I recently acquired one of these coins and I think it might be the scarcer double bar variety. Can anyone help me to verify? I’ve also attached an image of the coin itself, can anyone estimate its value? Thanks!
I think it is just a slight anomaly (i.e PMD) rather than one of the two bars. The one possible bar on the OPs coin seems to me that it is lower than the obvious example given, here the top bar meets the plumage further up than the other „possible“ bar, which has the bar/scratch/pmd meeting where the plumage meets the head of the bird and is also slightly bending towards that area. There is no sign of the second bar.
Some Australien coins in MS condition and or varieties can hold huge premiums, so you can’t blame the OP for trying. Still a nice silver coin worth €10 and up, but not the double bar variety.
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
I asked the same not so long ago, means Operation in military terms, but here it stands for the Original Post or Original Posters comment / question - referring thus to you and your original question simultaneously.
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
Your 1966 round 50 cent technically is a ‘double bar’ variety, as this was actually a part of Stuart Devlin’s original design. These ‘double bars’ were found to cause abnormal wear and deterioration to the dies, so they were later removed. For this reason, all 1966 50 cent coins have this ‘double bar’, with some just being fainter than others.
The double bar that appears on some 1979 and 1980 50 cents were likely struck with the master dies for some reason instead of the new dies with the ‘double bar’ removed?
You would be looking at around $AU35-$45 for an uncirculated example, but there were some 36.5 million struck for this year, and they are therefore pretty common and sell for around the melt price — as you said.
IM94 is correct is every aspect regarding your coin. Your coin IS a 1966 double bar variety.
We have traded hundreds & hundreds of them and the buyers don't seem concerned whether they have double bars or not.
Simply as bullion value/investments.
We achieve from $26 to $39 per coin depending on it's condition (whether it's double bar or not) and whether they are housed in a 2 x 2 coin holder or Cased. Bulk coins of 50 to 100 fetch @ $18-20 per coin, again depending on their condition.
Hope that helps. But hold on to them, as they do increase in value with time.
Your 1966 round 50 cent technically is a ‘double bar’ variety, as this was actually a part of Stuart Devlin’s original design. These ‘double bars’ were found to cause abnormal wear and deterioration to the dies, so they were later removed. For this reason, all 1966 50 cent coins have this ‘double bar’, with some just being fainter than others.
The double bar that appears on some 1979 and 1980 50 cents were likely struck with the master dies for some reason instead of the new dies with the ‘double bar’ removed?
You would be looking at around $AU35-$45 for an uncirculated example, but there were some 36.5 million struck for this year, and they are therefore pretty common and sell for around the melt price — as you said.
I only have 2 of these coins in good AU+ condition and neither of them have a double bar, so how can all of these coins be a double bar version?
Also if the double bar was removed from the die, then the majority would have been struck with the dies without the double bar? Correct or am I missing something… or the die was replaced later after the majority of the 36 million were minted? But then we come back to how come there are not many of them that have obvious double bar?
And finally - causing deterioration of the die, something that is also strange, how could 2 little grooves less than 0.0005% (estimate) of this design create such a problem In the first place? I could believe that the die integrity was affected by 2 deep lines crossing the whole design, but these two small lines surly not - because if that is true every other part of the design would also cause deterioration to the dies.
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
Your 1966 round 50 cent technically is a ‘double bar’ variety, as this was actually a part of Stuart Devlin’s original design. These ‘double bars’ were found to cause abnormal wear and deterioration to the dies, so they were later removed. For this reason, all 1966 50 cent coins have this ‘double bar’, with some just being fainter than others.
The double bar that appears on some 1979 and 1980 50 cents were likely struck with the master dies for some reason instead of the new dies with the ‘double bar’ removed?
You would be looking at around $AU35-$45 for an uncirculated example, but there were some 36.5 million struck for this year, and they are therefore pretty common and sell for around the melt price — as you said.
I only have 2 of these coins in good AU+ condition and neither of them have a double bar, so how can all of these coins be a double bar version?
Also if the double bar was removed from the die, then the majority would have been struck with the dies without the double bar? Correct or am I missing something… or the die was replaced later after the majority of the 36 million were minted? But then we come back to how come there are not many of them that have obvious double bar?
And finally - causing deterioration of the die, something that is also strange, how could 2 little grooves less than 0.0005% (estimate) of this design create such a problem In the first place? I could believe that the die integrity was affected by 2 deep lines crossing the whole design, but these two small lines surly not - because if that is true every other part of the design would also cause deterioration to the dies.
