25 centavos Argentina 1996 [solved]

Hello,

Do someone have any clue about the difference between CJ# 4.4.2 (mirroring background) and CJ# 4.4.1 for this coin?
It's look like proof version, no?
I don't understand how we can make the difference between a "standard" coin and a "mirroring background".

If someone can help me?

Thanks in advance :-)

Bold 1996.

Quote: "SquareRootLolly"​Bold 1996.

​It says "thin numbers" for both...
And referring to the catalogue page available here it's almost impossible to see any difference beside of paper.

This is what you want to see? You can also see it here:
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces2216.html
look in comments!

Ole

Ole, that's not what I expect to see when the description says "mirroring background". Then I also think at a proof coin but with the mirroring background but no frosting on the raise parts of the design.

@Indomini16: you can ask Grincheux (https://en.numista.com/echanges/profil.php?id=76349) for a picture. He's the only one who has the coin with the mirroring background on his exchange list.

Hi,

on the 3rd page in the Argentinian catalog you find the 4.4.2 mentioning the mirror back ground, but nothing more is said.
Here are the 3 pages concerning the 25 centavos:
Side 1

side 2

side 3

Ole

Quote: "Sjoelund"​Hi,
​
​on the 3rd page in the Argentinian catalog you find the 4.4.2 mentioning the mirror back ground, but nothing more is said.
​
​

Exactly, it’s mentioned but there is no description to say what is it.
So if someone knows the difference, it can be helpful...
I guess it’s a proof issue, but it’s only a guess...

Hi,

the 4.4.1 is said to be "opacas" = opaque
the 4.4.2 is said to be "fondo espejado" = mirror back ground (Spiegelglanz in German?), which would mean proof, but it would be the only coin of that year in proof, which I find strange?

Ole

As I know, the first sending from mint (CJ# 4.4.1) was not very nice to Argentinian issuers, so they enhaced the dies, the lower roof they made a grid, to simulate tiles, and the background was polished, like the mirror surface on proofs. This is not prooflike as front details were not frost.

I guess you can see the difference having 2 UNC coins on hand; if circulated, the mirror background and grid on roof can not be so sharp.

Quote: "adanieluy"​As I know, the first sending from mint (CJ# 4.4.1) was not very nice to Argentinian issuers, so they enhaced the dies, the lower roof they made a grid, to simulate tiles, and the background was polished, like the mirror surface on proofs. This is not prooflike as front details were not frost.
​
​I guess you can see the difference having 2 UNC coins on hand; if circulated, the mirror background and grid on roof can not be so sharp.

​Thanks a lot for this clear explanation ! So, does it mean that there is more CJ# 4.4.2 minted than the CJ# 4.4.1?

Quote: "Indomini16"​​​Thanks a lot for this clear explanation ! So, does it mean that there is more CJ# 4.4.2 minted than the CJ# 4.4.1?

​I don't really know, Janson (the author of the catalog, and who created the #s) only shows a total mintage of 95,000,000 for both variants, but does not detail how many of each.

I think if there were few coins of the 1st version, they would have discarded them, and if already were minted a huge amount, would not have done the 2nd version, so I think there must be several millions of each, but can't say what are more. Will ask to Argentina referee, who is a friend of mine about this. When I get something I will let you know, or maybe he post something here.

Hello, it is difficult to put into words what a photographic image can not reflect.
The most common is like the other nickels of 25 cents from other years.
It shows that it has the brightness of the nickel.
In the case of the mirrored coin, it is not proof, it is rather opaque with a nice brightness.

Quote: "gvaicika"​Hello, it is difficult to put into words what a photographic image can not reflect.
​The most common is like the other nickels of 25 cents from other years.
​It shows that it has the brightness of the nickel.
​In the case of the mirrored coin, it is not proof, it is rather opaque with a nice brightness.
​
​
​
​

​Very difficult to make any difference ....

Hello, but the coin with thick (bold) numbers is missing in the list (there's only a picture); if there are only 2 coins of 1996, then one of them has thick numbers (and so one of two “thin” in description is a mistake to correct):

["CJ# 4.4.1 - 1996 - South African Mint
 (Entrance door with grid) (Year with thin numbers)
CJ# 4.4.2 - 1996 - South African Mint
 (Entrance door with grid) (Year with thin numbers) (mirroring background)"]