I have just finished sorting a large quantity of 5¢ coins looking for high grades and varieties.
I don't have any information on possible variations for 2010, 2011 and 2012, so I had a close look at the ones I had and found;
•All have obverse designer initials with (I)RB joined.
•Reverse designer initials on 2010 I found...
∙3 x "normal" SD
∙9 x small SD
∙2 x tiny SD
•Reverse designer initials on 2011 I found...
∙15 x small SD
∙8 x tiny SD (looks like they finally finished using up earlier style reverse dies)
•Reverse designer initials on 2012 I found...
∙6 x small SD
∙3 x tiny SD
The ones I have called "tiny" on 2011 and 2012 actually look to be fractionally larger than the tiny of previous years -about halfway between previous tiny and small in size. Under my USB microscope the approximate heights of the letters on my screen, without any magnification adjustments, were;
•normal 40mm
•small 36mm
•early tiny 30mm
•later tiny 33mm
I have posted this information in case it is of interest to anyone. I would appreciate comments on what anyone else may have noticed or links to any further information that may be available.
Jeff
The only other difference I can think of is mainly with the 2012 ones, Rev, outline either visible or not visible between the back spines, from approx 10.30 - 1.30.
Hey folks, its bad enough looking for errors on $1, 50c and 20c without worrying about 10c and 5 c pieces.
My eyes wouldn't handle it.
Very interesting Jeff. I personally don't differentiate between the normal and small as they seem to be almost the same.
For 2010 I have found 5 normal SD and 16 tiny SD.
For 2011 and 2012 I have only found tiny SD but I haven't gone through any large quantities yet.
Quote from: 'Mister T' pid='18050' dateline='1371121950'I personally don't differentiate between the normal and small as they seem to be almost the same.
I have to admit I'm with you on this. I did have a stab at it years ago, but found it was so time-consuming, and the rarity of the different sizes was so variable, it just wasn't worth the hassle.
And like Goldy says, there's so much else to worry about, even on the 5¢, that's so much more productive.
Quote from: 'Fulvio' pid='18079' dateline='1371159699'Quote from: 'Mister T' pid='18050' dateline='1371121950'I personally don't differentiate between the normal and small as they seem to be almost the same.
I have to admit I'm with you on this. I did have a stab at it years ago, but found it was so time-consuming, and the rarity of the different sizes was so variable, it just wasn't worth the hassle.
And like Goldy says, there's so much else to worry about, even on the 5¢, that's so much more productive.
I agree. It's a lot of work to put into looking at these. It's nice to have all of the varieties but I find it hard enough to see the date at times without concentrating on the detail that is even smaller.
:agreed: too small for me to worry about as well :good:
Some of the differences are okay to see. If you compare large to normal or normal to tiny when they're side by side the difference is clear enough but the small one looks pretty much the same as the normal.
One suggestion...Find a number good condition coins of any year before you try to look for varieties.
Worn, marked and/or dull coins can be virtually impossible to tell these minor differences so, pretty much a waste of time with those. Same story with 1966 mintmarks on 1¢, 2¢, 5¢ and 10¢.
Jeff
I tried that but the normal/small difference wasn't obvious enough for me.
Still, I think putting together a rough set of the different types so I have an easy way to compare is a good idea.
Quote from: 'Mister T' pid='18892' dateline='1371806353'I think putting together a rough set of the different types so I have an easy way to compare is a good idea.
Its an excellent idea. Even the best pictures don't compare with having them in your hand to study.
Jeff, do you know if the distance between the top of the echidna and the rim has changed for the later tiny SD?