Does anyone have any pictures of the two different obverse die varieties on the 1999 $1 and $2? I've heard lots of discussion about them online, but I've never been able to distinguish them for myself. Any help would be much appreciated, because I'd like to throw some of these coins back into the pond. :)
Three $1 sizes, not two.
Pretty sure this is Feathers' page which describes the variations.
http://www.thesandpit.net/index.php?option=1999dollar (http://www.thesandpit.net/index.php?option=1999dollar)
Quote from: 'Unicorn' pid='99802' dateline='1476159662'Pretty sure this is Feathers' page which describes the variations.
http://www.thesandpit.net/index.php?option=1999dollar (http://www.thesandpit.net/index.php?option=1999dollar)
Thanks, Unicorn. Is there are similar page for the 1999 $2?
I don't think there's a similar page for the $2 coin but the only way I could figure them was to save all the ones I found and then have close look when I had saved up a lot. The text far from rim is about 10% of the mintage.
Quote from: 'Mister T' pid='99822' dateline='1476183957'I don't think there's a similar page for the $2 coin but the only way I could figure them was to save all the ones I found and then have close look when I had saved up a lot. The text far from rim is about 10% of the mintage.
Thanks, Mister T. I looked at six of them under the microscope this afternoon, but I felt like pulling my hair out, because they all looked identical. I'll take a look at the others to see what I find. I have almost 400 of them saved up, so I've got plenty to analyse, but 400 $2 coins are worth $800 in total, and I'd like to free up this money for other things. :winkextra:
400 geez... I had maybe 50. It's hard because the 1999 $1 and $2 coins seem to be not so well struck in general and the rim is usually pretty rough but I just put one under a microscope and kept putting a different one next to it until there was one were the gap between the text and the rim was different.
Quote from: 'Mister T' pid='99869' dateline='1476268303'400 geez... I had maybe 50. It's hard because the 1999 $1 and $2 coins seem to be not so well struck in general and the rim is usually pretty rough but I just put one under a microscope and kept putting a different one next to it until there was one were the gap between the text and the rim was different.
I reckon it would have been easier back when they were first released. They're just so heavily worn now that they all look the same! :(
[attachment=3557][attachment=3556]
These are two of my coins. The coin with the text closer to the rim appears to have a sloping edge to the rim itself. Whether this is characteristic of the coins with the closer text or whether it the result of the minting process is uncertain. It is definitely the rim and not a shadow.
Quote from: 'eccentric' pid='99885' dateline='1476313364'These are two of my coins. The coin with the text closer to the rim appears to have a sloping edge to the rim itself. Whether this is characteristic of the coins with the closer text or whether it the result of the minting process is uncertain. It is definitely the rim and not a shadow.
Are they $1 or $2 coins? The reason I ask is that I don't recall the $2 having different obverses, but there are a lot of things I don't recall. :angel:
Sorry - should have mentioned that. They are $2 coins. However, the text being closer to the rim might just be a slightly off-centre strike and not a different die. I'll check my other coins and see if this is repeated anywhere.
[attachment=3558]
I have eight UNC 1999 $2. Six show the text further from the rim and two have closer text. This is the second example of the closer text that I have. You can see that it has the same rim configuration as the other closer text coin. As mentioned before - whether these are from a different die, or whether the variation is caused by the minting process is a moot point.
Quote from: 'eccentric' pid='99889' dateline='1476316189'might just be a slightly off-centre strike and not a different die.
Huh? How does that work? If it was off-centre, the rim would be thicker on one side, but the distance from the lettering to the rim would stay constant. Unless of course it was massively off-centre and there was no rim, but that would make it a valuable rarity. :angel:
You're quite right. On examination, there is no rim differentiation. So either it is a weaker strike that hasn't pushed the metal out to properly form the rim, or it is a different die. I seem to recall someone (emu666?) mentioning this bevelled rim with regard to a possible weaker strike on another coin but can't remember which one.
Quote from: 'eccentric' pid='99903' dateline='1476343402'I seem to recall someone (emu666?) mentioning this bevelled rim with regard to a possible weaker strike on another coin but can't remember which one.
