Adding just the km number to the year lines doesn't do any good without an explanation of the difference between the two. Have you measured the thinner planchet's thickness? Weight difference?
If we go by KM, then we need the numbers in the year lines as for other countries (France, as an example). Apart from that, SCWC might be wrong, look at my measurements, it's difficult to argue for a 59.2, but so is KM and we should not change that, but just make a note in the comments section about the not founded 59.2 based on a “fine” = thinner planchet.
I think your data could support a (slightly) different thickness but probably need more measurements to claim the difference has any statistical significance.
Regardless, i was saying that adding KM's to the year line comments is meaningless if the difference between the two is not mentioned anywhere on the coin page. Or were you going to add it on your CR?
“Per SCWC KM# 59.2 was minted with a planchet thinner than KM# 59.1.” or similar comment.
Not following. If you're saying the two KM number have to be retained why wouldn't you also add why they have two numbers? If it can be shown that a thinner planchet doesn't exist then add that comment too.
In 1979 the size of the queen's portrait was reduced so it would be proportional to the size of the coin.
Due to the rising price of copper the mint struck test tokens in 1977 with a reduced weight and a diameter of 16mm. As it turns out the test tokens were the same size and weight as tokens used by the Toronto Transit Commission. This caused the mint to cancel their plans for reducing the size of the cent. Copper prices were still rising which caused the mint to make a change to the cent in 1980. The metal composition remained the same as previous years but the diameter was reduced by a half-mm and the thickness was reduced from 1.55 mm to 1.38 mm, which resulted in the cent weighing 2.8 grams compared to the previous weight of 3.24 grams.
Thus SCWC is in error, but we still have to live with the 2 different numbers to satisfy the dogme, that we cannot change the SCWC.
Schön makes no distinction between large or small planchet.
BUT: Schön makes a distinction between large portrait 1965-1978 (Schön# 58.1) and small portrait 1979 (Schön# 58.2). Apparently that larger portrait had also a different KM# number (KM#123) but it's not anymore in the last editions of Krause. I'll have to check earlier editions to see if there was once a KM# 123 for Canada.
In Krause 10th edition (1984) there also was a distinctive number for the 1979 smaller bust. But at that time Krause still used Yeoman reference numbers:
Looking further when they've changed into KM# numbers and see if there was a KM# 123
In Krause 26th edition (1999) there were already KM# reference numbers for Canada and it turns out at that time the distinction between KM# 59.1 and 59.2 was not thicker or thinner planchet but bigger or smaller bust:
The gray is the 1978 and the colored the 1979, which is definitely with a smaller bust?
Why the question mark? There's no discussion about it, look at the distance between the top of the crown and the beads on both coins.
It's a pitty, KM# says 1978 is also KM# 59.2. Otherwise we could deny the thick/thin planchet and talk about large bust/small bust. But the 1978 doesn't have a small bust.
I simply mean that gray for 1978 and copper for 1979 give the observer the possibility to know the years….. only the obverse without the year were used in .gif (see further up in the thread).
For the points I'll take a look when back in front of my PC.
I have no way to argument for that in my graphic…….
I answered that here. https://en.numista.com/forum/topic176901.html#p1340231 You cannot change the SCWC KM number just because you think it is wrong. All you can do is comment that it's a mistake. Right or wrong 1978 is KM# 59.2.
