I have been to a coin fair this week and found, what I thought was a duplicate, but instead, I now think is a variation.
One coin has fine lettering and the other has bold lettering, one close to the edge and the other has its lettering far from the edge. Could one be the proof or are these variations?
Weight and size is the same, at 16mm. The obverse (bust) seems to have the biggest change, but the reverse text (fish) is also slightly thicker.
A first try, for the common coin (large bust) I used my own coin. What do you think? It would be better with better images, specially to see if the reverses are different?
One coin has fine lettering and the other has bold lettering, one close to the edge and the other has its lettering far from the edge.
Like the others said, it's definitely a variety. But I think you've expressed it wrong. I don't see any fine or bold lettering, but I do see small and large lettering.
Topic verplaatst naar "Coin information and questions"(ZacUK, 25-sep-2024, 19:56)
Here are my best attempt at photos I can make right now. Issue is that one is far more shiny than the other, meaning getting REALLY good photos will be difficult, my DLSR camera doesn't want to get them focussed with my current lenses.
I completely agree with Essor Prof, one type is smaller lettering and if you look closely the face is different too, the nose is a giveaway, just like the beard.
On the fish side (Reverse?), I think the letters are a different font, see the “1”, "7" in the date and the 2nd D of IndepenDence, they are more rounded in their edges. It's ever so slight, but I still find it memorable, I couldn't put my finger on it when I first compared them, it almost looked like the lettering was closer but now I think they are just a different font.
I hope these are good enough! Else I'll try again tomorrow :_)
Here are my best attempt at photos I can make right now. Issue is that one is far more shiny than the other, meaning getting REALLY good photos will be difficult, my DLSR camera doesn't want to get them focussed with my current lenses.
I completely agree with Essor Prof, one type is smaller lettering and if you look closely the face is different too, the nose is a giveaway, just like the beard.
On the fish side (Reverse?), I think the letters are a different font, see the “1”, "7" in the date and the 2nd D of IndepenDence, they are more rounded in their edges. It's ever so slight, but I still find it memorable, I couldn't put my finger on it when I first compared them, it almost looked like the lettering was closer but now I think they are just a different font.
I hope these are good enough! Else I'll try again tomorrow :_)
Many thanks in advance
– Dennis
Welp… Forgot the side-by-side comparison, maybe that helps too?
Anyway, hope this is enough solid information, let me know :-)
second coin has more differences (see back fin of fish), but looks like less detailled work than the regular coin
could it be a copy/fake?
That could always be possible, but I don't see how/why you would copy a coin that might be worth less than a dollar or two with a mintage of some 115.000. It doesn't make sense to me?
Here is my second attempt and I didn't find any differences on the reverse, except for the scripts.
In this post (https://en.numista.com/forum/topic150291.html#p1185392) you can switch between both reverses. Apart from the lesser detail, the second coin also has a backfin not touching the edge of the puddle (or whatever is behind the fish). Although this could also be due to the picture quality … just my (Seychellan) 1 cent …
Just call me Bram
No new swaps for the moment, still too many half-ongoing swaps to clean up!
Here is my second attempt and I didn't find any differences on the reverse, except for the scripts.
More comments?
Ole
Very nice, thank you very much!
Thanks to everyone for their inputs too
I’d say we are all set and I think it would be cool to see how many people might have or recognize the variation!
EDIT: One thing of note; personally I’m not really sure if the reverse text is smaller/bigger. I was trying to show the slight difference in font. with my mark 1 eyeball the size difference isn’t really noticable
Apart from the lesser detail, the second coin also has a backfin not touching the edge of the puddle (or whatever is behind the fish).
Bram, what do you mean by the backfin? The tailfin, the fin on the back (rugvin) or the fin, literally at the back (achterkant), below the tailfin? Because I don't see a difference at the fin on the back, touching or not touching the edge of that thing.
The one on the bottom back, it looks like the second one is smaller and does not touch the edge of the puddle/water. Maybe @swatdennis can check with the coins in hand as it might be a lighting issue as well:
Just call me Bram
No new swaps for the moment, still too many half-ongoing swaps to clean up!