Its a discussion we've had a few times. With no definitive answer as I recall. These funny bevels are quite common with $1 coins. Notably 1984. And I really wish I knew what caused them, because I reckon they SHOULD be collectible.
Quote from: 'eccentric' pid='99885' dateline='1476313364'These are two of my coins. The coin with the text closer to the rim appears to have a sloping edge to the rim itself. Whether this is characteristic of the coins with the closer text or whether it the result of the minting process is uncertain. It is definitely the rim and not a shadow.
Nice - none of mine look that good.
I think I measured the distance at multiple places around the rim to make sure it was really different.
From a practical perspective, how do you decide which 1999 $1 coin has which obverse? I've got a bunch of them sitting in front of me, and they're doing my head in.
Quote from: 'Hercules' pid='100502' dateline='1477620409'From a practical perspective, how do you decide which 1999 $1 coin has which obverse? I've got a bunch of them sitting in front of me, and they're doing my head in.
With the large Obv, the legend is very close to the Rim, and with the small Obv there is a noticeable gap between the legend and the rim.
There should be some piccies on here somewhere.
Quote from: 'Nevol' pid='100503' dateline='1477621013'Quote from: 'Hercules' pid='100502' dateline='1477620409'From a practical perspective, how do you decide which 1999 $1 coin has which obverse? I've got a bunch of them sitting in front of me, and they're doing my head in.
With the large Obv, the legend is very close to the Rim, and with the small Obv there is a noticeable gap between the legend and the rim.
There should be some piccies on here somewhere.
In a previous thread that dealt with this subject, same link to the article on Emu's page:
https://www.australian-coins.net/showthread.php?tid=2071
http://www.thesandpit.net/index.php?option=1999dollar
Quote from: 'Hercules' pid='100502' dateline='1477620409'From a practical perspective, how do you decide which 1999 $1 coin has which obverse? I've got a bunch of them sitting in front of me, and they're doing my head in.
Just to be clear, here's the piccy from that page:
(http://www.thesandpit.net/sandpit_images/1999ALL.JPG)
Yes, its a small difference. Nowhere near as pronounced as say the 2003 Suffragettes. But its still a difference. ;)
You must have better eyesight than I have, because I can barely see these differences. I'm going to stick them under a microscope to see if that helps.
Heh, I have terrible eyesight. Since the cataract surgeries I can't focus at all (which is why I had one lens set 2.5 diopters short-sighted, but I digress...).
But what I DO have is a USB scope. Makes it MUCH easier. ;)
I've just done 6, and they all look like the 2nd one. Does anyone have any actual stats regarding their frequencies in circulation?
Again, taken from Emu's site:
Three distinct sized obverses were used for the new Ian Rank-Broadley design. The medium sized obverse accounts for most of the mintage. The small obverse is uncommon but can be found in high grade (and in mint sets). The large is scarce, and rare in high grade. The lettering on the large obverse almost runs into the rim.
Thanks, Nevol. I've now checked 16 coins, and there's only one that looks like it may be a small obverse. I haven't found the large obverse at all yet, but I'll keep looking.
Quote from: 'Hercules' pid='100513' dateline='1477623203'Does anyone have any actual stats regarding their frequencies in circulation?
One day I'll get motivated enough to go through the bucket of them I have (none escape my clutches, for now), and come up with some stats.
No seriously... stop laughing... I promise to do it this decade... really... :dodgy:
I've just found one that's rotated by about 15°. Is that within mint tolerances, and is it worth collecting?
More than 5º is usually considered out of production tolerance.
15º is a definite keeper.
Post a piccy and Nevol can add it to her upsets list (unless she already has it there).
Thanks, Jeff. I've got another that's about 10°. Is that a keeper as well?
No. Just send it to me instead.
More than 5º I would always consider a keeper. So keep it for sure.
I just went and looked at some more coins, and they're ALL out by 10º. How am I supposed to tell what the baseline is when it keeps shifting?
So, if I put my fingernail at the top of the S in "Older Persons" and move it to the other side of the rim, should my fingernail end up between the A and the B, or between the B and the E?
