There are two types for date 1962 in this coin N#5417
One with small date, other with large date
- Small date: The date is engraved with smaller digits and positioned farther from the edge, closer to the center of the coin. - Large date: The inscription "1962" appears closer to the edge of the coin, with larger and more spaced-out digits.
These variants are known among collectors and have been documented in numismatic catalogs such as the Krause-Mishler (KM# 224.2).
CoinVarieties and Numista both record that date varieties exist for the 1962 10-centavos, but they show the coin under the same Krause catalog reference KM-224.2 (no separate KM for “fecha estrecha / fecha ancha”).
NGC’s world price/spec page also notes “date varieties exist” for the thin-planchet 10-centavos and lists the coin as KM-224.2.
Commercial sellers and listings (NumisCorner, auction/eBay listings) also use KM-224.2 for the 1962 issue — again with photos showing slight date differences but no distinct Krause number.
Krause (Standard Catalog of World Coins) treats this date as one catalog entry (KM-224.2).
Die/date varieties (collector-level identifications such as “narrow date” vs “wide date”) are commonly noted by collectors and on speciality sites, but they are typically variety notes rather than distinct Krause catalog numbers.
As an aside for this coin, KM# 224.1 is for the Thick planchet while KM# 224.2 is for the Thin planchet. The thin planchet has a thickness of 1.3 mm according to SCWC. The thick planchet doesn't have a thickness in SCWC. Numista has “1.3 mm” in every year line comment for the KM# 224.2 with no thickness listed in the year line comments for the thick planchet. Usually that means the thickness in the Features block applies except the thickness there is 1.31 mm so very doubtful that the thick planchet in only 0.01 mm bigger than the thin planchet. Anybody have a thickness for the thick planchet? That's the one that should be shown in the Features block. Also, is the weight the same?
EDIT: Back in 2013 this coin was listed as 2.51 g and 1.31 mm. Looks like somebody change the weight to the thick planchet weight but not the thickness.
Here is what SCWC tells us about 224.1 coin, from 1945 and 1946:
And here is my 1945 coin in grade F:
W: 3.89; D: 19.97; T: 1.66
Just for the completeness, here are all coins in my collection
I should think, that the 224.1 would be around 1.75mm thick in an AU grade?
Don't use IA, use the knowledge of the numista members and their data, please don't believe in ChatGPT, if you want verities go for the raw data, please.
Thanks. So it looks like the weight/thickness in the Features block is correct (or close) for KM# 224.2 so no reason to crowd all those year line comments with the thickness and a comment about the weight/thickness for KM# 224.1 needs to be added.
I think stick with the SCWC documented 1.3 mm thickness and current Numista weight of 2.70 g. As far as the comment about the weight/thickness for the thick planchet, what do you suggest based on one sample?
Need input from the referees. @adanieluy@Jasanche They may have other references to pull from.
I don't see a problem in page, since the KM variants are from different years: KM# 224.1 from 1945 & 1946; KM# 224.2 from 19196551 to 1965.
The small variations, owing to different dies may be added to comments (as there are several), so people may know, and have the data if they like to collect the variations.
About weight, only I feel is important is to show the difference on thick and thin planchets, but very small variations always exist; it is caused first for the planchets may have variations (remember is usual a tolerance up to 5% in weight for circulating coins, smaller for commemorative or bullion); and then for material loss on heavy circulated coins. In other words, for this coin, that shows to be 2.7g, variations from 2.57g to 2.83g are within the tolerance range.
Krause/Numismaster does not give wieght nor thickness for KM# 214.1, only for KM# 214.2 (2.7g, 1.3mm), so this data will be welcome to add to Numista page; I must search my KM# 214.1 coin, but I know is very worn, so my data will not be too accurate.
I have literature about notes, medals and commemorative coins, but too few about circulating ones. Maybe @Jasanche has other sources?
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
Krause/Numismaster does not give wieght nor thickness for KM# 214.1, only for KM# 214.2 (2.7g, 1.3mm), so this data will be welcome to add to Numista page; I must search my KM# 214.1 coin, but I know is very worn, so my data will not be too accurate.
Thanks. The data is already there for KM# 214.2. We're questioning what data to add for KM# 214.1 since Ole's measurements indicate his is well outside the normal tolerance for KM# 214.2 so the weight/thickness must be significantly different
Take a look at this and give me your comments. The lines are taken from the ‘large ’and transposed to the ‘small’ date. I think the easiest difference to see, is the open and closed nines?
Take a look at this and give me your comments. The lines are taken from the ‘large ’and transposed to the ‘small’ date. I think the easiest difference to see, is the open and closed nines?
Take a look at this and give me your comments. The lines are taken from the ‘large ’and transposed to the ‘small’ date. I think the easiest difference to see, is the open and closed nines?
Comments?
Well explained
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
I thought about the two variants again. There is no size difference between the dates on the two coins! I would prefer not to use the terms large / small dates and use open / closed 9 instead?
Agree. Numerals are the same size. There is a slight difference in the spacing between them with the “small” date actually spaced farther apart. I would limit the graphic to only the difference in shape of the numbers and delete the small/large comment.
Still waiting on any information about the weight/thickness of KM224.1
I'm fine with it. However, I also see the two in the date, one closer and one farther from the bust, and I had considered them as a difference in size.
Looking the pictures, I see all 3 numbers, “962” have differences, but the most noticeable variation is on the “6”, so it may be shown as the easiest way to classify de variant. Anyways, graphic is good.
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
I didn't mention size, it was already noted before, for “differences” I mean the upper loop is close/far from diagonal
Just 10 options: you understand binary, or you don't.
Catalog Referee Coins, Banknotes & Exonumia: Uruguay, Cuba, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, Zamunda, Parva Domus and more.
Looking the pictures, I see all 3 numbers, “962” have differences, but the most noticeable variation is on the “6”, so it may be shown as the easiest way to classify de variant. Anyways, graphic is good.
You need to have the two different coins to see it, the open and closed 9 can be seen if you only have ONE coin! That's why, I have put that as the first difference.
