Canada 1949 1c mintage and die information

[KurtS]

I ran across these stats online which are attributed to mint reports. The data below is for 1949, which is a favorite year for me due to the 1c "A to denticles" variety. You can find additional stats for years 1938-62 on that linked page.

For the 1949 1c:
Total Mintage: 31,093,901
Dies used: Obverse--73, Reverse--92
Pieces per pair of dies: 401,563

From that data, I would surmise that at least 401K "A to denticles" cents were produced--does that ring true? That said, it's impossible to know how many dies with that obverse were produced from this data alone. Wouldn't a rather exhaustive analysis of individual coins be needed to get an idea of actual die pairs involved? So far, I have not found such an analysis, and I cannot count on my limited experience to determine die pairs by examining my coins.

[coop]

Kurt: I just check in a batch of Canadian Cents I have. I have several 1949. (about 25) What does the anomoly look like. Maybe I should check them. I have about 50 each of the two 1947 Varieties in that book. I just check the new ones and there are bu ones till 1977. That must have been when the collection was put together? I did find a 1999 in there, but I may have added that. The BU ones start at 1961 and a few scattered to 1977. The 1970's ones look like proof, but I think they are just BU coins. Pretty design in BU. Not so pretty in circulated condition.

[KurtS]

Coop, here's an excerpt from a post I wrote on the '49 1c. It's worth looking for the "A to denticle" variety because it carries a good premium: value is around $50 in EF40.

First, an "A to denticles" closeup:




At this point I can eyeball this coin without lines. But, as a confirmation here's the attribution guide in Pierre Charest's book where high relief = A to denticle. Note here how the "A" to denticle aligns just slightly right of center. I think that has contributed to some confusion in attribution.



I think all good attributions should be compared to a control sample (negative). So here is the '49 off-denticle. Compare this the guide above (labeled "low relief"):



For '49, those are the two obverse die varieties.

[coop]

Thanks, I have to check it out and see which I have.

[Dick]

Kurt, I still have trouble trying to get a good perspective, (my eyes), and Farnkly, I will have to use an overlay to confirm, (Made of a definitely know example, to use as a base. I can't tell, one way, or the other!
Dick

[KurtS]

Dick, yeah--I understand.
If you ever want a '49AT closeup for an overlay, let me know.

As an interesting comparison, here's the 1948 low relief. I would maintain that you can actually tell a low relief from a high relief by the portrait, but that will probably depend on the condition of the coin.

[Dick]

kurt, that would be nice. In fact, why not now? Not that I am in a hurry. It is easier when one is thinking about it, rather than after a "hard day at the office"! I'll "lift" the photo, and save it on the other unit with PS7, and see what I can determine from it, and the ones I have. It would seem tthat the same orientation could be used for the 53/55, 65, and others that use the orientation, but It might not be feasable. I can chech various (same dates/year, or series), to check. Nothing lost by trying. Many thanks for your efforts.
Coop, you will enjoy making Avatars for a while, I'll bet!
He will let you know what I am refering to, in a few days.
Dick

[coop]

KurtS: Small die crack from the tip of the bust? It looks pretty straight like a scratch, but looks stronger than that.

[KurtS]

Coop, good eye! That sure looks like a die crack from the tip of the bust to between the denticles.

[Dick]

Yep! You got that one for sure! I didn'y see it until I had put some magnification, on it, abd theer ir was. First one I have seen on the canucks.
Dick

[KurtS]

Speaking of Canadian coins with cracks, here's an interesting one. This may not be a "copper coin", but it's so dramatic I'll share it here:



If you look closely, the crack crosses the whole reverse, so I'll guess this die was retired before long. This particular one is interesting because it's the scarcer "Large H" mm, which means it may be one of the last ones that were minted using that die.

[coop]

At first I couldn't see what you were looking at. then I spoted the tiny arrows. Then I could see it. After a few more strikes and the crack gets deeper, the die could split in half, right down the middle. They usually don't do that.

[KurtS]

This was a small pic back when I used a different photo server. It's a bit easier to see if I can find the original. Yes, I was surprised when I saw that too--not common on US coins. Btw, the "H" signifies this was coined at the Heaton/Birmingham England mint.

[Dick]

Kurt, that is a nice shot. I didn't see the arrows, either, untill Coop mentioned them. It reminds me of a Mexican coin that has a crack so big, that the coin is partially broken. I'll locate it, and post a photo, just for kicks.
I was reading the book, and noticed this coin has 22 leaves, and the large "H". I thought they only had 21 on the '02 designs. Maybe I didn't read it correctly.
Dick

[coop]

KurtS: On the Canadian Nickel image. I would have left the image full length, but cropped the East & West curves off. that way you could have an image 600-800 wide and length, it doesn't matter. I've got images that are very, very long. I just keep them narrow and stack them up. I started that when my image host only allowed me so many images. So I started combining images. Now they limit me to how much space they take. It worked for a while. I have one long one that I keep sending to Dick when I add more images to it. it will be 40 images long and 4 images across. They are small images as they are avatars. But they make them easier to keep track of that way.