Canada: 5 cents 1965 to 1981, strange year lines

N#401

Look at the beginning

The km# is not given on the year lines.

A (C) is in the year lines indicating that the mintage is included in the mintage of the circulation coin.

For the 1965 the year lines are not corresponding to actual variants of the 1965 coins

  1 small beads (119 beads)

  2 large beads (138 beads)

  3 fully attached jewel

  4 lightly attached jewel

  5 detached jewel

The 3-5 might be considered die errors?

The km#60.1 is used for the coins from 1965-1978 (large bust of the Queen?) as for the 1 cent coin.

The km#60.2 is used for the coins from 1979-1981 (small bust of the Queen?) as for the 1 cent coin.

SCWC does NOT mention Proof like coins!

Questions:

1. should we change the year lines to eliminate the (C)

2. should we add the km# in each year line?

3. should we eliminate the “proof like” year lines?

4. should we put the actual 5 variants in the year lines?

To help with the decision taking

Comments please?

I think this coin page was a causality of a previous referee.  Here's a screen shot of the year lines from March 2023. No year lines for surface finishes.

Yeah, sometimes referees can really mess good things up and the former referees surely did. Those year lines seem good. What about these 3 “variants”, which the former referee refers too as detached beads….?

I'm doing Canada from A to Z, but I'm only in the 5 cents at the moment; I started with the one cent coins. I'll probably find quite a few other strange pages.

The year lines for 1977 are not much better. A real mishmash of things.

It's true there are two variants with high “7” and low “7” (the normal), but if you want to add the length of the denticles into it, you have to be consequent. Here is my old graphic:

Here is the graphic from Saskatoon, where you can see the denticle differences (really minimal), but they are not mentioned, so I don't believe we should either?

Do you look after the year line changes and I'll do the graphics as usual?

Sure. Haven’t had time yet to look at these graphics but will when I get a chance. Have you communicated with the current referee?  
 

This should be helpful. https://en.numista.com/forum/topic149970.html#p1183288

No I haven't as such, but he seems to be OK:

I changed my graphic 1977

I think we should be careful not to overdo it. Here are the two pictures of your documentation side by side. They are already quite enlarged (click on them). Can anyone tell the difference? Without taking pictures of them, putting them on the computer and drawing lines?

I certainly don't want to take away from the work of our friends over in Canada and your documentation, but I think it's a bit over the top. This isn't a variety I'm going to look for I think.

Please notice I didn't ask for year lines. I'm completely agreeing with you. It's just information. 

I have a feeling that any variety that is listed in coinsandcanada that is not in Numista will upset many members.  

I suppose the mother die was 197 and when the last 7 was worn on the daughter die, the mother die was again used and the worker added a new 7 on the daughter die, thus the differences. Like with the USA mint marks…. so no year line, but an explanation of why not?

Sjoelund

I suppose the mother die was 197 and when the last 7 was worn on the daughter die, the mother die was again used and the worker added a new 7 on the daughter die, thus the differences. Like with the USA mint marks…. so no year line, but an explanation of why not?

And this 1977 year line?  High 7, short denticles

I think you'll need to get the referee's buy-in before deleting any year line. On the 1977s are we talking about this?

Or the pre-2023 page like this?

If any, let's skip the 7's (not seeable, not measurable) and go for the denticles, but I'm not sure, if that's possible to prove that is a consistent difference? I'll look into that tomorrow.

In the meantime you have hours to look at this, tell me if you prefer it to the other?

Seems to be a common difference, short winning out?

You'll need to find high 7/long denticles if you want to show all three 1977 varieties (excluding the specimen and BU lines).

Easier said than done. I have no idea if the two “variants” (high and low) and (large and small denticles) are linked. When I see a 1977 coin on the internet, I can only see the denticles, but I get no idea if the 77 are on the same level or not. Even those coins postulating to be one or the other I can not verify. 

Low 7: short denticles

High 7: short denticles

High 7: long denticles?

Low 7: short denticles?

AT https://www.ebay.fr/str/Chez-La-Loutre, I found this with a viable explanation:

at least it confirms that the high 7 has two different types of denticles from 1996 (long) or from 1998 (short). Up to you, but you're right saying that we can not neglect the people collecting Canadian style, so we have to show, what they have in their collections.

I didn't think it would be easy but looking at the frequencies there's 7 times more high 7/ long denticles than there are high 7 / short denticles. The fact that you have trouble finding one of each and really aren't sure when you think you found them speaks volumes.  Coinsandcanada only mentions two 1977 varieties (nothing on denticles) so do we delete one of the 1977 high 7 year lines.

I think we have to get one of the Canadian coin expert members on board for their opinions.

I couldn't agree, more. @Limbru might be able to help?

Yes and I was also thinking of @Big Mac and of course the referee @StoneTemple123 

Please note: some varieties have been withdrawn from the Canadian Catalogues. You reference the KM but for us this is not a good reference because their reference is not always up to date.

We have High 7 and Low 7, but the long and short denticles have been removed as a reference for the 1977 5 cents. Don't ask me why I don't know!

My references come from: https://canadiancoinnews.com/
from the Charlton Catalogue and the Haxby.

I will soon receive a new book on types, varieties and errors on all coins with the queen.

Merci Sjoelund pour ton travail, mais le Canada a 2 langues : anglais mais aussi le français. Comme tu peux le voir, je suis moi-même francophone. SVP peux-tu ajouter tes références en français aussi. Pose la question aux vendeurs sur eBay et les ¾ des acheteurs viennent du Québec, pour les pièces canadiennes, et le Québec est francophone. Je dis cela parce que je vois que tu habites en France.

StoneTemple123

Merci Sjoelund pour ton travail, mais le Canada a 2 langues : anglais mais aussi le français. Comme tu peux le voir, je suis moi-même francophone. SVP peux-tu ajouter tes références en français aussi. Pose la question aux vendeurs sur eBay et les ¾ des acheteurs viennent du Québec, pour les pièces canadiennes, et le Québec est francophone. Je dis cela parce que je vois que tu habites en France.

Bonjour StoneTemple123,

je sais, que Canada a deux langues. J'ai essayé depuis des années de tenir mes documentations en plusieurs langues, mais ça me coûtait vraiment trop de travail. L'anglais est la langue le plus répandu dans notre hobby, donc je vais continuer de faire les graphiques en anglais uniquement.

Je ne connais pas beaucoup d'experts concernant les pièces du Canada, donc c'est difficile de prendre contact avec quelqu'un que tu ne connais pas. Si tu peux me donner des contacts, je le contacterais avec plaisir.

Bonne journée à toi

Ole

So in the end we do nothing and I just add my graphics to the comment's section?

I think so. The referee should clean up the year line comments if they no longer are valid in the Canadian catalogs.