On the left coin there is a very, very small stain that makes it so light reflects off it, so yes, that is a lighting issue! Same coins on left/right as on your comment, now turned 90* to show the little stains on said left coin
I’d say after looking for some time and it keeping me awake…
”pointy fins, rounded font” would be the most encompassing for the reverse.
Many thanks for your hard work
On the 1977, yes, the 1976 not so much.
I know, made a pretty dirty sketch but currently at my job, this is what I would say if you compared both my ‘76 coins. One has more rounded fins and ever so slightly rounded font. The other (that’s shared with the 1977 coin and the “common variant”) is more straight.
I agree with that. The difference in the obverse is clear enough to prove this is a variant. Let's not make it too complicated. Especially since members who don't collect varieties get fed up when we exaggerate.
How should I proceed? Message the moderator of the Seychelles with a modification request? Request the page to be modified on it’s own and then add a new line? This is the first time I’ve found a variation ;-)
It's best you send a message to the referee (Pcoetzee5) and ask him to unblock the year lines because I've just looked and the year lines are closed so you can't add a new year line as long the referee hasn't unblocked the year lines. You can give him the link to this topic so he knows what's it about.
Second: Go to the forum Numista Coin Catalog and ask for the opening of extra year lines for this coin. Join the link of this thread. I don't think Seychelles has a referee, but @Jarcek will certainly take of the demand.
Third: When you get the feed-back, that the year line has been added, then you just make a normal CR, using this thread as “source” and do your changes, don't forget to copy my graphic into the comments section and add “; see comments” in both year lines.
Both sub-types should be listed separately - like the 2014 20 Cents sub-types for New Zealand with the narrow & wide dates.
Aidan.
Isn't that exactly what the plan is, add a new year line to the existing page the same as was done for the 2014 20 Cent New Zealand coin? Or did you mean to create a new coin page?
Both sub-types should be listed separately - like the 2014 20 Cents sub-types for New Zealand with the narrow & wide dates.
Aidan.
Isn't that exactly what the plan is, add a new year line to the existing page the same as was done for the 2014 20 Cent New Zealand coin? Or did you mean to create a new coin page?
I wanted to add a new “year line” to the existing page, yes. It's not a new coin, it's a variation of the same coin.
Personally, I find the 20 Cents Australia page to be overly, and EXTREMELY cluttered; with each BU/proof set having their own line… It would be nice if you could also sort them in "main years” and “added variations”
So you'd have a sort of “sub” category or something like that.
Some coins have documented proof coinage, some don't
Meaning, you can't really get the double sharp on some coins…
But yeah, there's a full exonumia page dedicated to pattern coins, yet they are also there in the main “coins” page, so who am I?
This was a great find. At first the smaller bust looked almost as a proof coin but proofs are very well executed on these and extremely frosted. However, after now more than a year I couldn't find an image of any other example with small bust. Why this die is so rare? Could it really be fake? I am not pointing fingers and indeed all of you did great work here, such research make our community so much better, but I am puzzled a bit with this one Edit: Found one on a Russian sales platform. Which only adds to the uncertainty…
This was a great find. At first the smaller bust looked almost as a proof coin but proofs are very well executed on these and extremely frosted. However, after now more than a year I couldn't find an image of any other example with small bust. Why this die is so rare? Could it really be fake? I am not pointing fingers and indeed all of you did great work here, such research make our community so much better, but I am puzzled a bit with this one Edit: Found one on a Russian sales platform. Which only adds to the uncertainty…
As the OP of this post; I randomly came across this coin on a fair for 50 cents. The thing is; I knew I already had it and didn’t notice that it could’ve been a variety.
I just wanted another one to swap with fellow Numista members. Then I compared it to the one I already had; and noticed the differences.
As stated before, I wouldn’t know why someone would go out of their way to fake a coin that’s worth less than a Euro. Sure. Everything is possible; but I just don’t see the point?
I understand, however what's the point of faking non existing (new dates) 1 and 2 kopek or 2 cents 2006 from Solomon Islands, they come in about the same or even cheaper. And stylistically it reminds me so much of that Solomon Islands. I don't know…evberything's possible
