• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

1967 Canada Centenial Coins

47 posts in this topic

How many finishes are there on these?

I have seen PF, PL, SP and MS. Are these all from different sets? Or are some just designations of early die state?

I am trying to put together a complete set including Tokens and Medals

Any help would be appreciated

Maybe the name of a book containing the info

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I use the Charlton Vol 1, 2011

 

They list MS, PL, and SP

 

I suspect that the SP may be related to the presentation sets that had the $20 gold (or the medallion for US buyers). The finishes confuse me too, but if it is a mirror finish, it is PL. How they differentiate between PL and SP is a mystery, and I hope one of the experts can enlighten us!

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I use the Charlton Vol 1, 2011

 

They list MS, PL, and SP

 

I suspect that the SP may be related to the presentation sets that had the $20 gold (or the medallion for US buyers). The finishes confuse me too, but if it is a mirror finish, it is PL. How they differentiate between PL and SP is a mystery, and I hope one of the experts can enlighten us!

 

Cheers!

 

You are correct, sir.

 

The coins included with the $20 gold in the black leatherette case are specimen strikes, and those in the pliofilm pouches or included with the silver medallion in the red cardboard boxes are PLs. The books tell you to look for a sharper strike on the SPs, but the difference isn't as big as it is on American MS and PF coins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sent in some coins to NCS from a Red Leather Jeweler Case Set with Silver Metal.

Nice Cameo Contrast with attractive toning, to my surprise NCS has listed as Diving Goose 1$. How rare are these from this set?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So which one is the PF?

 

None of the above. Proofs weren't struck by the RCM until 1981.

 

Even my 2004 Charlton Guide lists prices for PR-65 sets, but in the explanation above it clearly states all coins in the red and black cases were specimens. :pullhair:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sent in some coins to NCS from a Red Leather Jeweler Case Set with Silver Metal.

Nice Cameo Contrast with attractive toning, to my surprise NCS has listed as Diving Goose 1$. How rare are these from this set?

 

The Diving Goose is scarce. I have heard them called "back door mint errors" for supposedly having been struck clandestinely by RCM employees for sale to collectors.

 

Is the one you have offset by 45 degrees? If not, it's not a real Diving Goose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sent in some coins to NCS from a Red Leather Jeweler Case Set with Silver Metal.

Nice Cameo Contrast with attractive toning, to my surprise NCS has listed as Diving Goose 1$. How rare are these from this set?

 

The Diving Goose is scarce. I have heard them called "back door mint errors" for supposedly having been struck clandestinely by RCM employees for sale to collectors.

 

Is the one you have offset by 45 degrees? If not, it's not a real Diving Goose.

 

Not sure on the degree, I didn't even notice it. I sent it to NCS for conservation and they (NCS) listed it as a Diving Goose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So which one is the PF?

 

None of the above. Proofs weren't struck by the RCM until 1981.

 

Even my 2004 Charlton Guide lists prices for PR-65 sets, but in the explanation above it clearly states all coins in the red and black cases were specimens. :pullhair:

 

Some one should explain that to the TPGs. In my set I already have MS PL SP and PF

:makepoint:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had the same problem with several other coins. The 1973 RCMP Centennial Canadian $1 is graded SP by PCGS and PF by NGC. And, coins from the same year of 1973 are also graded as PL, etc.

 

On another forum I just had this same argument/discussion with another member who basically told me that the only person who was confused was me. See thread HERE. But, I am convinced that there is some serious discrepancy between the TPGs. :mad:

 

115038.jpg.1593baa4aec8ff8ab33451fe9ef8086f.jpg

115039.jpg.3ac9991e6ac8a4ca88d338097f1e9561.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had the same problem with several other coins. The 1973 RCMP Centennial Canadian $1 is graded SP by PCGS and PF by NGC. And, coins from the same year of 1973 are also graded as PL, etc.

