Can Anyone Post A Picture Of The 1894 Cent Large 4 ?

As a long-time collector of Vicky varieties, I find that the "large 4" is an inaccurate description. It should be "fat 4". The "normal" 4 is slightly larger (height-wise) than hard to find "fat 4", with visibly thinner lines all over. You will see a real difference in the diagonal member of the 4 in the fat 4 (which people inaccurately call the "large 4", as the thickness of the line will be 2-3 times as thick as the normal one. If you really wanted to take a Webster's disctionary description of the two, you would say the extremely common large thin 4 vs the scarce short fat 4. I'll try to find one to post, but have never posted here so I wouldn't have a clue.... once you see your first one, you'll never mix them up again as you can tell the difference almost at arm's length.

And here is the short, fat 4 from a VF-30 coin. It is near impossible to mix up the 2. Both shots with a QX-5 at 609X.

Thanks guys and oklacda your pictures are great I see what you mean after seeing them they stand out like a sore thumb. I like your choice of words better the Fat 4 and the Thin 4......

From my standpoint here outside Toronto, I would estimate about 1:30 and many are pretty well circulated. A worn coin less than VF-30 will make all the lines of the digit thicker, since they are tapered, and as they wear, they will be thicker just due to the wear. Still, a "fat 4" is very easy to spot.

This site is not letting me post a picture of the tripled 9.

oklacda, would you do me the favor of pointing out the 'tripling" indications, please? I have no frontal vision, and can't tell. thanks,
Dick

I thought that the tripling is pretty evident, but look at the knob and the top, both left & right. The strike is a little low/high but also rotated CCW. Since this repunched coin was recognized by Griffin (R-5), but not by Charlton or ICCS yet, there would be maybe a 25-30% premium to both a knowlegable buyer & seller and, if ever put in Charlton or Trends, who knows?