here is a very interesting Canada Silver-Nickel 1385? yes, 1385?
YQQ
Posts: 3,314 ✭✭✭✭✭
Would love to get your opinions on this please.
IMO it could be a large 3 over a small 3 or small 8.
there is absolutely nothing on the field where the 3-opening on the left side meets the surface. This indicates to me that there possibly never was a 8. But please, your opinions will be much appreciated.
thanks for helping
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
3
Comments
Very cool... I would tend to agree that there never was an 8 where one would expect it.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I think that part of the 8 broke off the hub .. the hub is like a typewriter key that punches/depresses down into the working die. I don't think that it's a 3 .. and there would be no reason for it to be there.
As curious as that date is, there exists a Scottish coin struck during the reign of Queen Mary that is dated 15556!
Interesting !!!
I agree with @syl
Life member #369 of the Royal Canadian Numismatic Association
Member of Canadian Association of Token Collectors
Collector of:
Canadian coins and pre-confederation tokens
Darkside proof/mint sets dated 1960
My Ebay
She was obviously a very forward-looking Queen!
Kind regards,
George
I am just as keenly interested to know what it is and how it happened, as I think you guys are.
ok, lets assume for a moment that it could be that way as SYL suggests. You are not saying that it is Not a 3.
If part of the 8 broke off, why then is there no sort of jagged break as it would be if metal breaks because of stress
there seems to be a perfectly rounded 3 at least to what I can see. I can also not see any other metal traces on the field.
One reason I could certainly think of a couple of reasons why it could be a 3 is this:
someone goofed, perhaps someone shortsighted who could not see the difference between a 8 and a 3.
Or, someone in Quality control goofed. (if they had such a procedure back then.)
There are other QV coins known where similar date errors occured. Granted the ones I know of have been repunched and corrected. Mostly Thinking about the 1558-1858 10 cent coin.
But, do we know for sure that all have been corrected and there are none floating around which are not corrected?
I suggest that it would be very easy to overlook this date error if your mind is set on you looking on a 1858 10 cent coin and NO corrected coin is known so far or the respective collector has never heard of that error.
Could it be the same or similar with my coin.
I will try in the next few days to get a better close up of the, for now without a doubt in my mind, numeral 3.
Any other ideas or suggestions?
If someone actually punched a normal 3 instead of an 8 you'd expect it to match the style of 3 used on the 1883 or 1893 dated coins, which it does not appear to match either one. I welcome clearer close up photos, but my thinking is just a well placed grease or other crud fill.
Highly enthusiastic about world coins, contemporary circulating counterfeits and unusual stuff
See if Charlton will recognize as a variety