Has anyone noticed the differences between 50c and 1D Moroccan coins from 1974 (1394). The dates are a different thickness, the rim is thicker on one whilst the other has a rope edge to the rim, and the edge has deeper grooves. It also appears that the one (I assume the later version) is more resistant to wear and tear.
They are just worn coins (extremely worn at that) which makes things look a bit broader than if they had a bit thinner highpoints. You can still see the rope at the bottom of the 50 santimat.
No, these are definitely substantially different. Maybe not a good photo.
There is no way a roped rim (on the right) can be made as straight as the rim on the worn coins (on the left), which appears almost unworn in comparison.
If you are talking about the circular nature of the rims at the left, they are simply the base of the corded border on the right. I can clearly see the remnants (your picture is good enough), but if you can't we are probably at an impasse and we cam wait for a third set of eyes.
Rather than worn coins, could these be the products of worn dies? The gap between the cord and rim seems to be a the same level as the field inside the cord, so a worn coin wouldn't look like these. However, if the dies were used for too long, the thin part that produced that gap could wear away, producing this broader rim.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Stato cambiato a Respinta(Jarcek, 25 Apr 2023, 17:32)
There is nothing for me to change on the page (yet or even if). SoI formally close this ticket. This thread would be better suited in coin question forum.
Would you please leave it open for a little while yet, even if it's only a week or two. There may be a few more comments to come from people who are still looking for their own coins to compare.
That is why I suggested posting this in different forum section. Here it looks this is a request for change in catalogue, so many people won!t come here to look for information.
Idolenz's suggestion would work if the field between the ribbon and rim were higher than the main field area, but that doesn't appear to be the case. A worn die would explain the observation if the fields are both at the same level, as shown here:
The die (including collar on the right edge) has lost the thin strip of metal in between the ribbon and rim, generating the thick rim observed together with remnants of the ribbon.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Thank you. You have made the point i was trying to raise far more eloquently than i could. What I couldn't understand was, if this was just wear and tear, why the wider rim didn't have a groove down the middle (where the inside edge of the rope border would have been).
Being unable to measure accuratly at those smaller depths, visually, the depth of the wide rim far exceeded the difference in the depth of the rope edge, so should have produced a line within the wider edge.
On second thoughts - I'm not sure what ceh2019 is trying to say. Please explain.
Do you think the gap between the rope edge and the outer rim could have somehow been filled in? I'm not sure that's possible. This seems entirely dependent on the depth of the gap between the rope edge and the rim of the coin with the narrow edge in relation to the rest of the coin. l believe the depth is the same. Therefore, there should be a groove in the middle of the rim of the wider rimmed coin, unless it's a different coin.
Look at the shape of the die. What I'm suggesting is that the ridge between the rim and the ribbon has worn away to produce a single, wider rim. Because it's the die that's changed, the cause is the reverse of what you see on the coin.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
Look at the shape of the die. What I'm suggesting is that the ridge between the rim and the ribbon has worn away to produce a single, wider rim. Because it's the die that's changed, the cause is the reverse of what you see on the coin.
I agree with your explanation which can be proved if there are also ones in between.
Look at the shape of the die. What I'm suggesting is that the ridge between the rim and the ribbon has worn away to produce a single, wider rim. Because it's the die that's changed, the cause is the reverse of what you see on the coin.
I agree with your explanation which can be proved if there are also ones in between.
Yes, that's crucial. My examples have ribbons and rims. Does anyone have intermediates?
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
ceh2019Yes, that's crucial. My examples have ribbons and rims. Does anyone have intermediates?
Edited my reply while you were posting. But on second thought it's unlikely that the die would fail uniformly the entire circumference.
I agree the uniformity is surprising, so maybe it's a retooled die? Another possibility is that these are fakes made from casts of the real coins. That might lead to a poor reproduction of the ribbon and rim but I'd expect other things to be wrong.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
They are just worn coins (extremely worn at that) which makes things look a bit broader than if they had a bit thinner highpoints. You can still see the rope at the bottom of the 50 santimat.
I agree now with Idolenz. I took all my seven 1 dinar coins and measured their thickness only at the rim, and this is the result. The dates look all the same to me.
I have 5 50 santimat coins, but as such it should give the same result! If wanted, I can invest a couple of hours doing the same as for the 1 dinar coins, but I would prefer not to…
I don't think they are fakes. I have too many of them. As a foreign collector, maybe one or two - not 5 or 6. That's why I've asked for a bit longer on this post - so that maybe people can check their own examples (in Europe, it's quite a common coin to find - read, a good tourist destination).
Also, even with substantial wear across the face of the coin, nothing I've heard so far explains the lack of a line between the worn rope edge and the rim. This looks increasingly like a different coin, or some form of Die issue.
Thanks to everyone for all the comments though, both for and against. It shows that this is a really healthy forum for even handed debate.
A few more votes though for/against would be helpful 👍👎
The problem with my die idea is that Ole's images show us that the rim gets thinner as the ribbon and rim merge. That wouldn't happen with a worn die. The images also show intermediate stages with intermediate thicknesses.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
The problem with my die idea is that Ole's images show us that the rim gets thinner as the ribbon and rim merge. That wouldn't happen with a worn die. The images also show intermediate stages with intermediate thicknesses.
I do not believe it's a die problem, but simply wear and tear, as shown clearly in my graphic.
The problem with my die idea is that Ole's images show us that the rim gets thinner as the ribbon and rim merge. That wouldn't happen with a worn die. The images also show intermediate stages with intermediate thicknesses.
I do not believe it's a die problem, but simply wear and tear, as shown clearly in my graphic.
Yes, it's the correlation between thickness and the merging of the ribbon and rim that's the key.
Former Numista referee for banknotes from Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Saint Helena.