 

On another forum I just had this same argument/discussion with another member who basically told me that the only person who was confused was me. See thread HERE. But, I am convinced that there is some serious discrepancy between the TPGs. :mad:

 

 

Some of the TPGs are indeed confused. It would be impossible to have a proof 1973 dollar as proof dollars weren't manufactured by the RCM until 1981. Proofs and specimens are struck using different methods, and the RCM didn't have the presses to make proof dollars until 1981.

 

If you were to send your coins to ICCS in the Great White North, they would not make such a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the SP designation doesn't come with a CAMEO or DEEP CAMEO designation. That second picture I posted is one I own. And, it's cameo in my opinion (even if it is an Specimen). hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a nice looking coin, even without a TPG's special designation. ;)

 

1967 was a year in a relatively simple era. Now the RCM cranks out business strikes, PLs (or "numismatic BUs"), specimens, proofs, gold-plated proofs, etc. of the same denomination and design. Woe to the collector who wants one of every version of cent or other denomination! He'd have to buy special sets in order to get every one, and they aren't cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I'm getting confused, It was said here the PF and SP are the same and SP does not come in cameo

In my set there is a 1967 25c PF Cameo and a 1967 50c SP 67 UC

 

hm

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I'm getting confused, It was said here the PF and SP are the same and SP does not come in cameo

In my set there is a 1967 25c PF Cameo and a 1967 50c SP 67 UC

 

hm

 

 

Can we see pics brwnprkns? I haven't ever seen a PCGS SP graded coin with a CAM or DCAM designation. Maybe NGC uses those designations for SP graded coins? Again, I have never seen one. would love to see that SP67UC of which you speak. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I'm getting confused, It was said here the PF and SP are the same and SP does not come in cameo

In my set there is a 1967 25c PF Cameo and a 1967 50c SP 67 UC

 

hm

 

 

As I mentioned, some TPGs are confused. :P

 

The so-called "proofs" are specimens. It doesn't matter if a grader considers it CAM, UCAM, or whatever, a specimen will never be a proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agreed..it is a fact, even mentioned by the RCM themselves in the COA for the 1981 Proof Set--the year 1981 was the first year that Canada produced Proof coinage...NGC is wrong if they have designated one of your coins from 1967 as a PFCam..it is either a PL or SP..I am 100% certain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadian specimen/PL/MS....it is all very confusing, and not even the experts agree as to which is which. Is my 1949 dollar that exhibits classic "proof style" mirroring a PL? Or just a realllly nicely struck MS, like most dollars that year? By US definitions, it would absolutely by "PL"...but that term doesn't apply to Canadian numismatics until 1953, with the RCM designating "prooflike" coins for sale to collectors.

 

Silly canuckleheads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadian specimen/PL/MS....it is all very confusing, and not even the experts agree as to which is which. Is my 1949 dollar that exhibits classic "proof style" mirroring a PL? Or just a realllly nicely struck MS, like most dollars that year? By US definitions, it would absolutely by "PL"...but that term doesn't apply to Canadian numismatics until 1953, with the RCM designating "prooflike" coins for sale to collectors.

 

Silly canuckleheads.

 

Canadian "prooflike" is not the same as American "proof-like". The official term according to the Royal Canadian Mint for what Haxby called "prooflike" coins is (Numismatic) "Brilliant Uncirculated." Numismatic BU coins (prooflikes) are stuck on specially prepared blanks with slower moving equipment using higher striking pressure for a higher quality look than regular circulation coins.

 

All 1949 dollars (and every other silver dollar from 1945 on) were struck using chrome-plated dies. If you compare a 1935-1939 business strike dollar with those from 1945 and beyond, you'll notice the former have a satiny finish in most cases while the latter have mirrored fields from the chrome-plated dies. Later coins struck from well-used dies (like the so-called Arnprior varieties) may not have mirrored surfaces, though. The 1949 dollars were struck with more care than most issues (except the 1935 and 1939 commems) and were packed in cardboard rolls rather than bags, so uncs don't usually come with lots of marks.

 

The RCM didn't really start making collector coins until 1953 or so. Until 1949 they referred requests for coin sets to the Bank of Canada. Even after they started a numismatic department to sell coins, they used some business strike coins to fill year set requests. In 1953 they began making full sets of numismatic BU coins that Haxby dubbed "prooflike", and confusion among American collectors has reigned since.

