1983 Canadian Transitional Error Cent

[Zimmy]

Just wanted to report that I just acquired a 1983 cent struck on a planchet intended for cents struck in 1980 and 1981. My coin weighs 2.812 grams and a normal 1983 cent should weigh 2.50 grams. Note the sharpness where the sides meet on the edge due to the planchet being heavier than a normal 2.5 gram planchet. Normal 12-sided coins are more rounded where the sides meet. This qualifies as a transitional error. I am sure there are a fair amount of 1982's on 1980-81 planchets and on even later years such as mine out there. Start weighing!!!! BTW, thanks Patrick Glassford for your expert help in identifying this transitional error.

[jcuve]

I don't have enough first hand knowledge on standard Canadian planchets to agree or disagree, but I will note what your suggesting is not a transitional error, rather an off metal error.

[Zimmy]

Thanks for your response but the metal content is exactly the same for Canadian cents struck in 1980/1981 as compared to the cents struck from 1982 to 1996. So it is not an off metal error but does qualify for a wrong planchet error. The difference is that the 1980/1981 planchets for striking weighed 2.8 grams while the planchets from 1982 to 1996 weighed 2.5 grams. There is another difference in that the 1980/1981 coins were struck round while the 1982 to 1996 coins were 12 sided. My coin is a Transitional wrong planchet strike but the metal content is exactly the same. My coin is also 2 years beyond when the 2.8 gram planchet was last struck in 1981 which makes in more special too..

[jcuve]

If the weight is different it could be a wrong planchet error, but it could be a rolled thick planchet. Looking into it, compositionally they are the same, just a slight weight difference. The dodecagon (12 sides) is coming from the collar die, not the planchet - if it is a tad bigger you might see issues of sharpness (or finning) along the rims as you're seeing here. I do not know how you would prove it is a planchet from the wrong year vs a rolled thick planchet as the weights are not all that far apart and the composition is the same.

I can see the use of the term "transitional" with some planchet errors where a compositional change has occurred and minted during a subsequent year. I am not a fan of the term.

[Zimmy]

The weight is different, about 12% heavier, which I consider to be fairly significant and almost exactly what the prior issue weighs. Wrong stock errors are either rolled thin or rolled thick and can be identified by the weight of the planchet. Using the same methodology of identifying a planchet struck on wrong stock, which is by weighing it, my 1983 dated error can also be identified by weight, which is 2.81 grams....the weight of a 1980-81 issue.

I am not sure why a transitional error has to be a compositional change, although there are very few opportunities out there that aren't compositional changes....I don't know of any U.S. issue. Although there is no compositional change with my situation, the weight and size of the Canadian cent planchet changed from 1981 to 1982. Any coin dated 1982 and later and struck on a 1981 planchet is a transitional error. Maybe there should be two transitional types.....one an off-metal transitional and one a wrong planchet transitional.

[jcuve]

Th closest comparison on US coinage is a compositional change. Like finding a 1983 copper Lincoln cent or something from 1965 that was silver. But once you get passed more than a year, one has to wonder how a coin could be struck on the wrong planchet. It would help to see how prevalent this type of weight error is. Maybe there are a bunch of 1982s out there and a few did make it to 1983. I do not have any quantity of early 1980 Canadian cents on hand to weigh.

I am going to contemplate my earlier objections to the term transitional and be open about it.

[Zimmy]

There have been 1982 Canadian cents that are struck on 1980-81 planchets reported but not many that I know about. There aren't near as many people weighing Canadian 1982's as people weighing U.S. cents dated 1983. There are many known examples of wrong planchets finding their way into much later minting years so two years later isn't impossible. I would think that the 1980-81 planchets would be very difficult to distinguish between the 1982-96 planchets and could relatively easily make their way into the presses from various sources just like they do with any transitional error. I do agree that you can't be 100% sure on this coin but the hobby and grading services have authenticated other error types with similar situations such as the wrong stock errors previously discussed. Anyway...thanks for your input!

[koinpro]

Nice find!!! If Pat Glassford saw it and your weights are correct and he says it is what you claim I'll go along with anything he says. He used to be a CONECA Examiner years ago. this definitely qualifies as a Transitional Error by my definition like the US 1983 and 1983-D cents discovered on pure copper alloy planchets left over from 1982 or earlier. I don't know how much a coin like this would sell for in Canada but the US 1983 and 1983-D copper alloy Lincoln cens cents sell in the thousands of dollars. The last one I arranged to be sold by Stack's Bowers (a 1983-D copper) fetched $18,500.

[Zimmy]

Thanks Ken. Appreciate your input. Yes Patrick knows what is going on, especially with wrong planchet and off metal errors.

[SPP-Ottawa]

More than a year later, and hundreds of 1983 rolls, I still have not found this transitional error. I suspect it is as scarce as a 1c struck on a 10c planchet.

The hunt continues...

[PNWMAKES]

Nice read and information, going to have to check all 1983's now.

[Zimmy]

SPP......you will have an easier time, if that is possible, checking 1982 rolls. My 1983 actually skipped a year for this transitional. However, you probably already know this and you are actually looking for this transitional for 1983 dated cents.

[Zimmy]

The subject coin came back from PCGS several months ago as struck on a 2.8 gram planchet. To me it seems a real cop out in their designation by not going the extra step and designating it as struck on a 1980-81 series Canadian cent planchet. However, I discussed my coin with NGC's mint error expert and subject to his physical examination and confirming research, he will have no problem designating it as a transitional error. I will submit to his attention in the near future and report back.

[Zimmy]

So after what seemed like eternity in getting the subject coin correctly designated, NGC stepped up to the table when I gave them their chance. Unlike PCGS, NGC gave the coin a well-deserved "Transitional" designation. The score........NGC-1 PCGS-0. Remember that folks. 1983 Canadian Cent Trans 10b.jpg 1983 Canadian Cent Trans 1h.jpg