1899 Cent Obviously Different...

I just sold one where the first 9 was narrow and the second nine was wide ? so who knows

The numbers are more narrow at the top of a newly minted coin than at the base. If you wear off the thinner top it gives the illusion that the numbers are thicker. Even basic (but decent) micro calipers will tell the tale to your satisfaction.

Easiest way is to scan the coins at the same resolution and do a semi transparent overlay in contrasting colours.

well... in this situation, the coin was pushed in from an outside force, the surface flattened, and then spread out.

if you flatten a play doh ball, it gets wider and thinner, this is exactly what happened on this coin.

JMHO

yes, yes... BUT I do not believe that the base dimension can change.
Metal does not simply change base dimensions because the top is worn off.
AND, lets assume for a moment that it is fairly even wear.
How do you explain that the inside dimensions change, even at the base?
just use a simple ruler and check the 9s, the insides.

unless one of them is another year, I am comparing two coins of the same year where the insides of the numbers are of different sizes. ONLY the inside dimensions....

hhbkiddo,

First on coin wear; since the digits are beveled they seem to "widen" as they wear. Your top picture is an excellent example of this. 1859 has an over abundance of worn coins labeled "Wide 9" as people have assumed that they are different than an narrow 9 when in fact it is often wear and not a W9/8. Don't put out money for a coin labeled W9 unless you are sure it is a W9/8 and not just wear.

Second on the 9's; The last 9 is your variable here at the working die level, the other numbers came from the matrix. According to J.C. Levesque, "A Review of Mintages & Dies of Canadian and Newfoundland Coins from 1884-1912" there were 16 working reverse dies used that year. I'm not sure if the number is exact but it is probably close. That gives 16 possibilities that a different font 9 is used from the first 9 in the matrix. Also possibilities exist for date spacing issues, high, low, tilted etc for the last 9. I'm not saying that there are these varieties with 1899 but since the last digit was hand punched into the working dies it creates possibilities. Your bottom picture is a good example of a delicate 9 that is more open. There are also thicker 9's that are more closed. Clearly at least 2 different font 9's were used on the final 9 for that year. A better comparison would be coins of about the same grade and wear, looking at the differences in the final 9.

Pick up a copy of "Dies and Diadems" by Rob Turner. He covers an abundance of material that answers most of the questions you ask on date spacing, number fonts, beveled wear, overpunching, reengraving and the like. He lays out the complete punch/matrix structure for Victorian Large Cents. If you have an interest in this type of thing, the book is well work the price.

Dan, very excellent and very interesting. And a very realistic explanation.
had a discussion with another member who explained that metal flows with time and wear.
that could also be a possibility here.
BUT if we have a change caused by metal flow, all digits would have to change dimensions relatively equal. AND metal would not only "flow" in one direction, but in all directions. And this is not the case here, as the base dimensions would also have to change.
so we are back to your explanation.
Lets assume it is so.
The obvious question then is:
Why is it not recognized as a variety, as there must obviously be more than just ONE?