I am in possession of a 1961 South African 20-cent coin that has the outer par of it's Protea flower obliterated and part of its date on the obverse side also obliterated in what I consider to be a minting anomaly. Can anyone confirm this and give expert assessment of the coin's potential value or grading prospects. Thank you in advance
Thank you guys for your insights. I have taken note. I will await more replies if any so I can consolidate and make up my mind on the way forward. I have another stash with similar anomalies, a different denomination, minted in the same year, that I will upload tomorrow when I shall have received the other replies. Thank you again
Subject: Introducing the Tilted Twenty-Three – 1961 SA 20c Anomaly Series
Hi fellow collectors and researchers,
Over the past few months I’ve been documenting a cluster of 1961 South African 20-cent coins that share unusual characteristics—most notably design misalignments, obverse anomalies, and rim inconsistencies. After careful cataloguing, I’ve compiled what I’m calling the Tilted Twenty-Three: a group of 23 coins exhibiting strikingly similar minting deviations.
I have related photos which I will share in a separate post with key anomalies highlighted for clarity (happy to provide more upon request). I’d be very interested to hear your thoughts—whether you’ve come across similar traits in your own collections or can offer insight into potential mint-related causes.
I’m fully aware that many anomalies turn out to be minor or common… but in this case, the consistency across so many coins suggests a more systemic origin. All feedback—skeptical, supportive, or somewhere in between—is welcome. I’m here to learn from the wisdom this community has to offer.
It will help us to appreciate what you are showing if you crop your photos.
“Struck through grease” will give weak or missing features on a coin that are inconsistent with the amount of wear on the coin. It could reflect on inadequate cleaning/maintenance practices at the minting facility, so it could show up over a period of time, and would look different on each coin.
For different date position in relation to the coat of arms, this is not an error, it is die variation (two different dies). Here is a aside-by-side comparison, which tends to support a small difference.
Thank tdziemia. I have taken note of your input and will oblige accordingly. I must add though that the distance discrepancy that convinced me of a tilt of the coat of arms is one measure verticall from the edge of the base of the coat of arms on the left to the rim compared t th vertica distanc fro its right hand side edge to the rim. The former distance is noticeably shorter than the latter which indicates a definite tilt to the left. I did not make any measurements to or from the date. Please take note
Title: Sequel to 1961 20c Anomaly – The Metal and the Moment
Hi all,
This follows my earlier post on the 1961 SA 20c anomaly—softened date, muted protea bloom. I’d now like to frame it within the year’s bigger context.
1961 wasn’t just political—it was numismatic rebirth. South Africa launched its first decimalized coinage, replacing pounds and shillings with rand and cents. This 20c coin is one of the first-borns of that republic—designed to mark order, but possibly carrying the fingerprints of strain.
That same year: - The Queen was removed from South African coinage—symbolic erasure of British oversight. - Liberation movements were banned, and armed struggle ignited. - The Broederbond’s grip quietly solidified across public institutions—including, arguably, the mint.
So when this early decimal coin shows partial erasure, it raises the question: is it minting fatigue—or the metal reflecting the moment it was born into?
Open to thoughts, especially from those with a sense of how history and metal sometimes meet.
All this stories do not hide the fact, this coins are NOT from 1961! This nickel coins came in 1965. Look at 1961(maybe here in our valuated catalogue) and you will see some difference…
Thank you very much rsirian1. I've just visited the page and I can positivel confirm its relevance and rich historical narrative it contain where South African coins are concerned.
Yes you are right. I have only posted about one 1961 coin that is a 20-cent. The others that I have posted about are also 20-cent but were minted in 1985 and I have stated that fact clearly in my posts so that is why I'm struggling to follow your narrative. Only one of the coins I have posted about was minted in 1961. At least that is what the partly obliterated date on the coin indicates.
I don’t get this post, the 20c photographed (on the very first post) has the date 1966 on it - not 1961 or 1965!
This 20c coin wasn’t minted in 1961, but in 1965, of which the OP took a picture of one from 1966 - all under the title 1961 20cent… then when yvon points this out, the OP doubles down it is from 1961 - even though this is impossible.
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
If the point of the thread is to get feedback on possible error coins, what's most important is for clear, appropriately cropped pictures to be posted.
Let's see what else shows up.
Meanwhile, yes, the original poster might make the title more accurate by editing it to something like “Request for Numismatic Assessment of 1960s South Africa 20-cent coins” if that covers all the coins that will be mentioned.
Thank you everyone for your invaluable inputs. They are much appreciated. I have taken note of the concerns and I will arrange tomorrow for clearer pictures to be taken and cropped as per request. Please pardon me for not having had the foresight to crop the picture, I erroneously assumed that the picture was capable of enlargement in most gadgets. Please accept my sincere apologies
After a more careful re-examination of the coin in question, I must humbly correct my earlier assertion. The date on the 20c coin we previously identified as 1961 is, in fact, 1966. The misreading occurred due to viewing the coin upside-down and under poor light conditions, which produced a reversed illusion of “9961.” I take full responsibility for the error.
The obliteration of part of the date on the obverse side and the partial obliteration of the protea flower on the reverse side remain legitimate anomalis, but we retract any claims made in relation to the 1961 context. I deeply apologize for the oversight and thank every member who engaged honestly, critically, and respectfully.
Your insights continue to shape the evolution of the Tilted Archive—and for that, I’m truly grateful.
With respect, Potlako1 – Tilted Archive Initiative
Thanks for your apologise, but to me the story becomes even more weird; how will you confuse ‘9961’ with an ‘upside-down 1961’??? to be honest it is beyond my inmagination. More over the one is not just one I but like 1 with a hook and a foot, to say it like that. One thing is for sure this coin will not pay for your retirement. And again please put some GOOD pictures so we can see what you are talking about.
