Any Mexico coins experts out there?

[RI AL]

Hey, guys. Yet another question from RI AL.

 

This Mexican coin is listed with 3 varieties; normal date, 1913/17 and 1913/2. Well...not being real good with overdates...I'm guessing that this is the 1913/2 variety but I sure as heck can't tell for sure. Any thoughts??

 

Thanks...as always. RI AL

 

[dooly]

Nice find there my gess would be the 13/17 myself

 

[RI AL]

Man...I messed that up. SORRY, Dooly.

 

The options are 1913 regular date, 1913/07 or 1913/2. I'll blame it on these gul-darned cataracts again...3 weeks to go before they do!!!

 

How did you get your drawing of the 7 onto the image? You're so darned smart!

 

Ri AL

[dooly]

Man...I messed that up. SORRY, Dooly.

 

The options are 1913 regular date, 1913/07 or 1913/2. I'll blame it on these gul-darned cataracts again...3 weeks to go before they do!!!

 

How did you get your drawing of the 7 onto the image? You're so darned smart!

 

Ri AL

 

I wondered should have checked it out myself

 

i have had a scout around and could only find a 1912 to compare it to what do you think.. i still stick by the 7 and i think you have the rarer 1913 over 1907 when you compare the 2 in the 1912 one.. also there were two types of seven used on the 1907 (straight and curved)

 

 

sorry for messing about with your image sometimes i just cannot help myself

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

I would go with 1913 over something with a 7, as it does not look like a 2 down there to me. Granted, with a magnifier I could give a better guess, but that's what I will go with.

[RI AL]

Hey, Dooly.

 

No, I thank you for "messing with my images". Your illustration showed me how the overdate might be read. Thanks.

 

That's a sharp lookin' 1912 you've got there!.

 

RI AL

[RI AL]

Hey, Physics..

 

I have to agree with you and Doley and his neat superimposed image of the 7. The problem is, in order for the 3 to be over a 7, the second 1 has to be over a 0. There is some lumpy stuff on both sides of the 1, but someone had to do a darned good job at the mint getting rid of the 0 because it really doesn't show.

 

Oh well...I'll go with the 3/7 too so it looks like 1913/07 wins by popular vote.

 

Thanks for the time and input, Guys.!!

 

RI Al

[dooly]

Hey, Physics..

 

I have to agree with you and Doley and his neat superimposed image of the 7. The problem is, in order for the 3 to be over a 7, the second 1 has to be over a 0. There is some lumpy stuff on both sides of the 1, but someone had to do a darned good job at the mint getting rid of the 0 because it really doesn't show.

 

Oh well...I'll go with the 3/7 too so it looks like 1913/07 wins by popular vote.

 

Thanks for the time and input, Guys.!!

 

RI Al

 

Cheers (thumbs u

 

If you think about it the die makers for the 13 would have had to remove as much as they could from the 0 but could probably get away with little work with the 7 so the "little" lumps are probably whats left of the 0.. send it to NGC and VP it and see what they come up with

 

all the best dooly