 

In short, 1945-and-beyond business strike dollars usually came from the mint with mirrored fields. While American collectors deem them "proof-like", they are not the same as Canadian prooflikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canadian specimen/PL/MS....it is all very confusing, and not even the experts agree as to which is which. Is my 1949 dollar that exhibits classic "proof style" mirroring a PL? Or just a realllly nicely struck MS, like most dollars that year? By US definitions, it would absolutely by "PL"...but that term doesn't apply to Canadian numismatics until 1953, with the RCM designating "prooflike" coins for sale to collectors.

 

Silly canuckleheads.

 

Canadian "prooflike" is not the same as American "proof-like". The official term according to the Royal Canadian Mint for what Haxby called "prooflike" coins is (Numismatic) "Brilliant Uncirculated." Numismatic BU coins (prooflikes) are stuck on specially prepared blanks with slower moving equipment using higher striking pressure for a higher quality look than regular circulation coins.

 

Oh, I know...hence the confusion. There's a real diffrence between the "official" term "prooflike", vs. what "prooflike" might mean to a US collector, at least in the manufacturing sense. They are most certainly not the same, but the end result is what creates the confusion. Canadian collector coins aren't nearly as distinguishable from business strikes as US coins of the same era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A local dealer swore off Canadian "prooflike" silver dollars because he was hoodwinked by a Canadian dealer. The dealer he bought them from said they were "obviously" PL because of the better details, lack of marks, and nicer surfaces. When he tried to sell them back to the same dealer he was told they were business strikes.

 

The funny thing is that true business strikes in higher grades are now worth more than PLs in most cases. For example, if you found a 1968 business strike dollar in MS67 you'd have a much scarcer coin that one in PL67. I wonder what the market is for high graded business strike nickel dollars. hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK

Sent this submission into NCS for Conservation and transfer to NGC for slabbing

Two Different Labels, what gives

 

Coins for NCS Invoice Number 5401734

001 1967 CANADA 1C 3551170 PL 65 RD

002 1967 CANADA 25C 3551170 PROOF LIKE STAINED

003 1967 CANADA 50C 3551170 PL 63

004 1967 CANADA DIVING GOOSE S$1 3551170 PL 63

005 1967 CANADA TOKEN 3551170 INELIGIBLE TYPE

 

Coins for NGC invoice number 3551170

001 1967 CANADA 1C PL 65 RD

002 1967 CANADA 25C PROOF LIKE STAINED

003 1967 CANADA 50C PL 63

004 1967 CANADA S$1 PL 63

005 1967 CANADA TOKEN INELIGIBLE TYPE

 

 

Diving Goose Variety is a big deal where did it go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen the images and it did not have the required angle to get the diving goose tag. Nice coin though, I would be happy to own it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I looked this up in the latest (2011) Charlton Catalogue (Vols 1 & 2).

The 1967 dollar is listed in MS, PL and SP conditions.

The Specimen strikes are well struck with sharp edges and are close to appearing to be proof strikes.

These were issued in sets that contained all 6 denominations and a $20 gold coin.

According to Charlton, the coins in the the set with the silver medal are proof-like (PL), not specimen.

PL coins were also issued in the pliofilm packaging.

The RCM produced coins of high quality for circulation and some early die state MS coins can be indistinguishable from PL.

The rotated reverse Diving Goose is a desirable strike variety.

Dollar coins with 180 degree die rotation are extremely rare (12 known to exist).

It has long been suspected by many that these "errors" were deliberately made by dishonest mint employees.

To my knowledge this has never been proven.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know from looking at the pictures this coin is not a diving goose.

I submitted the coin because I liked the toning and Cameo Contrast, I still like the coin very much. When NCS listed it as a Diving Goose I almost lost it, how could I get so lucky, just to find out they miss attributed it. I was very excited thinking I had found a treasure that would fit very nicely in my error set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites