Canadian 2003 coins, crowned vs. uncrowned

SheDragon · 01-23-2006, 12:17 AM

I have been working on 2x2ing some of the coins I have lying around here. When I got to some of my 2003 coins I noticed that there are two versions of the queen. The younger efigy with a crown and the older uncrowned queen. My Coins of Canada book only mentions the new uncrowned version. All of them are P coins. Does anyone have any more info about the quantity of each minted and any difference in value?

I only have this info:
.01$- unknown quantity of each with the same value of .10-.25$
.05$- 93 million uncrowned at .35$ for MS-63
.10$- 162 million uncrowned at .25$ for MS-63
.25$- 88 million uncrowned @ .75$ for MS-63

Defiant7 · 01-23-2006, 01:30 AM

Mintage for 1 cent
Crowned 235,936,799
Uncrowned 354,994,666

Mintage for 5 cent
Crowned 31,388,921
Uncrowned 61,392,180

Mintage for 25 cent
Crowned 15,905,090
Uncrowned 66,861,633

Charlton did not have seperate mintage numbers for dimes. Also as of yet there is no real price differance between crowned and uncrowned.

SheDragon · 01-23-2006, 08:05 PM

Thank you Defiant7

PyrotekNX · 01-23-2006, 08:29 PM

If you were smart, you would invest more into the crown versions than the uncrowned ones.

Aidan Work · 01-23-2006, 08:46 PM

Both versions actually depict the Queen wearing a crown.
What this section is supposed to be about is comparing Dora De Pedery-Hunt's portrait to the one by Susanna Blount.I prefer the former,as the latter is just so terrible.
Fortunately,we have got Ian Rank-Broadley's portrait of the
Queen on our coins here in New Zealand.

Aidan.

Defiant7 · 01-24-2006, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aidan Work

Both versions actually depict the Queen wearing a crown.

Are you looking at the right coins, because on Susanna Blunt's portrait of the Queen, the Queen is not wearing a crown.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aidan Work

Fortunately,we have got Ian Rank-Broadley's portrait of the Queen on our coins here in New Zealand.

To each their own I guess, I thought that version made the Queen look fat.

SheDragon · 01-24-2006, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Defiant7

Are you looking at the right coins, because on Susanna Blunt's portrait of the Queen, the Queen is not wearing a crown.

I agree Defiant , there is deffinately no crown.

Aidan, actually this thread was asking about the numbers of each minted and their respective values, not a debate about how attractive each one is to various people. Thanks though.

Aidan Work · 01-24-2006, 11:15 PM

Yes,you are right about the new portrait of the Queen on Canadian coins.I had a look at my 2003 25c. coin,& yes,she
is not wearing a crown.The letter 'P' is NOT a mintmark.It is an indicator that the coin is struck from plated metal.

Aidan.

SheDragon · 01-25-2006, 12:22 AM

Yeah the mint started up full production at a new plating facility (Winnipeg) in 2001, the P indicates the coin was struck from one of the blanks produced at the new facility. There is often quite a difference in the mint quantities between the P and no P coins. Some years are only P coins, others have both "versions". The P coins can be struck at either the Ottawa or Winnipeg mints. If I remeber correctly 2001 is also the year they changed the composition of the coins to nickel plated steel (whether or not they are marked with P)

Aidan Work · 01-25-2006, 12:44 AM

SheDragon,I have a pair of the 2001 5c. coins.The one without the 'P' is the cupro-nickel one,whereas,the one with the 'P' is the plated one.The latter has a very shiny look to it,whereas,the former has discoloured.

Aidan.

SheDragon · 01-25-2006, 01:02 AM

According to my info the compostion for the nickel changed to nickel-plated steel in 2000, not sure why yours would look different; as far as I know they are all plated. Haven't heard of the cupro-nickel before, do you have any info on it? The P does not indicate a plated coin it indicates that the coin was struck from on of the blanks produced at the new plating facility.

Aidan Work · 01-25-2006, 01:10 AM

SheDragon,that is not correct.Charlton lists the composition change as being from 2001.There were some test tokens struck in 2000.If you haven't got a Charlton catalogue,you can go here; www.charltonpress.com/Numismatics2.asp .

Aidan.

WhispTech · 01-25-2006, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PyrotekNX

If you were smart, you would invest more into the crown versions than the uncrowned ones.

I agree with that. You would think that because of the switch the crowned would become more valuiable. Also note from defiant7 post of mintage the crowned are also lower mintage. I am assuming since no dime mintage data yet in thread that the quarter being at a 1 to 4 ratio would be the one to go up in value the most and maybe the fastest. Fastest being many many years because it is still a huge mintage number. Thats an assumption though.

Also when loooking around I found this info for the quarter.

2003P Crowned .75 / 2.00 / 5.00
2003WP Crowned 10
2003P Uncrowned .75 / 2.00 / 5.00

found that on this site.

http://www.stanford.edu/~clint/cp/25.htm

Do the guides show the three versions?

Defiant7 · 01-25-2006, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhispTech

Also when loooking around I found this info for the quarter.

2003P Crowned .75 / 2.00 / 5.00
2003WP Crowned 10
2003P Uncrowned .75 / 2.00 / 5.00

found that on this site.

http://www.stanford.edu/~clint/cp/25.htm

Do the guides show the three versions?

Yes, but WP coins were only found in the Coronation Brilliant Uncirculated sets, Charlton does not have individual prices for the coins. Mintage is 71,142

WhispTech · 01-25-2006, 04:33 PM

Thats makes sense since its a proof set so probably priced in the proof set section.

Welcome to Coin Talk! Register Now, it's easy and FREE!