London Obverse Sizes

[Fulvio]

So, its come to my attention that the London 1966 20¢ Obverse dies were cut at a different reduction and produced noticeably smaller obverses (yeah, only too me 60 years to find this out.. der).

My question is, did this happen with other coins, or was it a one-off?

[Triggersmob]

There are large and small versions of the 2004 obverse on the 20c.
Or did you mean on other 1966 coins?

[Mister T]

So, its come to my attention that the London 1966 20¢ Obverse dies were cut at a different reduction and produced noticeably smaller obverses (yeah, only too me 60 years to find this out.. der).

My question is, did this happen with other coins, or was it a one-off?

50 years. Not sure but I think the Royal Mint-produced coins of 1981 aren't as easy to tell.

[Fulvio]

Or did you mean on other 1966 coins?

Well, I meant London dies, as a way of telling them apart where there wasn't a deliberate mintmark. Two different dies from the same mint isn't really significant unless one has relatively tiny mintages.

And yes, I do realise that most years everything comes out of Canberra. Also, if I'm not mistaken, all predecimals had mintmarks, yeah?

I think the Royal Mint-produced coins of 1981 aren't as easy to tell.

I wasn't aware of any way to tell them apart. Canada's easily distinguishable, but London (or was it Wales by then?)?

[r9453]

I have no recollection where I got this image but I have it labelled as London:

[Fulvio]

I have no recollection where I got this image but I have it labelled as London:

Heh, shoulda known Mark would have it covered....

http://www.australian-coins.com/australian-decimal-changeover/australian-1966-20c-obverse-die-differences/

[trout]

Thanks for bringing this up Fulvio.
I learnt something new today :good:

[robbiegal]

I didn't realise you mean the gap
I thought you meant that the obverse die image was actually smaller

[r9453]

I assume that if the image is smaller then the gap must be larger.

[robbiegal]

I assumed that he meant that the obverse was smaller like the 2000 $1 coin that is considered a 'mule' due to a 10c obverse die being used except that the 20c die was engraved smaller to denote the mint

[Fulvio]

obverse was smaller like the 2000 $1 coin

Well, no... more like the 2001 and others with different size obverses. And I really doubt they would do this as a deliberate mintmark. Rather it would be accidental, presumably an operator error when producing the master.

What I was getting at is whether this has occurred with any other coins produced at multiple mints, such that we could use it as a reliable indicator for coins where a deliberate mintmark wasn't applied.

BTW, I notice the US now uses laser-engraved dies. Presumably this would eliminate accidental varieties?

[robbiegal]

not at all

[Fulvio]

not at all

No? How so, when every die would be identical?

[robbiegal]

the laser is only as good as the programmer

[Fulvio]

the laser is only as good as the programmer

Yes, but replication is a no-brainer. Once you set up a task, one or a million, all will be identical.