1980 Near Or Far Beaded Canadian Quarter?

It"s not a known variety or error because it is not in Charlton catalogue, as such very little response. Looks like a different obverse die was used to strike this coin maybe a 1979 version, something like the small beads dollar. In the 1970 to 1980 many spectacular errors were custom made by the RCM Hull mint so some of us take this fact into consideration regarding minor errors in this time period. If you can prove to Charlton this is a mule with a previous years obverse and have it listed, then you have a following. I have shared like a 4 struck loonie and had like a dozen replies only, good luck !

There may just not be many modern 25 cent collectors that are regular to the site.

Jim0815 here is the information you are looking for.hope this helps

i think the problem, is the average collector, can't see any difference between the 2 coins, so myself who collects canada coins, I can't offer an opinion, as the photos provided, mean nothing to me, as I can see only the tiniest of difference. and coins in worn condition, there is no premium to the variety.

looks like rocky is going to tell you different, with his coin program..

silverwolf that one thing about the program secs is all it takes. if I align elizabeth. the bottom E will be under the L of the top image. I populated his images to be eactly the same. it will not line up. this is a new variety. I just use the overlays to prove it.

also if you look close at my image. you will see you have a near and far. wow that amazing

I believe my eyes and a singular image microscope more than any computer program. The output of a computer program is only as accurate as the input. Only if your two coins both have no wear (UNC) were struck at the same time, on the same press, with the same pressure, with the same planchet hardness, with the dies aligned in their holders EXACTLY the same, and having both working dies with EXACTLY the same die wear ... can you even think about finding a new variety. A "variety" has been accurately described as a modification authorized by the mintmaster or the floor foremen to change, modify, or correct a working die. It usually results in modifications to the monarch, legends, fonts, digits or needed repunching to the working dies. Hub doubling, Die Deterioration Doubling, and the like are actually errors, not varieties ... although most collectors feel that any easily visible doubling should be considered as varieties.

Comparing two photos with overlays depends on using the same camera, with exactly the same lighting and angle, with the same magnification, with the same lighting shadows, and the same precise measuring points. It's a difficult evolution.

You very well may have 2 different working dies, maybe with the working dies struck with 2 slightly different hubs. Again, they are not varieties, they are errors and probably well within the tolerances allowed by the mint. Just think of the multitude of different die differences that you see on Haxby's treatise with the 1859's and the nearly 250 different die patterns/marriages.

Rocky, your work with the computer overlays and comparisons is stellar and worthy of note, but is open to differences in interpretation. Comparing the slight differences in coins spit out of the presses by the millions is like comparing the differences in screws, nails, matches or any other utilitarian product made by machines. There is also a huge difference in what is considered a "variety" with what is considered an "error" or a manufacturing tolerance. Keep up the good work, Rocky .. it's valuable to the educational numismatic value found on these coin sites.