| Author |
Replies: 18 / Views: 17,579 |
|
Valued Member
Australia
138 Posts |
I was hoping someone could help me identify a Newfoundland 1941 cent variety. This is actually my first Newfoundland coin, it came in a bunch of assorted Canadian coins I recently purchased.
My Charlton catalogue lists a 1941C DD variety, which I have tried to research on the net and have found that there was a plain date and a re-engraved date. Is the re-engraved date the more valuable "DD" variety? How I can tell the two apart? Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
I would be curious too, because I've read about the 1941 re-engraved, but haven't seen a picture of it. I do know I have the 1940 re-engraved, and the '41 might resemble this: 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1352 Posts |
This is the 1941 doubled date variety. PCGS MS-63RB (with no variety noted, since PCGS only recognizes the 1940?) and ICCS MS-62RB Doubled Date. In my mind they are both the result of some sort of Machine Doubling. On the 1940 it very visibly affected the date and all of the reverse legends. On the 1941 it is much more visible in the date than in the legends. In both dates there are lesser degrees of doubling (1, 2, or 3 digits of the date) that are worth considerably less than all four digits doubled. 
http://www.victoriancent.com2011 & 2025 Fred Bowman Award Winner, 2020 J. Douglas Ferguson Award Winner, & 2022 Paul Fiocca Award Winner. Life Member of RCNA.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Quote:In my mind they are both the result of some sort of Machine Doubling. The difference with MD is that there is no consistency in the doubling because it's done to coins individually during the strike. On the other hand, a doubled die or re-engraving was done to the die, and appears on every coin exactly the same. For these re-engraved cents, they're are confusing because there's no counterpart for US coinage. But these were carefully re-engraved to strengthen the date and portions of the legend. Thanks for that pic! 
|
|
Valued Member
 Australia
138 Posts |
Thanks to both of you for the info, much appreciated! I suspected I just had the regular variety and this confirms it.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1352 Posts |
DV - I don't think it is re-engraving or re-punching. On the 1940 all four digits of the date and all of the reverse legends are doubled in the same direction (south). Check the legends in the 1940 below. I might buy hub doubling, but it is too big a coincidence that they re-engraved or re-punched them all in exactly the same direction. I still think Machine Doubling from loose dies is possible since in both 1940 and 1941 the doubling does vary, first one digit, then two, then three, then four with numerous coins of each type extant. I grant you that it is tough to tell for sure. 
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Quote: I still think Machine Doubling from loose dies is possible since in both 1940 and 1941 You're welcome to think that if you like, but this just isn't possible with these coins for the simple reason that 1. I'm familiar with the 1940RE. It's a well-documented die variety, and 2. every single coin for each year is exactly the same. The latter would be simply impossible with MD--because that's just strike damage that varies with each coin. Therefore, citing the direction of the thickening as proof of MD is erroneous with these coins. Besides, the engraver could have easily done that for aesthetic reasons to be consistent. I would have done the same. So...if you have either coin, hold onto it--because it's not MD--and premiums are paid on both.  This is a good case where knowledge of modern US coins may not apply. 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1352 Posts |
Thanks for the collecting advice. I'll make sure I hold on to the two coins shown above.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Is that your 1940RE? Wow...that's a very nice coin! Charlton's lists that at $2000 in MS63RD  Btw, from mint records I've determined the mintage of that coin is just 50,000.
Edited by DVCollector 10/31/2009 3:30 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
297 Posts |
wow 50,000 mintage and the price is only 2,000 dollars? I would expect it to be like 10,000
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
The total mintage for the NFLD 1940 1c was 300,000. Mint records show 6 obverse dies were used, so I averaged to 50,000 per die--my estimate. Contrast that to the key 1948 $1, with a mintage of just 18,780 or the '47 $1 ML--just 21,135 and much cheaper than the '48.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1352 Posts |
I really have not done any research regarding the Ottawa Mint, but I have done quite a bit concerning the period when The Royal Mint produced Canadian coinage. During The Royal Mint era, the number of dies used as reported in the annual mint reports did not correlate very well to the number of dies found to have made coins dated that year. I think it's possible that the RM reported dies made during the year and labeled it as dies used. They also did not respect December 31st as the year end and sometimes continued coining into the new year with the date of the previous year, which could have also distorted the reporting of mintage figures. I am not saying that Ottawa did the same things, because I don't know, but rather that I take all mint reports with a grain of salt. I also found in studying The Royal Mint era of Canadian coinage, that it is problematic to use average numbers. Sometimes that is the best you have, but again a grain of salt is required. In studying one cent coins (what I collect) I have found through random sampling that during The Royal Mint era individual die production varied widely from the average number. I suspect the same is true during the Ottawa era. We'll never know because, given the popularity of the RE varieties a random sample of 1940 NF cents is now impossible, but the actual mintage of the 1940 RE may be well above, or well below, the average number of coins per reverse die.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Quote: We'll never know because, given the popularity of the RE varieties a random sample of 1940 NF cents is now impossible, but the actual mintage of the 1940 RE may be well above, or well below, the average number of coins per reverse die.  Good points.  Even with those mint records reporting 6 die pairs, we cannot know where the RE figures into the production run for that year.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1352 Posts |
The reason that I think Machine Doubling may be a possibility on the NF RE cents stems from two things. First the 1940 and 1941 RE cents do vary in appearance. Some only have one, or two, or three digits of the dates doubled. Could they be from different dies? Of course, but I have haven't accumulated enough of them to know. There also were not that many dies, particularly in 1940. More problematic for me is the appearance of the doubling. Low flat doubling with no delineation between the original numeral and the altered numeral looks like Machine Doubling to me. Usually on re-punched numerals there is a visible split between the original and the re-punched numeral, particularly at the serif. In the attached article Stanton describes it very well (he uses the term Strike Doubling). http://www.libertynickels.org/downl...Doubling.pdfAs for the consistent appearance over a large group of coins, I can see a scenario where a loose die in a die press is subject to the same set of forces on each cycle as the hammer die recoils. This would cause die to shift in the same direction on each strike and the dates and legends to suffer similar damage across multiple coins. The damage would vary over a large number of coins perhaps as the die became more loose. I am not saying that I know for sure that I am right, but only that I am not convinced that re-engraving or re-punching is the answer. And yes, the both the 1940 and 1941 cents pictured above are mine.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10045 Posts |
Hmmm...after discussing the subject of re-engraving with another collector and reviewing the 1940 RE cent--I have concluded there are details on this coin which could not be made by Machine Doubling, a loose die, or any striking process. Using my pic above as a reference--does anyone see anything which must have been present on the die?  After all, if we're going to discuss the subject of re-engraving, we better have nailed what's possible by strike damage--and what is not. 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1571 Posts |
Kurt, I mentioned the things that I considered re MD vs re-cut, or anything similar to Longare Doubling. I have to ag along with your thinking. Machine Doubling is , or has one thing that holds true in every case: The lateral displacement is equal, and even in the same die=rection, It doesn't wrap around the device(s).
|
| |
Replies: 18 / Views: 17,579 |