Picked this coin up recently, and I'm very curious to hear what others think of it. I'm kind of on the fence on whether to look at this coin as an impaired proof (the fields, while obviously scratched/worn in places, are definitely reflective or prooflike, and the portrait has a cameo appearance) or just a PL business strike in XF/AU condition. It has a lot more detail than I'm used to (usually these are worn down to AG-VG before I see them) especially in the crown, and the surfaces are definitely mirror like. I didn't even think there were proofs for this date until I checked into it, apparently there were. Here are some photos showing the fields a bit better: The rims aren't flat on both sides, and it doesn't look like it's been polished (there is still luster showing, not that dull, lifeless look of a polished coin.) Tried searching for images online of a proof example but couldn't find one to compare. Thoughts? What do you think?
I think you need an experienced Canada collector. Numista states there is a forgotten MM, but I think it only applies to the 1940 and 1942, 1Cent pieces. Business and Proof with no MM should mean they were struck in London. Also, there are 4, I think, varieties of DDR to do with the date. Possibly @Bill in Burl can help or @Paddy54 Either way it is a nice looking example
At a 100,000 mintage for ms coins I cant find a proof mintages, the look of the coin and the missing c mm....I say it was a proof strike...no expert but my vote would be an impaired proof or specimen strike. Ill wait to see the others say...nice pick up. I sold my 1943 NF dime last year.
Ok the RCM issued of 1941-1947 have a C mm. The Royal mint issued the 1938 and the RCM 1940 have no mint marks. 38-44 .925 silver .075 copper 2.33g 18.03 mm
I'm no expert but I will say that I've found a lot of these in really nice shape and I don't think yours looks different. I think it's just in good condition.