Since the 1966 and 1967 share the same variants, it would correct to have two year lines for the 1966 as well, or we should merge the two year lines for the 1967. I prefer to add a new year line for the 1966 coin.
As far as I know the 1966 has ‘Short 9’ or ‘Long 9’ but the leaves are near the rim in both variants.
The 1967 variants are described as ‘Leaves near rim’ or ‘Leaves far from rim’. The 1967 one with ‘Leaves near rim’ always has a ‘Long 9’, the other one always has a ‘Short 9’.
If you can make it clear the 1966 only has a difference in the 9 but not the leaves and the 1967 in both the 9 and the leaves i'm ok with it…
I can see the difference in the 9's in the first two images (1966) and again in the other two (1967).
The difference in the leaves near or far from the rim are very clear in the last two images, not so in the first two. I would say both 1966 coins have the same leaves …
I must confess I have very strict rules about variants. For me it must be easily visible to the naked eye or else I attribute any change to wear and tear…
But it is not the first time I had to reconsider 😄
I'll see if I can find any 1966's in my duplicates just to check…
It could be real but it could also just be some wear either to the coin or the dies? If you compare the two 1967 variants there is a very clear difference. Doubtful for the 1966… 🤔
