Differences between two coins types

11 posts

» Quick access to the last post

I am not able to get what is the difference between these two cointypes

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces19872.html

https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces43.html

Could any one help me?

Thanks in advance
CirculableCoins
1982 Lincoln Memorial Penny 7 Varieties

Check this out:

http://davescoins.net/info/1982varieties.htm
Those who believe they can do something and those who believe they can't are both right.
- Henry Ford
Hi

That page only described the differences between the varieties in the first type, not the difference between 201a and 201b?

Here's another thread that asks the same question: https://en.numista.com/forum/topic3620.html

Someone mentions that the zinc content of the core changed but I think they just misunderstood that other article. The answer seems to be: nobody knows :)
According to some dude on the internet: http://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14645#117709

"The reason for the 201a and 201b numbers is beacuse in 1982 the cents were pure copper plated on a pure zinc core. But they had problems with the copper plating adhering to the zinc so in 1983 they changed the composition of the core slightly alloying the zinc with a tiny amount of copper. That allowed the plating to "grab" better and greatly reduced the incidence of plating bubbles. For 1983 - the core was 99.2 percent zinc and .8 percent copper."

IMO it's quite ridiculous to give this its own type... I don't understand why the metal content of the core is so important to Krause.
The second link points to a slightly larger coin.
Never aspire to have more, aspire to be more. (unless we're talking collecting of course).
Are you sure about that? Krause and NGC has them both at 19 mm, US mint has it (as far as I can tell) at 19,05 mm. I think it's just rounded to 19.

Even so, personally I would consider it to be quite ridiculous also to create a new type for a pretty much unmeasurable increase of 0,05 mm in diameter...
Quote: "deft"​​IMO it's quite ridiculous to give this its own type... I don't understand why the metal content of the core is so important to Krause.



​There are notations all over the catalog about "magnetic" and "non-magnetic" which is about the metal content of the core.
Quote: "deft"​​Even so, personally I would consider it to be quite ridiculous also to create a new type for a pretty much unmeasurable increase of 0,05 mm in diameter...


It is not a new type, it is a new subtype (the letter is following the number). There is a page in the introduction on how to use the Krause coin catalog that explains the material composition changes get a letter afterwards. There are also some other options, like sub numbers, etc. If I recall correctly a letter before the number means the design was resumed after another coin replaced it.
Quote: "jadejackal"It is not a new type, it is a new subtype (the letter is following the number). There is a page in the introduction on how to use the Krause coin catalog that explains the material composition changes get a letter afterwards. There are also some other options, like sub numbers, etc. If I recall correctly a letter before the number means the design was resumed after another coin replaced it.
​Well ok, it's got its own headline in Krause, and it's a new type in numista... Here a change in metal composition is treated as a separate coin while sub-numbers are not. Sure we all have different tastes and some changes makes perfect sense to treat as separate types, like going from silver to CuNi or bronze to iron or something, and we can also argue about how relevant magnetism is, but you have to admit that going from 100% zinc to 99,2% zinc (if that was the case) in the core of the coin is about as close to irrelevant as it can get?
Quote: "deft"
Quote: "jadejackal"It is not a new type, it is a new subtype (the letter is following the number). There is a page in the introduction on how to use the Krause coin catalog that explains the material composition changes get a letter afterwards. There are also some other options, like sub numbers, etc. If I recall correctly a letter before the number means the design was resumed after another coin replaced it.
​​Well ok, it's got its own headline in Krause, and it's a new type in numista... Here a change in metal composition is treated as a separate coin while sub-numbers are not. Sure we all have different tastes and some changes makes perfect sense to treat as separate types, like going from silver to CuNi or bronze to iron or something, and we can also argue about how relevant magnetism is, but you have to admit that going from 100% zinc to 99,2% zinc (if that was the case) in the core of the coin is about as close to irrelevant as it can get?

Oh, it does feel irrelevant, but for some reason I have the sudden need to get a 1982 U.S. Cent for my collection so it feels more complete.....:wiz:
Check out this site, not sure if it will help much but it helped me to determine the 7 types of the 1982 U.S. cent.

http://lincolncentresource.com/smalldates/1982.html
Can anyone help with these two 1-dollar coins from Hong Kong?
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1066.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces7205.html

KM#31 is security edge (KM#31.1) or reeded edge (KM#31.2)
KM#35 is reeded edge

same with 50 cents
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1572.html
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces16226.html

the 5 and 10 cents coins have security edge and reeded edge in one coin type, but make a difference between x.2 reeded edge in years with security edges and x.3 in years with standard reeded edge years.
https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces6141.html

what is the reason here?

» Forum policy

Used time zone is UTC+1:00.
Current time is 20:38.