Chickless? I think so.

0john0

Just grabbed this 1942 Irish penny on my visit to the coin store today. It is well worn, but I think it is an example of the chickless variety error.

Here is my coin.


and here is an example from the IrishCoinage.com website of a normal and chickless penny:



If it is the error I got it for 1/6 of the catalog value. Meaning I paid 50 cents for a three dollar coin. My coin looks like a AVF-20 to VF-30 or so, I think.
-john

wybrit

Cool find. For a minute I thought the topic of the thread referred to the typical fate of the male coin collector.

cacheman

Chicklets?

Lloyd

John
With the chickless varieties in higher grade can the body of the chick be made out under strong magnification or is it completely missing?

Never seen one in the hand before...

Lloyd

lordmarcovan

I never specialized enough in the Irish stuff to get into those, though I have heard of the variety. Interesting.

I suppose it was a similar process to the one that created the Liteside 1937-D "3-legged" Buffalo nickel variety?

0john0

from what I have read the body of the second chick is usually totally missing and cannot be seen under magnification. Some of the third chick's beak is also missing. However, varieties occur from different master dies, so the 1942, 1948 (reported but unconfirmed) and 1968 chickless may not all be the same.

"The error at first glance looks like a filled die problem, however the die is different in other areas, most noticeable in the shape of the arrow head in the hen's claw."

In hand this coin seems to clearly lack the chick.
-john

lordmarcovan

<< <i>For a minute I thought the topic of the thread referred to the typical fate of the male coin collector. >>



Sad but true! Lucky for me I'm married!