News:

Sign up for the monthly zoom events by sending a PM with your email address to Hitesh

Main Menu

Newfoundland 1 cent 1940 repunched 0 and 1941 double die

Started by Alan Glasser, March 28, 2015, 09:02:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Alan Glasser

Hello everybody.

Can anyone please help me to determine where the "repunching" occurs on the 1940 C Newfoundland cent and the doubling on the 1941C, please? I haven't been able to locate good photos. I have the complete set from 1938-1944 and the 1947 and I just discovered the descriptions for the "errors" mentioned in my topic.  Any help would be very much appreciated. All coins grade XF or maybe a tad better.

Thanks so much!

Alan in MA

Figleaf

On the 1940s, the repunching is on the last digit of the date. On the 1941s, the punch doubling (other design elements seem unaffected) is in the bottom of all four figures of the date. The nine is least affected. In some cases, the doubling is visible in less than four digits.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Prosit

Previously Newfoundland's coinage was minted by the Royal mint but as you can imagine with the war going on that mint was busy. I don't know what other word to use than busy but that is a poor description of the pace of work.

The Royal mint loaned the Canadian mint sets of punches to make dies with. The punches were undated so that they could be used in multiple years. The year was added by hand. It was expected Canada would make Newfoundland's coins for the duration.

In 1940 the Canadian mint's output increased threefold to 128 million pieces which was 4 times the mint's design capacity and there were 600k Newfoundland coins produced. In many departments the Canadian mint was using three shifts and had dozens of new men employed to meet demand. By 1945 they were producing more than 650 million pieces.

I imagine the Canadian mint thought the Newfoundland coinage a nuisance to be completed as quickly as possible. It is amazing the Newfoundland coins are as nice as they are and the variations in the dates understandable.

I haven't seen images to know about the 1940 for sure but I assumed it was the "shelf" on my coin seen at 10 o-clock.


Dale

Alan Glasser

Prosit and Figleaf.

It's GREAT hearing from you both! Thanks so much for you assistance, history lesson and GREAT photos! I am evaluating a collection for a new widow and I want to make sure that I get everything exactly right so she can sell for best value. I do the work at her house which is a bit of a challenge at times, but I'm determined to help her out as much as possible and be absolutely accurate. You gentlemen have helped us BOTH very much and I send most sincere thanks.

Alan in MA

Prosit

Remember the "shelf" in the photo I point out is my assumption...may be totally inaccurate. May just be die bounce in my case. Never seen a authoritative image of the repunched 0.

Dale




Quote from: alglasser on March 29, 2015, 01:28:23 AM
Prosit and Figleaf.

It's GREAT hearing from you both! Thanks so much for you assistance, history lesson and GREAT photos! I am evaluating a collection for a new widow and I want to make sure that I get everything exactly right so she can sell for best value. I do the work at her house which is a bit of a challenge at times, but I'm determined to help her out as much as possible and be absolutely accurate. You gentlemen have helped us BOTH very much and I send most sincere thanks.

Alan in MA

Prosit

Ok found this on the net posted by a fellow going by KurtS.
Looks like mine is just a die bounce.

Dale


Figleaf

I think in both 1940 and 1941, the same thing happened: the date punch was struck with too much force and bounced. Over time, several dies were used with more or less doubling. As mentioned, 1941 is known with 4 and with less digits doubled. (In addition, on worn coins the punch doubling may have partially or completely worn away.) In the listings I have seen (notably Charlton) only the 0 in the date is mentioned as re-punched (double punched, I would say). On the above grounds, I would think that your coin shows punch doubling.

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Prosit

At this point I can't realistically argue for or against that it is or isn't (I do have my doubts now) but I don't think any doubling has been obscured by wear. In European standards I would grade it EF and maybe GEF.

Dale



Quote from: Figleaf on March 29, 2015, 03:14:46 AM
I think in both 1940 and 1941, the same thing happened: the date punch was struck with too much force and bounced. Over time, several dies were used with more or less doubling. As mentioned, 1941 is known with 4 and with less digits doubled. (In addition, on worn coins the punch doubling may have partially or completely worn away.) In the listings I have seen (notably Charlton) only the 0 in the date is mentioned as re-punched (double punched, I would say). On the above grounds, I would think that your coin shows punch doubling.

Peter

Alan Glasser

Hello, Everybody.

Wow, with all of this information, I will surely be able to evaluate the coins very well and accurately. Thanks to everyone, VERY much.

Alan in MA

Alan Glasser

Hello again, Newfoundland cent experts.
I have had a chance to look at my 1940 and 1941c cents under magnification and while the 1940 appears to be pretty non-eventful, there IS something going on inside and at the right side of the base of the 1941c. The lower inside of the coin is bisected and there is an added little "bump at the right side of the base. Any significance or are these just normal characteristics. I am sorry I couldn't get a better photo. I am hoping it being enlarged upon viewing will help.

Once again, thanks!

Alan in MA   

Figleaf

I would dearly like to see what you mean, Alan, but apart from light and dirt, I don't see anything going on. My bad eyesight again?

Peter
An unidentified coin is a piece of metal. An identified coin is a piece of history.

Alan Glasser

Hello, Figleaf!

Thanks for your efforts!!! I wish I could get a better photo for you (did you enlarge the one I posted??? Thanks!) and the main characteristic I was speaking of doesn't show clearly. To me and under magnification, I can see that the inside of the 4 is clearly bisected into 2 unequal sections. Sorry about the photo quality but I just don't have the knowhow nor equipment to get a clearer shot. Something is going on in there...and I hate to evaluate the set for the owner without knowing for sure that this isn't a variety that might increase collectability.

Alan