http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=274994 was posted on CCF a few days ago - someone is reporting a small and large head 1999 5c piece.
Any opinions? The image on the left seems slightly bigger but they are roughly the same, and the gap between the rim and text on the coin on the right seems larger.
The way I read that topic is that it's a large/small date, not head. Even the title says that. :winkextra:
1999 5 Cent Large/Small Date :dontknow:
I have looked at that thread and I can't see any difference in the size of the dates.
Probably just another case of an error collector "Jumping at Shadows" :angel:
Yeah, I have to agree. I read it initially, but the images were so bad, I just skim past it now as there's no way to tell unless the images are waaay better.
I know it talks about different dates and I agree there's no obvious difference but it looks like the distance between the rim and text is different.
I've just finished measuring the sizes of the heads on these two coins, and I can't see any obvious difference between them. However, the diameter between the inside of the rim is slightly larger on the second coin than on the first, which is why the text on the second coin is slightly father from the rim. The size of the head and the surrounding text hasn't changed, but the diameter between the inside of the rim has changed. :good:
Hm, so there is a difference but it's not the design? Is there any doubling on one? How many did you look through to find one of each type?
Quote from: 'Hercules' pid='105043' dateline='1486527299'However, the diameter between the inside of the rim is slightly larger on the second coin than on the first, which is why the text on the second coin is slightly father from the rim. The size of the head and the surrounding text hasn't changed, but the diameter between the inside of the rim has changed. :good:
So does this mean that the width of the rims is different?
Quote from: 'Mister T' pid='105189' dateline='1486848439'Hm, so there is a difference but it's not the design? Is there any doubling on one? How many did you look through to find one of each type?
I didn't use any of my own coins. I magnified the picture from CCF in Microsoft Word, split it in half, rotated the coins until they were aligned with each other, and measured the distances between various features. I detected no substantial difference between the two obverses, but the diameter of the inside of the rim seems to have an uneven thickness, at least on the second coin. I'm still a bit confused about all this, but I cannot see any cold hard evidence that these are two separate varieties. I'd like to see what other people come up with before I make a final decision. :)
Quote from: 'Nevol' pid='105191' dateline='1486850321'Quote from: 'Hercules' pid='105043' dateline='1486527299'However, the diameter between the inside of the rim is slightly larger on the second coin than on the first, which is why the text on the second coin is slightly father from the rim. The size of the head and the surrounding text hasn't changed, but the diameter between the inside of the rim has changed. :good:
So does this mean that the width of the rims is different?
I'm not sure. The pictures are really doing my head in. :dash1:
Quote from: 'Hercules' pid='105198' dateline='1486857424'I magnified the picture from CCF in Microsoft Word
You can't do that.
An image is not the same as an actual coin. Depending on all sorts of variables, it can look completely different to reality. Especially around the rims, where all sorts of strange things happen in the interface zone between the dies and collar.
Look at split rims, depressions, fillets and other oddities we regularly see. Pictures of these features can vary wildly. :dodgy:
Quote from: 'Fulvio' pid='105202' dateline='1486857811'Quote from: 'Hercules' pid='105198' dateline='1486857424'I magnified the picture from CCF in Microsoft Word
You can't do that.
Then what can I do? Ask the person to take better pictures?
Quote from: 'Hercules' pid='105211' dateline='1486860898'Then what can I do? Ask the person to take better pictures?
In my opinion, anything that subtle REALLY has to be seen in hand. Photos are fine for the gross stuff that you can see unaided, but not for situations where you need careful examination under high magnification.
Even a series of 200x microscope images wouldn't cut it, though they might shed some light on what's going on at the edge of the rim.
QuoteEven a series of 200x microscope images wouldn't cut it
If it takes that sort of magnification to establish an error or a variety then it can't be that significant :angel:
:good:
The problem is that the text LOOKS further from the rim, but it's impossible to PROVE that it actually is. :s
Quote from: 'Hercules' pid='105237' dateline='1486893734'The problem is that the text LOOKS further from the rim, but it's impossible to PROVE that it actually is. :s
Which is exactly why you can't do it from pictures. It may well be an optical illusion.