Canada Small Cent 1929 High 9 Versus Medium 9 - PCGS

not entirely sure $1575 is a bargain...the price has already spiked and will likely plateau or dip in the near to mid term...

sort of like the large cent market...currently pretty dead...

To me, I think that the 1929 varieties will suffer the same fate as the 1896 Vickies. Charlton stopped listing it and then ICCS stopped certifying it because every coin was different and equally plentiful. I would think that PCGS won't be too far behind. I have no idea if Trends still lists the 1896 "far", but they should remove it as well.

For a variety to actually be classified as a true variety, there has to be a distinct actual reference coin. With a handpunched digit, you have no way of knowing if your high is the highest or just kinda high or very high or very very high. The same goes with the spacing and any rotation CW or CCW, let alone combinations of the H, L, near, far and rotational attributes. In this case I would think, as I stated above, over 100 different precise locations for the different working dies. This is not a coin that I would spend alot of money on, as it will cease to be a collectible because no die is scarcer than any other one.

Yes, I certainly know that each of those is identifiable to a single die pair ... actually, each of those reverses could have more than 1 marriage match of Obverses. However, which of those coins is an EXACT match to the first one that ICCS (and Charlton) certified and labeled "far 6" and became the STANDARD? A variety has to exactly match the "standard" that initiated the designation, but allowances are made for die wear and cracks/cuds. For the 1929, there appears to be NO initial standard and it should lose its designation as a true variety.

I'm not sure if PCGS still certifies the '96 far 6, just because of the handpunching of the final digit. In actuality, only the 2nd of your examples in your post above EXACTLY matches the "standard" identified by ICCS and the temporary inclusion in the front of Charlton as a recognized variety. Dealers and some TPG companies can continue to flog the "far 6" designation, but any dedicated Vicky researcher knows that the whole concept is extremely misleading.

The coin accepted as the initial entry (and became the "standard" reference coin) by ICCS was a "far, far, high, canted CW example.... that designation from the old CCRS days when we hoarders found and compared any number of "far 6's" that were different from each other. I, personally, found 6 "different" far 6's in my hoard of nearly 100 1896's. Dan in Crystal inventoried his 60 plus and 3 other members added more than 100 in their population samples. From that day forward (2010), the "far 6" designation lost its identity with Charlton and ICCS. From all of our population/variety totals, the true "scarcest" of all the 1896's was was the "very near, low, canted CCW", with the recognized "far 6" standard finishing a distant 4th.

I personally know the owner of the first "far 6" in Hamilton and am good friends with the (then) CAND vice-president that submitted it to Brian at ICCS. I am intimately familiar with the start of the "far 6" designation. This "high 9" 1929 has the same fatal flaw. Every single position of the final 9 digit could be considered a different variety, with all 100+ anomalies each having the same scarcity/commonality. Where is the premium in that? This is another fruitless evolution with researchers failing to get a large enough sampling set and grossly conducting incomplete vetting before people go onto the coin sites saying that they've discovered a "new variety". This 1929 "high 9" pseudo-variety is just another in a long line of incorrect designations in the last 10 years. Microscopes, digital camera overlays/comparisons, and other examination tools have allowed people to much more intimately examine and compare older coins. But, in my opinion, not enough thorough vetting is done. The phrase "if it's different, it's a new variety" doesn't hold true... what's closer to the truth is "if it's different, it was struck by a different die". For 1929, there were over 12 million coins minted and, unless a working die broke early on, there is no position of the 9 any scarcer than any other position .. exactly the same as with the 1896's. But 1896 had only 2 million minted ... and die life was closer to 60-80,000 per reverse die by that date.

Maybe this is where the RP9 has an important role. I think SPP wrote something on the 3 types a few years ago.

PCGS will recognize anything that they can make more money on ... or to items that submitters complain to them about not "recognizing". ICCS would certify any Canadian coin that was in the FRONT of the annual Charlton guide. This goes back to their (ICCS & Bill Cross) where there was some portion of common ownership. CCCS came along and would seemingly certify anything that was round and metal (and not necessarily a variety or actually real) because Louis took submitters word for items and he was trying to get his feet firmly planted in TPG'ing.

I wholeheartedly agree with SPP .. someone needs to take the bull by the horns and start a comprehensive study/research of the Geo small cents like some of us did for the Vickies. The first thing that has to be done for the 1929 is to find out from Mint records if ALL 1929's had the final digit punched into the working die. Or did something happen to the hub, where the final 9 was chipped or broken after xxx dies were made with all 4 digits. Then, the remains of the broken 9 were ground off smooth leaving only 3 digits and just the REMAINDER of the 1929's had a handpunched (or re-entered) final digit.

That will show whether there is a true 1929 variety with any kind of scarcity population data. Everyone accepts that the 9/8 is a separate case where the 4-digit 1858 working dies were overpunched with a different font 9. It started out, for years, called a "wide 9" and then Charlton's definaition as a 9/8 was accepted. The 1881's are a separate story because there was so much repunching of the left-over 1876 Obverse working dies with the single serif N's that were overpunched to make them full-serif. Similarly, there were huge numbers of 1876's minted and the hub chipped/broke on certain letters, causing a great deal of individual letters being repunched into the legend. To further complicate matters, they had either a lazy or drunken floor boss who didn't understand that you had to keep the working dies tight in their keepers/holders. This caused a great deal of machine/mechanical doubling (from loose dies) to go along with all the rest of the repunching. The 1881's are a variety-collector's dream.

