1. 1965 small beads pointed 5
2. 1965 Small beads blunt 5
3. 1965 large beads blunt 5
4. 1965 large beads pointed 5
![Image](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-XUydVW55iW4/UKgir-3DOiI/AAAAAAAAC58/orPTlxUD3sM/s576/Scanned%2520Image%2520123220009.jpg)
![Image](https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-qF9zan93BNY/UKggmSwygrI/AAAAAAAAC50/-nZU0X1vt_Q/s512/Scanned%2520Image%2520123220008.jpg)
![Image](https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-7lMuxrsHlLk/UKjihWfajFI/AAAAAAAAC60/GolP8alAAVE/s309/pic0006.jpg)
![Image](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-QJEx1Iu2BBo/UKjihqawTpI/AAAAAAAAC6U/vnPFORoELXk/s640/pic0007.jpg)
![Image](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-oICppyfkRfY/UKjijSJNEdI/AAAAAAAAC6g/ajXvGzhjG64/s640/pic0008.jpg)
Thogey wrote:I read the title and thought you were having a 'personal problem'.
mtalbot_ca wrote:I still think it is a small bead, blunt 5, because the bead arrives in the middle of the roman numeral ''II'' of Elizabeth II on the reverse.
Cheers,
Hi Joe
You have a Small Beads obverse and Blunt 5 reverse variety #2.
It's not proof. There are no proof 1965 cents.
George Manz
George Manz Coins
P.O. Box 3626
Regina, SK, Canada S4P 3L7
As would Snoop Dogg, Colorado, or Washington.Verbane wrote:I'm voting for Large Blunt
NHsorter wrote:As would Snoop Dogg, Colorado, or Washington.Verbane wrote:I'm voting for Large Blunt
henrysmedford wrote:mtalbot_ca wrote:I still think it is a small bead, blunt 5, because the bead arrives in the middle of the roman numeral ''II'' of Elizabeth II on the reverse.
Cheers,
Two votes--
From-- George Manz the winner of the 2008 Calgary Numismatic Society's Harry Wright Most Congenial Dealer Award see--http://www.georgemanzcoins.com/profile.htmlHi Joe
You have a Small Beads obverse and Blunt 5 reverse variety #2.
It's not proof. There are no proof 1965 cents.
George Manz
George Manz Coins
P.O. Box 3626
Regina, SK, Canada S4P 3L7
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests