why would a roll of 2001 ase be thinner than 2007?
 

just compared a stack of 20 2001 ase's to a stack of 20 2007's.
the 2007 stack is one full coin taller.
would this be due to wear?
or is the 2007 coin thicker?
the 2007 roll is real fresh - the rim catches skin more noticeable.
the 2001 roll is a lot smoother.
would these sharp, crisp edges add height?

Re: why would a roll of 2001 ase be thinner than 2007?
 

I notice my 2007 roll doesn't quite fit in the tube - the top doesn't go on all the way. On a mixed date roll, the top fits all the way in. So maybe they made the rims thicker on the 2007s??

Re: why would a roll of 2001 ase be thinner than 2007?
 

No, they are uncirculated.

Yes.

Re: why would a roll of 2001 ase be thinner than 2007?
 

There was a well known issue with ASEs which I thought was only specific to 2005...but I guess some 2007s are also involved. The pressure used to strike the coins was a little higher on some 2005s ( and I guess some 2007s) resulting in the planchette being pushed in more near the rim, resulting in slightly thicker reeded edges. My coin guy actually called the mint and spoke to someone there on this issue. Answer was that they are still within the preset tolerances and thats all there was to it. I know the mint shucks out millions of ASEs , but c'mon....that to me is sloppy craftsmanship. Switch to Maples...They are 5 dollars face ( Canadian dollar is worth more than USD now) rather than one dollar for eagles.