2013 $2 Coronation Error

[Nevol]

Hmmm...It kinda makes me wonder if the dot was left off deliberately so they could put the various mint marks in that position and some of the coins destined for MM's escaped and joined the rest of the flock.

Could anyone who has some MM coins please have a really close look at the MM and see if there's any sign of the Dot under the MM, then let us all know the outcome. :beg:

I stopped collecting MM coins a few years back, so I have none to examine. :angel:

[Fulvio]

Hmmm...It kinda makes me wonder if the dot was left off deliberately so they could put the various mint marks in that position and some of the coins destined for MM's escaped and joined the rest of the flock.

Yeah, but was there actually a $2 MYO? They've all been $1 AFAIK.

Maybe this was something they intended to do, and screwed up. :blackeye:

[Nevol]

I thought I'd seen an image of one with a C  in that position so I assumed there were others.  

Can anyone please shed some more light on this?
See Post #42 by PPH in this thread:
http://www.australian-coins.net/showthread.php?tid=1252

This is from Wiki:
St Edward's Crown surrounded by purple coloured royalty stripes, with 'C' mintmark

See an image here:
http://www.newcastlecoins.com.au/index1.html?5072.html&1

[JeffH]

Maybe this was something they intended to do, and screwed up.

The Royal Australian Mint :swoon:-never:exclamation:

[Fordprefect]

The C mintmark coin is struck with dies with the "C" incorporated in them.
They don't go through a second striking to add the mintmark.

There were no Portable Press applications for this coin, so there was no need
for a third reverse die,sans No Seperator dot reverse die.

Although I have examined this coin at 200X magnification and could not see
any sign of Die Fill, I do believe it is Die Fill that has produced this "Error" and
not a Third Reverse Die variety.

Just my thoughts, it actually reminds me of the '43 Missing "I" penny.

[Nevol]

The C mintmark coin is struck with dies with the "C" incorporated in them. They don't go through a second striking to add the mintmark.
There were no Portable Press applications for this coin, so there was no need
for a third reverse die,sans No Seperator dot reverse die.
Although I have examined this coin at 200X magnification and could not see
any sign of Die Fill, I do believe it is Die Fill that has produced this "Error" and
not a Third Reverse Die variety.
Just my thoughts, it actually reminds me of the '43 Missing "I" penny.

Thanks FP, some info I was not aware of, or if I was ever aware of it, I'd forgotten.

So we are back to an error. :good:

[Fordprefect]

So we are back to an error. :good:

I think so.

What I would like to see turn up is the coin with
a partial die fill of the "Dot".
This would reinforce the Die Fill theory.

[Fulvio]

What I would like to see turn up is the coin with
a partial die fill of the "Dot".
This would reinforce the Die Fill theory.

Time to start compiling an album of close-ups of all known examples, eh?

[Goldseeker]

Well, start one on this forum.

[Mister T]

Don't forget the 1999 and 2001 portrait sizes.

What? :dodgy:

The 1999 legend can close or far to the rim and the 2001 coins are similar though more easy to distinguish by the presence or absence of serifs on the IRB.

[Fulvio]

The 1999 legend can close or far to the rim and the 2001 coins are similar though more easy to distinguish by the presence or absence of serifs on the IRB.

On the $2? Since when?

[Mister T]

I think there's been a footnote in McDonld's for a few years at least.

[runway]

I've never found a circulating purple $2
Which one is rarer the 2 dot or 1 dot?

[Mister T]

Which one is rarer the 2 dot or 1 dot?

The one dot by the looks of it.

[petpat]

Double dot is the one in circulation Single Dot is the scarce one.

Which one is rarer the 2 dot or 1 dot?

The one dot by the looks of it.