It's obvious there's a difference between both dates. The bottom date (left coin in the previous picture) looks bigger (bigger holes in the 9 and 6 for instance) but on the other hand it's also narrower. So what's the large date, the one who looks bigger or the one with the wider date?
It's obvious there's a difference between both dates. The bottom date (left coin in the previous picture) looks bigger (bigger holes in the 9 and 6 for instance) but on the other hand it's also narrower. So what's the large date, the one who looks bigger or the one with the wider date?
Actually, the varieties are described as “big digits in date” and “small digits in date” so the width of the entire date makes no difference. Just surprising to me that 10 years go by before anybody thinks they have to clarify which is which.
Sorry Ole, the notches is something else but the dates on the two first coins look identical to me. How can you talk about large/small date if they are identical?
The date on the coin on the however is totally different and bigger (and it's the same coin as on bbybugs' picture). In my opinion that's the large date, not the one on the middle coin. Where that suspicion of a counterfeit comes from for the coin on the right?
I was wrong about the widths. The large one is somewhat wider than the small one.
In the graphic the coin on the left and the coin in the middle are the “small digits in date” variety. The one on the right is the “big digits in date” variety. I added it to the bbybugs's picture. It's the same size as the large one and the 6 hits into the bust the same. Ole's graphic needs to be revised.
Your rectangles show indeed the dates on the left and middle coin are identical, so no small or large date.
The “notches” are the beaded border. On your documentation you can see these beads too on the coin in the middle, although very fainted:
I don't know if it's wear and tear or a weak strike, but I don't think it's a different Mint. Here's another picture with the appearance of the beads in between your picture on the left and your picture in the middle. You can clearly see the beads on the upper part and the left part of the coin but not in the area around the date:
I think we have to forget about the visibility of the beads.
The small/large date is about the coin on the left and the coin on the right, the coin in the middle doesn't belong in this documentation. I also see no reason why the coin on the right would be a counterfeit.
Here are a few more examples of the 1946 5 Centavos Medellín Mint Large Date Variety:
It's also worth considering why Ole thinks the wide date is a possible counterfeit.
Because it's in Ole's documentation doesn't necessarily means it's Ole's opinion. Ole includes in his documentations also the opinions of others, so it could be Gijs' thought it was a counterfeit. Unfortunately we can't ask him anymore since Gijs passed away last year.
It's also worth considering why Ole thinks the wide date is a possible counterfeit.
Because it's in Ole's documentation doesn't necessarily means it's Ole's opinion. Ole includes in his documentations also the opinions of others, so it could be Gijs' thought it was a counterfeit. Unfortunately we can't ask him anymore since Gijs passed away last year.
That's it. It was Gijs' finding and I just helped him to document it.
Not the best resolution but I think this shows the point.
Looking closely at the images, it seems that in one of them the 4 distorts the image of liberty and in the other it doesn't. In both, the 6 distorts the image, but in one of them the 6 distorts it more than in the other, and in one the numbers are thicker, while in the other the numbers are thinner.
Good. I completely forgot to check the “bible” which has this.
After your CR is approved I'm going to submit a CR to change the wording in those year line comments to:
Medellín Mint, Large date
US Mints, Small date
and in the Comments this
For the 1946 dated coins:13,423,000 were minted in the Philadelphia Mint and 3,330,000 were minted in the San Francisco Mint. In 1947, 23,247,000 were minted in the San Francisco Mint.
to
For the 1946 dated coins:13,423,000 were minted in the Philadelphia Mint and 26,577,000 were minted in the San Francisco Mint (3,330,000 in 1946 and 23,247,000 in 1947).
Numista is not infallible. Numista is basically a 1 to 1 copy of the KM catalogs without any checking . @XAVIER was the creator and he had no professional staff.
Now the members of numista are trying to set numista straight whenever we can. We can't influence the SCWC since they are not combined with numista.
So of course errors and non known facts are now reported to numista all the time!