Quote from: 'Hercules' pid='100539' dateline='1477629501'I just went and looked at some more coins, and they're ALL out by 10º. How am I supposed to tell what the baseline is when it keeps shifting?
So, if I put my fingernail at the top of the S in "Older Persons" and move it to the other side of the rim, should my fingernail end up between the A and the B, or between the B and the E?
If they are ALL out by the same amount, then that is the stock standard for that particular coin. (My thoughts anyway).
If you can find one of those of the same year and denomination, with a different rotation then that becomes the variety/error.
I've got 3 or 4 where my fingernail comes out between the A and B, and 6 or 7 where it comes out between the B and the E. Is it possible that they could both have been used as the standard?
Quote from: 'Hercules' pid='100541' dateline='1477630001'Is it possible that they could both have been used as the standard?
They have a standard alignment guide. Which from memory is a horizontal line across the tips of the II and AU. They're allowed 5° either side of this, so a total variation of 10° is possible between two die sets.
Beyond that (and mine is around 35° IIRC), its hugely unlikely any employee is going to set a die 10, 15 or more degrees out. Which is where the locking pin comes in. Break that, and the die is free to rotate slightly with every single strike, until somebody notices and fixes the problem.
That's how Goldy was able to build his 2001 clockfaces. The fact that we don't appear to have full rotations in 1999 indicates that the error was picked up relatively quickly. I would hazard a guess that ALL of the rotations are in the same direction, and probably all under 90°.. at least I don't recall ever seeing one over that.
Now, as for measuring it, Goldy has a U-Beaut setup with two cameras and some clever software that reads out the exact angle. The alignment mark is a line from the tip of the A across the center to the side of the E. Others here have come up with a variety of other ways to measure it too.. do a little searching. :)
Quote from: 'Fulvio' pid='100547' dateline='1477641891'Now, as for measuring it, Goldy has a U-Beaut setup with two cameras and some clever software that reads out the exact angle.
Hey Goldy, could you please elaborate on how you do this? :)
I have had the two camera setup especially written computer programme that I cannot give out to anyone. That is the condition that I had to agree too before I was given the programme.
If one has AC/DC I did have a solution on this forum or on a defunct forum where one could measure the angle of upset quite easily, provided one new what he/she was doing.
I have spoken to few "computer boys" about getting another programme developed that automatically compares the alignment of a particular coin to that already in the programme memory but the cost is way above my finances.
A understand that a facial recognition programme could be adopted but they are very expensive just to try.
I can measure relative angles to ±0.1º error with an ancient version of Picture Publisher. Just does take a little time but practice improves that.
You can always put the coin in a 2x2 and measure the angle of the rotation that way.
A bit "Old School" but it works :)
Quote from: 'trout' pid='100850' dateline='1478073638'You can always put the coin in a 2x2 and measure the angle of the rotation that way.
A bit "Old School" but it works :)
Thanks, Trout. That's great for checking one or two coins, but how am I supposed to check hundreds of them without going broke or insane?
Quote from: 'Hercules' pid='100872' dateline='1478096706'how am I supposed to check hundreds of them without going broke or insane?
Nobody said you have to seal the mount. Just use it as a guide to line the coins up.
QuoteThanks, Trout. That's great for checking one or two coins, but how am I supposed to check hundreds of them without going broke or insane?
Your first check is to spin the coin between your fingers to see if there is any rotation, this can be accomplished in less than a second and costs you absolutely nothing.
IF you find a rotated coin then it is a 'keeper" anyway and a couple of cents for a holder is no big deal and like Fuvio said you don't have to seal/staple it to work out the degree of rotation.
If you think about it grading a coin would take more time than it would to check the degree of rotation on it :ok:
I have difficulty seeing why people have to make something so simple into something so complicated :angel:
Quote from: 'Fulvio' pid='100520' dateline='1477624481'One day I'll get motivated enough to go through the bucket of them I have (none escape my clutches, for now), and come up with some stats.
I've finally found a way to tell the difference between these coins (using a microscope), so I'm starting to come up with my own set of stats.
