| Author |
 Replies: 26 / Views: 15,671 |
|
Valued Member
Canada
426 Posts |
I'm starting to go crosseyed looking at my little collection of 1980 dimes for the wide and narrow 0 varieties. My charlton seems to suggest the wide 0 is rarer (at least giving it the higher value), but it seems all I'm finding are the wide 0's and non of the narrow 0's. How common are each of the varieties? Charlton unfortunately doesn't break that down. Edited by splatto
05/10/2010 9:43 pm
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
287 Posts |
Since receiving my latest version of the Charlton guide, I too have been saving every 1980 dime I find. I have literally scanned, photographed, and otherwise examined over 100 of these coins. My wife was getting a bit annoyed as I often included her in the process. I finally found one or two that helped to determine the difference for me.
The zero of the narrow variety seems to flatten with wear and looks quite like the wide zero variety (at least to me anyways). I found the top center of the zero is a lot thinner than the wide zero. If you have a coin with little to no wear and the top of the zero if fat, then you have a winner.
|
|
Valued Member
 Canada
426 Posts |
Quote:
Since receiving my latest version of the Charlton guide, I too have been saving every 1980 dime I find. Is this a newly discovered variety? I've just started to get back into collecting after stopping in about 1994. Are you able to post pictures of both? I have the Charlton pictures but my eyes always find it difficult to relate the printed picture from the coin in hand. Edited by splatto
05/09/2010 9:20 pm
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
306 Posts |
hi splatto  |
|
Valued Member
Canada
287 Posts |
I bought the prestige set so I can take a picutre of the narrow dime tonight when I get home from work. As for the wide, I'm not sure that I have one in good enough condition to absolutely qualify it as a wide 0. I'll go through roll I saved and see what I can find. I do know that I've two open spots in my dime collection book where the 1980's are supposed to be, waiting for mint state samples of each variety.
I had the 2005 Charlton and this variety was not included in it. Most people I have spoken to about it had not heard of the variety either. There was a couple of new varieties in this latest book, including one for the 1948 fifty cent piece.
If you wish to give your eyes a real challenge, check out the 1996 near and far nickels. I've given up and I just save them all for now.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
287 Posts |
Nice pictures castor. Thank you, as it shows that I've been looking at them all wrong. I'm glad I didn't toss them out. I'll have to revisit that roll again.
The wide one just looks like a worn version of the bottom one, but it definitely is fatter over all. I thought only the '0' was different.
Edited by rikcando
05/10/2010 08:57 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
9163 Posts |
It looks like all the letters in CANADA are fatter in the top one, would that be another way to look at it ?
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
426 Posts |
mcshilling - It looks to me the letters were double struck or something on the wide-0 variety. I'm not sure what that is actually called so perhaps someone else could chime in. rikcando - I actually found the 1996 near/far not too hard to identify. I personally find it incredibly hard to identify varieties, even when I know what I'm looking for, until I see a picture of the coins (Charlton pics don't really help me). https://goccf.com/t/63321Here's a question for you. Many of my 1980 dimes have a 9 that curls back upward , whereas both of these seem to curl down and left. If I recall correctly the image from Charlton also shows one curling upwards (I don't have my copy here with me or else I'd check). Can anyone speak to this? |
|
Valued Member
Canada
287 Posts |
Uh, castor, those are nickels (5 cents). I guess I am really wrong as I thought he was discussing dimes (10 cents).
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
287 Posts |
Just in case it was actually the 1980 Wide/Narrow '0' Dime that was in question, here is a few pictures of my proof dime, and 30 different circulation dimes, all 1980. Feel free to copy any of the photos for documentation or discussion purposes. Pardon my photo taking capabilities as my eyes are getting on in age and it was done completely with a hand held camera using manual focus. http://s649.photobucket.com/albums/...980%20dimes/Edited by rikcando
05/10/2010 5:36 pm
|
|
Valued Member
423 Posts |
Off topic: Is there really a wide and narrow 1980 nickel? I never heard/knew about it. Is it just worn down?
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
426 Posts |
darn...I completely ruined this topic when I said nickle. I definitely meant the dime. I didn't realize there was a variety in the nickle too. Looks much easier to see than the dime. Thanks for that info castor.
Are there any other tips for looking for the dime varieties?
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
287 Posts |
I looked over the pictures again this morning and I think #4 and #5 show a reasonable difference. What I see there is a rounder interior circle on #5. The interior of #4 is more of a pronounced vertical oval. The curves of the interior on #4 are tighter. The top arc of #4 is thinner. Agreed, #5 is worn, but the thickness appears more than the wear would provide for.
I also noticed the shape of the bottom circle on the '8' is different, with #5 being more oval horizontally.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
426 Posts |
In #5, the '0' looks to be hanging a bit, whereas with #4 it is on the same level with the other numbers.
Further, #5 shows the circular part of the '9' with the same thickness around, whereas #4 has a more oval centre, with the rounded part thinning out in the top and bottom. The bottom of the '9' in #5 also curves upward a bit (as I described above).
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
838 Posts |
This topic inspired me to buy 20 rolls of dimes yesterday. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the narrow date variety of 1980. The difference is fairly clear from the pics on here: simply inspect the tail of the "9". Out of nearly 50 searched in my life as a coin collector, I've never found a narrow example. Quote:
My charlton seems to suggest the wide 0 is rarer (at least giving it the higher value) Guys (and gals) -- don't listen to the Charlton on values of these varieties. They must usually just make a wild guess. For instance, the 1977 low-7 nickel is dead-easy to find. But Charlton (at least my older edition) makes it look like some kind of a key date. I actually smell a conspiracy... dealers must love the idea of charging big $$ for pocket change. I'll gladly sell all my bold date 1980 dimes for half of Charlton's prices, and gladly buy the narrow date for 10x its listed price. A bit off-topic, but for what it's worth: I found one silver (1962), one tough date (1970), and exactly one full roll in total of Roosevelts. No jackpot (2000P or 1969 large date). One thing I noticed is that older dates (even 1970s - 80s) seem to vanish much more rapidy with dimes than cents or nickels. |
|
Valued Member
Canada
426 Posts |
Quote:
One thing I noticed is that older dates (even 1970s - 80s) seem to vanish much more rapidy with dimes than cents or nickels. I've noticed that too. I went through a box (50 rolls) of dimes and found maybe a hundred from the 70s, 300 from the 80's, and the rest were newer. The clear majority were post 2000. Some of the 2001 volunteer dime's had the die break error mentioned here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dime_(...otable_dates . I didn't find any silver but I also found a single 1970 (In 6 boxes of nickles I haven't found a 1970) I have all my 68/69's in one cup and my 80's in another cup. I have an eye thing going on, when it's cleared up I hope to examine them closer for varieties |
| |
Replies: 26 / Views: 15,671 |
Posted 05/09/2010 9:20 pm