Perhaps Barse can expand a bit more and give some more information as he seems to know more about the 1966 ‘double bar’ (as well as 1979 and 1980) than I do. This has been discussed in various Australian articles and forums over the years though so there should be info available online.
What I’m saying is that the so-called ‘double bar’ on 1966 50 cent coins is not an error or a variety as it was an intentional feature of Stuart Devlin’s original reverse design. Every master die created in 1966 included this feature, meaning that in a technical sense - every 1966 50 cent die had the ‘double bar’ present. However, due to this detail being extremely fine and recessed, this proved problematic during production.
You have to understand that these coins were struck with upwards of 150 tonnes of pressure, and this concentrated pressure on such a small area tended to trap debris and flowing metal during striking. Essentially, this caused micro-cracks and chips — accelerating abrasion and wear on that part of the die. This means that this area would wear down quicker than surrounding elements of the die, and as the die aged, this area would be one of the first to disappear. When I say ‘deterioration’, I am not meaning it compromised the entire design of the coin, but it shortened the life of the die and created an ongoing maintenance issue. These ‘double bars’ were polished down to manage this issue, and then later removed on previous years. As a result of this, some show the double bar clearly and others faintly.
It’s not the same cause as is completely different to the ‘double bar’, but have a look at ‘rabbit ear’ and ‘spew roo’ varieties on Australian coins if you are interested. These show how localised stress on a particular fine detail can cause loss of detail or die breakage on coins.
Your 1966 round 50 cent technically is a ‘double bar’ variety, as this was actually a part of Stuart Devlin’s original design. These ‘double bars’ were found to cause abnormal wear and deterioration to the dies, so they were later removed. For this reason, all 1966 50 cent coins have this ‘double bar’, with some just being fainter than others.
The double bar that appears on some 1979 and 1980 50 cents were likely struck with the master dies for some reason instead of the new dies with the ‘double bar’ removed?
You would be looking at around $AU35-$45 for an uncirculated example, but there were some 36.5 million struck for this year, and they are therefore pretty common and sell for around the melt price — as you said.
I only have 2 of these coins in good AU+ condition and neither of them have a double bar, so how can all of these coins be a double bar version?
Also if the double bar was removed from the die, then the majority would have been struck with the dies without the double bar? Correct or am I missing something… or the die was replaced later after the majority of the 36 million were minted? But then we come back to how come there are not many of them that have obvious double bar?
And finally - causing deterioration of the die, something that is also strange, how could 2 little grooves less than 0.0005% (estimate) of this design create such a problem In the first place? I could believe that the die integrity was affected by 2 deep lines crossing the whole design, but these two small lines surly not - because if that is true every other part of the design would also cause deterioration to the dies.
Perhaps Barse can expand a bit more and give some more information as he seems to know more about the 1966 ‘double bar’ (as well as 1979 and 1980) than I do. This has been discussed in various Australian articles and forums over the years though so there should be info available online.
What I’m saying is that the so-called ‘double bar’ on 1966 50 cent coins is not an error or a variety as it was an intentional feature of Stuart Devlin’s original reverse design. Every master die created in 1966 included this feature, meaning that in a technical sense - every 1966 50 cent die had the ‘double bar’ present. However, due to this detail being extremely fine and recessed, this proved problematic during production.
You have to understand that these coins were struck with upwards of 150 tonnes of pressure, and this concentrated pressure on such a small area tended to trap debris and flowing metal during striking. Essentially, this caused micro-cracks and chips — accelerating abrasion and wear on that part of the die. This means that this area would wear down quicker than surrounding elements of the die, and as the die aged, this area would be one of the first to disappear. When I say ‘deterioration’, I am not meaning it compromised the entire design of the coin, but it shortened the life of the die and created an ongoing maintenance issue. These ‘double bars’ were polished down to manage this issue, and then later removed on previous years. As a result of this, some show the double bar clearly and others faintly.
It’s not the same cause as is completely different to the ‘double bar’, but have a look at ‘rabbit ear’ and ‘spew roo’ varieties on Australian coins if you are interested. These show how localised stress on a particular fine detail can cause loss of detail or die breakage on coins.
👍 that is a very good explanation and answers my questions extremely well, thank you
„If your reply or post in the Forum stinks of AI, I will call you out! Knowledge comes from experience, the I in AI stands for incompetence.“
It is not LEGAL unless you're the government like the RAM (Royal Australian Mint). These regulations are outlined in Section 16 of the Crimes (Currency) Act 1981.
Poor sentence structure on my part. It is not legal for a jeweler in Australia to melt Australian coins. Only authorized government agencies like the Mint can melt them.