This is what I've found so far:
1999 $1 Large: 0 (0%)
1999 $1 Medium: 17 (94%)
1999 $1 Small: 1 (6%)
1999 $2 Large: 51 (91%)
1999 $2 Small: 5 (9%)
Interestingly, the result I got for the $2 coins agrees with Mr T's. :)
I've got similar numbers for the $1 too - 95.5% medium, 4.5% small.
Quote from: 'Mister T' pid='105188' dateline='1486848189'I've got similar numbers for the $1 too - 95.5% medium, 4.5% small.
Have you ever found a large one in circulation?
I've found one of what I think is supposed to be the large but it looks like it's just got a doubled legend. I've looked at 158 1999 $1 coins and it's the only one I've found.
I just realised that there are three different obverse sizes for the 1999 $2, instead of only two. The medium one appears to be the most common, but I'm unsure whether the small one or the large one is the least common.
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/11527/1999__2_Small.png)
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/11527/1999__2_Medium.png)
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/11527/1999__2_Large.png)
Quote from: 'Nevol' pid='100516' dateline='1477623465'Again, taken from Emu's site:
Three distinct sized obverses were used for the new Ian Rank-Broadley design. The medium sized obverse accounts for most of the mintage. The small obverse is uncommon but can be found in high grade (and in mint sets). The large is scarce, and rare in high grade. The lettering on the large obverse almost runs into the rim.
I just went through the 1999 dollars I noodled last week, and I found one with the large obverse, so they definitely are out there for those who are willing to look. :yahoo:
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/11527/1999__1_Large_Obverse.jpg)
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/11527/1999__1_Large_Obverse_-_Reverse.jpg)
Here's the medium obverse for comparison:
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/11527/1999__1_Medium_Obverse.jpg)
Could there actually be 4 obverses for the dollar? These three pics are what I had thought were the large, medium and small, but after looking at Hercules' pic of the large obverse find, I'm now thinking not :scratch_one-s_head:
aaarrgh...wrong date. I need a holiday
Fractionally larger IMO
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10064/IMG_3006.JPG)
Medium
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10064/IMG_3005.JPG)
Small
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10064/IMG_3004.JPG)
OK, just to show I'm only part way to bonkers, these are the pics of the 1999 obverses :blush: But I'm thinking Hercules' large obverse is bigger still, so might this make 4?
Fractionally larger IMO
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10064/1999__1_large_obverse.JPG)
Medium
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10064/1999__1_Medium_obverse.JPG)
Small
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10064/1999__1_Small_obverse.JPG)
Thanks, Autocoupler. I did notice a very small difference between some of the medium 1999 $1 obverses I studied yesterday, but it wasn't big enough to be sure that they were different sizes. The vast majority of the mintage for both the 1999 $1 and the 1999 $2 falls within the medium range, although there is a trickle of large and small ones for both denominations. The small 1999 $2 isn't too hard to find in circulation, but the large 1999 $2 and the small and large 1999 $1 must be quite scarce, because I only have one or two examples of each. :good:
Keep up the good work Herc!
Auto, fabulous coins and top photos!
Quote from: 'Unicorn' pid='107655' dateline='1491998958'Keep up the good work Herc!
:i_agree: Top stuff Herc, always good to see your stats and findings, they are extremely enlightening :)
Thanks uni, but I'm still just only pointing and pressing ;)
Quote from: 'Hercules' pid='107277' dateline='1490857514'I just realised that there are three different obverse sizes for the 1999 $2, instead of only two. The medium one appears to be the most common, but I'm unsure whether the small one or the large one is the least common.
Noooo! Now I'll have to redo my statistics!
Quote from: 'autocoupler' pid='107646' dateline='1491984279'Could there actually be 4 obverses for the dollar? These three pics are what I had thought were the large, medium and small, but after looking at Hercules' pic of the large obverse find, I'm now thinking not :scratch_one-s_head:
Way more than four - I don't think the obverse has gone more than two years in a row without changing since 1999.
