1965 1-Cent - Off-Metal Error Or Possible Pattern Piece?

i don't know the difference between trial and pattern, I voted pattern...definitely some kind of test strike in my opinion, like the 1967 aluminum cent..only my opinions though.

that makes some sense, i'd call it a trial then..interesting coin SPP! I think it could be related to the 1967 aluminum cent discovered not too long ago, the time period was right for them to be testing new metals for circulation coin. you have the 1967 nickel dimes and quarters, the 1967 aluminum cent, and this 1965 cent..i think they're related. I'm nothing near an expert though.

If as a test piece, wouldn't it be wiser to use a softer metal than CuNi, such as your example of lead on 1911 $?

Did the mint supply foreign coins to anyone in 1964 or 1966, maybe this got mixed in the batch somehow. However, would someone be able to distinguish this from a regular copper cent and pull it out of circulation? The color looks similar to what a normal cent would look like.

A trial or pattern piece makes sense.

Very interesting. In 1965 copper and nickel were both broadly available. Copper was $0.40 a pound and nickel was $0.80 a pound. So there was no real reason for Canada to look at switching out copper for nickel.

There may have been some other reason for a test. Perhaps another country that used cupro-nickel was interested in having Canada mint their coins and this coin was struck as some kind of test.

Regardless, given the quality of the strike, I am inclined to think that this was some sort of official test rather than a back door job.

Or maybe it is just some kind of alloying error that slipped through the cracks.

Thanks for that link.
Unlike our southern neighbors have demonstrated I like to be sufficiently informed before I cast my vote.

I chose mint sport.

Though, I'd like to believe pattern because that was the first year for that bust.

To begin a process of elimination, does anyone know if the blunt 5 small beads was the first die pairing for the 4 varieties for 1965. I think the pointed 5 is later because it's actually deterioration? I believe a pattern would be the earliest die pairing and show no signs of die usage, it looks pretty crisp.

any clashes, or Die Deterioration visible? If so, I think we could agree it would rule out pattern.

It would lend to it being a pattern if you could find that same metal compisiton used on any other patterns that the mint struck? Or a historic record of the mint considering a different metal for use in 1965, though that may have been more costly, seeing the composition, so may not make sense.

What makes me think it's not a pattern is that weren't most patterns specimen strikes?

To confirm it's a pattern may prove difficult?

Well I don't know how it could be mint sport or off metal foreign strike. there were no Cu-Ni planchets the size of our penny being used. the closest would have been the USA nickel, but that would be well oversized.

it would have to be a test of some sort either a pattern or trial piece. the question is if it sat with the mint master is there no way one could track this down? There must be some kind of documentation for this coins existence.