Options
Canada 1967 double-struck info sought
DennisH
Posts: 13,963 ✭✭✭✭✭
This year is the 50th anniversary of two of my favorite modern foreign coins -- the 1967 double-struck Canadian dollars and halves. Does anyone know of, or have a link to an article that explains how they came into being? I'm looking for information about who, what, when, how and why behind them, as well as mintages and what happened to the people who made them. Thanks in advance for any help!
When in doubt, don't.
0
Comments
John Regitko wrote 3 articles on the Diving Goose dollar over the last two years. They can be found in back issues of the Canadian Coin News.
It has been reasonably well established that this variety is the best known of the "back Door " issues by certain Employees of the Royal Canadian Mint, in cooperation with some Canadian coin dealers at the time. Mr Regitko was able to technically establish that they were almost certainly were deliberately made that way.
There were other "back door" issues made in the 1965-1970 period, including double and triple struck 1967 dollars, 1967 double struck 50 cent pieces, 1969 double struck pennies, certain 1965 proof sets, some specially packaged 1965 Type 3 and 4 dollars, and some others.
I don't think montages are known but they are probably tiny.
It is possible but nowhere near proven that the 1966 Small Beads dollar ( mintage apparently 485) could be another example . However no one I am aware of can say for sure.
None of these made it to circulation and I read somewhere that they were all in one single bag of silver dollars. I don't know whether that is true or not. Could be fake news.
RMW
the 66 SB dollar might have a plausible explanation, similar to the 47ML.
No, the 47 ML is a different situation.
1947 was the year India gained its independence from Britain. So for all future Coinage, the reference to " Et Ind Imp" ( Emperor of India, had to be removed, as the British King no longer held the title.
In early 1948 there was strong demand for currency but the dies with the reference removed were not ready. So in 1948, coins using the old dies with the old reference to Emperor of India were struck, with a 1947 date and a Maple Leaf added after the date .
This was a completely authorized striking by the Mint.
The 1967 Diving Goose and Double Struck Dollars were not an authorized issuance of the Mint, but have been accepted since then as legitimate varieties and part of a fascinating episode of Canadian Numismatic history.
Another example of the unauthorized examples from the Canadian Mint, not at all well known to the public ( 1964 Specimen Dime) will be available at auction in the fall in Toronto.
I don't know much of the background of the 66 Small Beads but I personally suspect it was a back Door striking. 485 of those were minted as opposed to millions of 1966 and 1967 dollars. It would not make sense with the gigantic demand for silver Coinage then, that such a small quantity were produced, if, say the 1967 design was not ready .
It makes sense to me that they were produced to a specific order for which regular 1966 dollars would not do. But I don't know for sure
RMW:
Thanks for letting me know about the Canadian Coin News articles. By the way, the publication has a web site, but not much of a search function, so I haven't found the articles yet and it looks like I have to buy an entire issue if/when I do.
You can call them and they might be able to help . They don't have a search function worthy of the name. I kept the issues with the articles in them but they are gone now.
John Regitko is a long time dealer in Canadian coins , who specializes in varieties. I remember one article re the 1967 Diving Goose Dollar where he went through his reasoning where he determined that they were deliberately misproduced, as opposed to just being a production error. Other articles of his mentioned the coin dealers involved with the matter.
UPDATE:
Many thanks RMW for telling me about John Regitko and his columns on the Diving Goose and Wolf coins. I managed to locate his email address and have traded a few communications with him. He has been wonderfully gracious, and provided me with copies of his back columns.
By the way, he looked at this thread and told me, "The only thing wrong about the information you received is that I was never a dealer. I was a collector in all of the 50-plus years I have been involved in the hobby." He later added, "you might mention that I used to set up at the annual club shows on occasion to sell off some of my collection."
He's a real treasure in my book and our Canadian collector friends are lucky to have him.
No problem , DennisH.
I'm glad to help out.