Quote from: 'Mister T' pid='107716' dateline='1492251902'Quote from: 'autocoupler' pid='107646' dateline='1491984279'Could there actually be 4 obverses for the dollar? These three pics are what I had thought were the large, medium and small, but after looking at Hercules' pic of the large obverse find, I'm now thinking not :scratch_one-s_head:
Way more than four - I don't think the obverse has gone more than two years in a row without changing since 1999.
I think he's only referring to the 1999 dollar. If he did every year, he'd have to write it up as a PhD. :laugh2:
Yes Mr T, was just referring to the 1999 dollar.
hahaha way over my head Herc, but four 4 heads are better than one I reckon :biggrin:
Quote from: 'autocoupler' pid='107725' dateline='1492266641'but four 4 heads are better than one I reckon :biggrin:
I'm not so sure, AC. Do you have any idea just how long it takes me to measure them accurately? I like being able to take my coins straight back to the bank instead of having to do a lengthy analysis of them under a microscope. It holds me up from getting a new batch. :s
I know this is a mite off topic Herc, but what do you think about the 2001 obverses? In reference to the three pics of the 2001 obverse I mistakenly posted earlier, it appears there is also one obverse slightly bigger than the medium, as is for 1999. Have you thought about doing some stats for these in your spare time? :angel:
Quote from: 'autocoupler' pid='107734' dateline='1492307490'I know this is a mite off topic Herc, but what do you think about the 2001 obverses? In reference to the three pics of the 2001 obverse I mistakenly posted earlier, it appears there is also one obverse slightly bigger than the medium, as is for 1999. Have you thought about doing some stats for these in your spare time? :angel:
I probably will one day, but it's complicated by the fact that there are three different versions of the IRB. I've got some stats for the 2001 5c and 10c coins, but the 2001 $1 and $2 coins have proven to be much too difficult for me at this stage. I'm currently storing them in bags to analyse in the future. Any suggestions as to how I could speed up this process would be much appreciated. :ok:
Quote from: 'Hercules' pid='107735' dateline='1492311000'it's complicated by the fact that there are three different versions of the IRB.
I take it you are referring to spaced or joined, is there a third?
Quote from: 'autocoupler' pid='107749' dateline='1492355870'Quote from: 'Hercules' pid='107735' dateline='1492311000'it's complicated by the fact that there are three different versions of the IRB.
I take it you are referring to spaced or joined, is there a third?
My understanding is that there are three: I_R_B, I_RB and IRB, but I don't know for sure just how common they each are, except on the 5c and 10c. The IRB doesn't exist on the 5c and 10c coins, but it definitely exists on the $2, and it may also exist on the $1. There's no doubt that I_RB is the most common variety for each denomination dated 2001, but I know others have reported finding I_R_B on the $1 and $2 as well.
This means that all three versions exist on the 2001 $2, and possibly also the 2001 $1, and because the aluminium bronze coins seem to wear much more easily than the cupro-nickel ones, it's almost impossible for me to tell the difference under a microscope. This makes it impossible for me to tell what the exact frequencies are, or to match them with different obverse sizes. :(
I recall thinking that there were three types of 2001 $2 but on closer inspection the I RB and IRB were the same - it was just suggestive filling or wear that made it look like there was a third type.
I might be remembering wrong but from what I've seen for 2001 is below:
5c: I R B and IRB
10c I R B and I RB
20c: I RB and IRB
50c: IRB
$1: I R B and IRB
$2: I R B and IRB
Generally the first obverse type has less serifs on the IRB than in the second obverse type.
Thanks, Mr T.
I agree with you with the 5c and 10c, but I'm still trying to figure out the others.
From my recollection, all the 50c are I_RB, but now I'll have to double-check that.
Yes I think you're right about the 50c - it's a different style to the rest of them altogether I think.
Unfortunately McDonald's doesn't go into a lot of detail on the matter and it's up to the reader to figure it out.
I tried looking up the latest edition of Maccas last night to determine what the different varieties were for the 2001 $2, but the footnotes were all mislabelled. I'm sure the 2014 edition has this correct, but I couldn't be bothered to look it up again. I hope he gets it right in the 2017 edition, but I won't hold my breath.