Home› World & Ancient Coins Forum

help - moden Canaidan dollar mintage

icollecticollect Posts: 83
in World & Ancient Coins Forum
For the 1992 "The 125th anniversary of Confederation" Canadian dollar, I can find the mintage of MS and PR, but just can't get the PL's. Does anyone know about it?

1992 - The 125th anniversary of Confederation

Comments

  • shirohniichanshirohniichan Posts: 4,992 ✭✭✭
    You have stumbled upon a confusing aspect of the Royal Canadian MInt's dollar production.

    "Proof-likes" were discontinued in 1980 and replaced by "brilliant uncirculated" coins with an improved finish in 1981.

    Here is a quote from my just-finished article on Canadian dollars:

    "Two versions of nickel-bronze dollars appeared in 1992, and both celebrated the 125th anniversary of the Canadian Confederation. One struck for circulation and numismatic sets pictured the loon with the 1867-1992 double date on the reverse, and another made for circulation and individually cased proofs had the double date on the obverse and a picture of Parliament on the reverse."

    There were no Parliament dollars struck for brilliant uncirculated sets that year, only as circulation strikes and individually cased proofs.
    image
    Obscurum per obscurius
  • icollecticollect Posts: 83


    << <i>There were no Parliament dollars struck for brilliant uncirculated sets that year, only as circulation strikes and individually cased proofs. >>



    That's exactly what I thought before I got one of these PL Parliament dollar. I'll try to upload some pictures when I got home.
  • icollecticollect Posts: 83
    ok, here's the picture. The left one is the best MS version I can find so far.

    image

    When I bought it form a dealer, it was labeled as PL. And that's why it brought my attention to it.
  • shirohniichanshirohniichan Posts: 4,992 ✭✭✭
    Hmmm... either the coin on the right is a circulation strike or Charlton is wrong. image

    Charlton's and the RCM's use of the term "brilliant uncirculated" can cause confusion since they use it to refer to coins for annual uncirculated coins sets for collectors. "Proof-like" used for any coin after 1980 is a misnomer, but it's easier to understand as a numismatic coin and to not confuse with a "brilliant uncirculated" circulation strike.
    image
    Obscurum per obscurius
  • SpinynormanSpinynorman Posts: 603 ✭✭
    I've never bought into Charlton's (or was it's the RCM's?) decision that the PLs ended in 1980. In looking at my date run of 5 cents that came from "mint sets", there is no difference from the 1980 to the 1981 and beyond. The same differences are still there, though, from the coins that were actually intended to circulate. Plus, how would you classify the strike of these that they did starting in 1996? They certainly aren't circulation strikes.

    image
    image
    imageimageimage
  • oldshepoldshep Posts: 3,240 ✭
    Steve - neat looking Canadian nickel!!
    Shep
    image
  • SpinynormanSpinynorman Posts: 603 ✭✭
    Hi John. How's it going?
    image
    imageimageimage
  • shirohniichanshirohniichan Posts: 4,992 ✭✭✭


    << <i>I've never bought into Charlton's (or was it's the RCM's?) decision that the PLs ended in 1980. In looking at my date run of 5 cents that came from "mint sets", there is no difference from the 1980 to the 1981 and beyond. The same differences are still there, though, from the coins that were actually intended to circulate. Plus, how would you classify the strike of these that they did starting in 1996? They certainly aren't circulation strikes. >>



    I guess the RCM said it struck numismatic brilliant uncirculated coins differently from 1981 on, so Charlton applied the term "brilliant uncirculated" to them. The RCM has always called them "brilliant uncirculated." I would like to know just how different the minting process is if the results are indistinguishable to collectors.
    image
    Obscurum per obscurius
  • SpinynormanSpinynorman Posts: 603 ✭✭


    << <i>I would like to know just how different the minting process is if the results are indistinguishable to collectors. >>



    Me too. I know most of the dealers continue to call the post 1980 mint set coins PL and price them differently than circulation strikes. Does anyone know if ICCS or PCGS is designating them as PL or MS?
    image
    imageimageimage
  • shirohniichanshirohniichan Posts: 4,992 ✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>I would like to know just how different the minting process is if the results are indistinguishable to collectors. >>



    Me too. I know most of the dealers continue to call the post 1980 mint set coins PL and price them differently than circulation strikes. Does anyone know if ICCS or PCGS is designating them as PL or MS? >>



    Proof-likes and "Brilliant Uncirculated" coins are different from circulation strikes. They are struck on slower moving machinery and handled more carefully so they don't get as banged up as circulation strikes. PCGS calls post 1980 coins "PL" though they should be "BU" (not "MS").
    image
    Obscurum per obscurius
  • SpinynormanSpinynorman Posts: 603 ✭✭
    Well, if they ever adopt that designation, I'll have to put a little rub on one of my coins so I can have a BU58. imageimage
    image
    imageimageimage
  • icollecticollect Posts: 83
    PL or BU, it just a matter of the name. Let's back to my original question, since "there were no Parliament dollars struck for brilliant uncirculated sets that year, only as circulation strikes and individually cased proofs", then what is the coin that I got?
  • SpinynormanSpinynorman Posts: 603 ✭✭
    I'd have to go with a very nice early circulation stike that has the look of a PL.

    Both of those are great, btw! There doesn't seem to be a lot of good ones out there.
    image
    imageimageimage
Sign In or Register to comment.