Well, enough about Mint history. The thing that I firmly believe in is that there is no such thing as a high 9, kinda high 9, medium 9, almost medium 9, or any adjective so given for low or normal 9's. They are misnomers at best or absolutely false at worst.

The top one is the "far, high" 9...

I actually can see and agree with parts from both sides of this debate.

On one hand, Bill is correct. There are multiple, perhaps four or more, 1896 reverse dies with date spacings that most would generally describe as a "far 6." As single dies generally used to failure, the coins from each could be considered somewhat scarce, but I doubt any are rare. By 1896 the quality of die steel had greatly improved and it would be unusual if any of the 1896 reverse dies failed with very low mintages. Also, in 1896 the reverse die was the anvil die, which lasted longer than the obverse hammer dies. In my opinion, the average mintage of an 1896 reverse die might be north of 100,000 coins per die and the standard deviation of coins struck per die would not be nearly as high as for earlier dates. Non-random counts aside, based solely upon mintages, I doubt the coins from any single 1896 reverse die deserve a premium. I suspect something similar applies to the 1929 cents, but have never studied them.

Setting scarcity aside, I think, for most collectors, variety collecting transcends mere scarcity. In the end, the more valuable varieties end up being those that capture the curiosity and imagination of collectors long enough to become widely accepted, thereby creating demand. If the majority of the collecting base thinks a "Far 6" is more desirable then a "Near 6", then coins from the "Far 6" dies will have the higher premiums, mintages and scarcity be darn ed. To me, this seems to be what most dealers and sellers try to promote, because their interest is making more money on a sale and varieties give them a new playground. It is not a bad thing, but if they drive up popularity of a variety, they drive up its price. As collectors, we should understand that and make informed purchases.

Whether our intention, or not, I think Jim and I contributed to this by publishing the Provincial cent dies. Collectors thought some were very cool, which created demand and caused prices for those die varieties to rise, but they were not necessarily the scarcer die varieties. Many of the really scarce die varieties command little premium, because only a handful of collectors try to collect coins from every die. CV used the analogy of the W9/8 cent, specifically the dies with a RP "R" in Regina (Die OD5), the RP "G" in REGINA (OG3), and the RP "O" in ONE (RD1), so I will stay with that. These are all cool varieties because they are visually exciting blunders by the die sinker, and I routinely see all being sold at premiums over other W9/8 cents. Are they scarce, or rare? Well the RD1 is the single most common W9/8 die, so no. The OD5 and OG3 examples are considerably scarcer than the RD1, but not at all rare. Mostly likely, the mintages of the OD5 and OG3 were between 10,000 and 40,000 coins, so they are somewhat scarce, but by no means rare. Large premiums on these coins can only be sustained by large demand, because supply will never be a significant issue.

Staying some more with W9/8 cents, the truly scarce, or even rare, die varieties are RD13 and a new one I recently discovered, RD15. They are both true overdates, like the rest, but otherwise not very visually cool. Most collectors would call them a "generic W9/8." Yet, in more than fifteen years of studying W9/8 cents, I have found exactly one of each and know of no other examples. There is no practical way to get a large enough random sample to tell exactly, but I am guessing the mintages of these two varieties are extraordinarily low, something on the magnitude of a few hundred or a few dozen. Either these dies failed almost immediately (possible), or the dies were quickly switched for some other reason (probably less likely). Interestingly, both my RD13 and my RD15 examples are mint state, but I suspect that was luck of the draw. Should these coins command large premiums? Yes, but I doubt their premiums will ever reach a level commensurate with their rarity, because the demand will come from only the very few collectors who try to collect all the die varieties. Those who want a visually cool variety, will go for the quite common RP O in ONE (RD1) every time.

Finally, I think price level significantly affects demand. Kudos to Jim for the narrow 9 die catalog. It has created a large buzz amongst variety collectors. I think three things greatly add to and sustain that buzz.

First, Jim has published a first-rate catalog, so collectors know what is out there and have a "collecting list." As more catalogs are published, the increased knowledge in the collecting community raises demand.

Second, narrow 9 cents cost only a few dollars each. Conversely, any decent 1858 or W9/8 will run more than $100. I suspect demand for narrow 9 varieties will always be higher than for 1858 and W9/8 varieties, because they will always be more affordable. Supply for the 1858 and W9/8 varieties will always be tighter, because overall the mintages are much lower, but that lack of supply adversely affects demand, as many collectors give up on acquiring them. IMO demand will always be the more powerful force.

Third, demand for W9/8 varieties will lag because they are varieties of a variety, if you will. 1858 and 1859 narrow 9 are conventional members of a date set, which helps sustain their demand in general. W9/8, not so much. Again, demand wins the day. Having said that, I personally think W9/8 cents and their varieties are under-rated, because the supply is considerably lower than most people imagine.

In the end, my advice is to collect what inspires you, whether it be the visually interesting varieties, or the scarcer ones that are not so cool. Don't let Charlton, me, or anyone else sell you on what to collect. It is your collection, so enjoy the collecting process. If most collectors do those things, then, through the forces of supply and demand, the collectors themselves, not the promoters of specific varieties, will ultimately determine what coins deserve price premiums.

All, just my two Victorian cents worth.

Thanks, Rob.