| Author |
 Replies: 15 / Views: 2,723 |
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
291 Posts |
Edited by 2rtgah678
09/19/2021 9:28 pm
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
New Zealand
1679 Posts |
standard not large
Cheers Don
Vickies cents and GB Farthings nut.
"Old" is a figure of speech and nothing more
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
9864 Posts |
Where can a pic of this variety be found?
"Dipping" is not considered cleaning...
-from PCGS website
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
21606 Posts |
I know of a 1886 large and small 6, but never heard of a 1896.
As DBM stated, where can we find information on this variety.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1505 Posts |
Ok fellows. below are 3 of my 1896 5 cent nickels next to the subject coin. what is there to see? I have never seen a large or small 96. But that does not mean it is nonexistent. However, there is a re-punched 6 on some of them. maybe that creates the illusion of large/small 96? H2 is a rep 6 thanks H    Edited by 47P7
09/20/2021 11:28 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2784 Posts |
47P7 totally incredible images. I am going to put a grid on these images. you might have more there than you think wow
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5588 Posts |
Your first 2 coins have a larger space between the 9 & 6, and the subject coin looks like the 6 ids slightly rotated CW. Your last coin seems to match the subject coin, with the same spacing and rotation. If I had to guess, I'd say that the last digit may have been handpunched into the die, hence the slight dirreences.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2784 Posts |
okiecoiner wow you still have a very sharp eye. but there is a little more. the subject coin is a large 8. the digit 6 on his coin matches none of these coins. it small by comparison. so his coin has a small 6
47P7 coin H2 large 8 coins H1 and H 3 both small 8. also wide date the 6 on his coin is a quarter of the 6 wider than all other coins. I wonder what the reverses would look like. every coin was used as a template once. so there is nothing else to list. the is a few slight leaf variation. not much but there is differences. 47P7 there is 2 types of different 5s in your coins. take a close look at the 5s end lopes. you can see for yourself. oh very nice coins congrats nice collection
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2784 Posts |
i want to clarify its H 3 that has the wide date. none of the coins match his wide date 47P7
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5588 Posts |
I don't think that there is any larger or smaller digits/fonts on the 1, 8, or 9.... only the handpunched 6. The subject coin is just well worn which makes all digits appear fatter. That is just like any other coin of any denomination. Digits and letters on the die are tapered so that the coin elements are narrower on the top and wider at the bottom. It's like that so that the coin releases from the die when struck. As a coin wears, the digit and/letter will appear larger the closer the wear down gets to the field. It's that way through the complete denomination groups from large cents to dollars and from Vicky to Elizabeth.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
821 Posts |
Here are 2 different looking 96's. Both have about the same amount of wear. First looks to be like the H2 P47P showed, with the short 1 and weak high 8, more robust-looking 96. Mine might be heavily repunched 96, which gives the appearance of a larger variety.  Second one looks like the H3, with the 6 slanted to the right. It's centre hole points to 1 o'clock, not 12.  Here are the dates with parallel lines, same widths for both photos. I used the top of CE, and the bottom of 1-8.   Edited by TerryT
10/25/2021 01:27 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1505 Posts |
JimmyD + DBM
which Variety are you talking about? the OP's coin?
H
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5588 Posts |
Except for the repunched 6, I still think that it's due to normal wear, where the digits get "fatter" the more that they wear down. You would 2 coins with similar wear to actually compare the and make sure they were't concave of convex. The "lined" examples are not the same amount of wear .. just look at the leaves. The last 2 photos with the lines are not at the same magnification so you can't compare.
Edited by okiecoiner
10/25/2021 2:03 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1505 Posts |
Ok, thank you for all your input and help.
here is another thought.
It looks like the 18 are reasonable all the same.
could it be, for whatever reason, that the last 2 digits were hand punched on ALL or most pieces?
It could explain all these discrepancies and positions?
if that would be so, then we should perhaps find ONE or more which could be the original coin.
perhaps use the BoC web site and see what they have?
unfortunately, I have to tend to last night's storm issues (leftovers)and have no time today.
H
|
|
Valued Member
 Canada
291 Posts |
oh my god. I dident realize this post had so many reply's. also the only reason I asked cause coinsandcanada.com has the larger 96 as a verity that is more valuable. and thanks for all your input
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
821 Posts |
I took great care to make sure the lines on the 2 photos are the same. The width between the CENTS lines are the same on both, the distance between the bottom CENTS line and the top date line are the same, and the width between the date lines are the same on both coins - use a ruler and measure yourself. Both coins were photographed at exactly the same distance and same lighting.
The wear on the leaves is so close (see the larger photos) to being the same that any further wear would certainly not make the top 96 as thick and prominent as the lower image. Heck, you can see the bottom 96 is obviously raised much higher and is wider than the other coin without any magnification.
Repunching of both digits made them bigger. Even a different punch than the original style could have been used. Look at the ends of the sixes and nines - they have different looks - some have balls and some are elongated.
Edited by TerryT
10/26/2021 5:46 pm
|
| |
Replies: 15 / Views: 2,723 |
|
Posted 09/19/2021 9:58 pm
