ottawa to expanded premises at Hull because of the demand for hugely popular uncirculated mint sets. Upon Canada's Centennial in 1967 the first cased sets were offered to the public, an ambitious project at the time. At that point silver coins were also discontinued. The mint encountered difficulty with the changeover to nickel particularly in 1968 and 1969, numerous errors and anomalies in the uncirculated sets. By 1970 the problems with nickel were becoming resolved and so began the minting of cased sets and coins to the public.

Looming in the near future was the 1976 Montreal Olympics. At one time the Canadian Govt believed the full cost could be paid by the sale of collector coins to the public, as it turned out it covered only 10% of the cost. However in the preceding years it's reasonable to assume collector coins and sets served as experimentation to some extent.

What I noticed in my 1971 samples:
Prestige Set - without a doubt the highest quality. Heavily frosted effigy resembling the old Victorian style of Specimen sets. If the term "Proof-Like" hasn't already been used for Uncirculated Sets, the reference would've been most appropriate.

Nickel dollar - Prestige Set


7 Coin Custom Set - I only have one set with one nickel dollar, but it's also frosted. In fact it looks exactly like that of the Prestige Set. I don't know one nickel dollar is an anomaly or not. The difference in original cost between the two sets was $6.50 and $12.00.

Uncirculated Sets - quite typical, a few here and there are somewhat frosted but nothing close to the Prestige nickel dollars. Most are BU.

Cased nickel dollars - the 4 are all BU, brilliant relief against brilliant background, highly polished appearance and possibly double struck. Definitely a prelude to the BU silver dollar series. However I do notice one from 1970 that is quite different, deep cameo similar to the Prestige set. Therefore it's reasonable to assume at the time RCM processes did not achieve consistent standards and cased nickel dollars and therefore Custom Sets are not always BU. In their priority of filling orders, if the mint had extra coin minted for Prestige sets and it's also not surprising if some Specimen coin got tossed into other sets or cases as well, who would care.

Cased nickel dollar (bad photo, oh well)


Circulated - typically BU.

Therefore, in general, considering cased nickel dollars are not similar in appearance to that of Prestige Sets/Specimen, it makes sense to me that it would be confusing to refer to both as Specimen. On the other hand, the BU appearance of cased nickel dollars is alike that of Uncirculated Sets (PL or MS-NC) -- although higher quality -- so that's probably why it's referred to as PL (MS - NC) by Charlton and others. Seems the most logical manner of classification to me as well.

However to sum it up, I think the confusion arises due to various types of strikings in one year including BU and possibly double struck BU without enough categories to properly fit them in, coupled wth lack of consistency in what's commonly referred to as Specimen or Proof-Like.

Edit to add a couple photos.

Bear in mind that Prestige and Double Penny sets were not made in 1970...