1887jubilee

Has anybody got one of these and is it any good for coins? They cost about £20 on ebay and have magnification up to x500 but that seems too powerful for most of my needs. Can you buy them anywhere else other than ebay?

Thank you all for your help. Which type was this taken with? 1.3mp or 2.0 mp? Is it the x500 or the x400? does it have software for measuring distances as some advertise?

When you say "3 date 1887 pieces in lead" I know you mean they have three dates but do you also mean there is more than one of them and if so are they part of your collection?

This is sometimes true, but it doesn't necessarily follow. Proofs are done on polished specially prepared blanks, double struck, using dies that have been similarly polished. Many such dies are then used for business strikes. If impaired, there would be no way to distinguish them, unless the "proof" still has a razor sharp rim edge, but even this cannot be ruled as conclusive. Remember a proof is not a separate design or issue as such, it is a method or standard of striking which may use exactly the same dies as the normal issues. Agree and see my note below.

Yes it's a nice coin and from one who has quite a few of these you are off to a good start, but which one is it? Now there are several 1887 crowns and it is difficult to tell from your photos but you can see on the coin itself; 1) is the plume to the St. George head double struck or double engraved? 2) is the bottom right serif missing on the 1 of the date? 3) what is the distance between the R of VICTORIA and the T of BRITT? The range is from 34.65mm down to 33.59 for the proof. 4) is the top of the first 8 missing? Now that has whetted your interest there are at least ten or more different sizes in the 1887 Crown as the dies were made using a pantograph to reduce from the master plaster mould. As a guess by eye I would say yours if quite close to 34.00 or less. You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it? Sorry at number 3 it should read T of VICTORIA to R in REG Where exactly should it be measured from? Top of the T to top of R, bottom of T to bottom of R? The measurement is taken from the top of the T in VICTORIA to the top of the R in REG. Great care is needed to ensure the slight bevel on the edge of the lettering is included, minute though it is, and that the calliper is absolutely square with the top of the T. Substantial errors can easily occur as the top of the R is a couple of degrees off square. This is more pronounced depending on the strike. The callipers are cheap enough on ebay.

You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it? Unless you're an engineer and use a micrometer you can get the exact dia with those without having to measure 10x Ah yes but remember your experiments at school, it is always important to take the readings several times and take an average in order to reduce errors. I have found that even using vernier callipers the readings vary by plus or minus.09mm but if you average 10 readings an accuracy of + or - .01 is achievable. I have toyed with using a USB microscope but I think there would be a loss of accuracy. Any information on these from someone who has one would be helpful The reading will vary accoring to how much pressure your applying to the vernier, you can get 10 different readings if the same pressure is not applied. With a micrometer it has a small ratchet on the end and the same pressure can only be applied until the ratchet and digital reading stops. I now have my own question for you 1887 jubilee, how do you tell proof issue 1887 Crown from a normal currency issue, is it the I's in Victoria pointing to beads? You really have picked a good question to ask but the answer is not so simple. The 797 proof crowns in the long sets and the other 225? odd in the silver sets are easy as the thick rim and 33.59 T-R are defining features. The I to a bead is not difficult as there are no beads only dentils and on all crowns I have the I points almost in line with one of these. It varys on the double florin which of course has beads. There are somewhat lesser proof coins or at least "proof like" coins which have been minted with "proof dies" or "polished flans" or "early strike" and these truly can in some cases be described as proof. I have currency proofs at 34.20, 34.22, 34.54, There were also specimen sets which were not proofs but had a high quality finish the problem is that a perfect example of a specimen set coin looks to the average punter to be a proof. When you see the real thing though it is pretty unmistakable. As a rule if in doubt, it isn't. I am posting again later with a photo of the T-R measurement which you will see is not possible to take with a micrometer, would that it were.

You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it? Unless you're an engineer and use a micrometer you can get the exact dia with those without having to measure 10x Ah yes but remember your experiments at school, it is always important to take the readings several times and take an average in order to reduce errors. I have found that even using vernier callipers the readings vary by plus or minus.09mm but if you average 10 readings an accuracy of + or - .01 is achievable. I have toyed with using a USB microscope but I think there would be a loss of accuracy. Any information on these from someone who has one would be helpful

Thanks Garry. Apart from the first page, that first one has come out fine. (But the site I had to get it from ... GAAAAAH! Don't the stupid people who create those 'captchas' understand that a robot can't read ANYTHING in a picture? On the other hand, if they put a wavy line through the characters, then humans can't read it either!! What a bunch of total pillocks!) Anything on 1887 £5 or £2 in there. I can't get it to download.

Yes it's a nice coin and from one who has quite a few of these you are off to a good start, but which one is it? Now there are several 1887 crowns and it is difficult to tell from your photos but you can see on the coin itself; 1) is the plume to the St. George head double struck or double engraved? 2) is the bottom right serif missing on the 1 of the date? 3) what is the distance between the R of VICTORIA and the T of BRITT? The range is from 34.65mm down to 33.59 for the proof. 4) is the top of the first 8 missing? Now that has whetted your interest there are at least ten or more different sizes in the 1887 Crown as the dies were made using a pantograph to reduce from the master plaster mould. As a guess by eye I would say yours if quite close to 34.00 or less. You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it? Sorry at number 3 it should read T of VICTORIA to R in REG

Yes it's a nice coin and from one who has quite a few of these you are off to a good start, but which one is it? Now there are several 1887 crowns and it is difficult to tell from your photos but you can see on the coin itself; 1) is the plume to the St. George head double struck or double engraved? 2) is the bottom right serif missing on the 1 of the date? 3) what is the distance between the R of VICTORIA and the T of BRITT? The range is from 34.65mm down to 33.59 for the proof. 4) is the top of the first 8 missing? Now that has whetted your interest there are at least ten or more different sizes in the 1887 Crown as the dies were made using a pantograph to reduce from the master plaster mould. As a guess by eye I would say yours if quite close to 34.00 or less. You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it?

I have to agree with Peckris the only way to get the feel of the auction is to have a telephone bid or better still the live internet links provided by Sixbid and the saleroom.com Both these services are invaluable as they are as good as being in the saleroom without having to do the journey. Nobody likes being squeezed but it is always that last bid you feel slightly uncomfortable with that wins the day. Another way to play it if you know who is buying is to let the dealer buy the coin, without pushing him up, then contact him afterwards. Risky but it occasionally works.

I don't wish to seem sanctimonious but this problem has cropped up 2000 years ago over a Roman tax. Jesus' answer was sinple "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. Why should we want to cheat either the tax man or a forum god? I have been taxed at UK customs but on the occasions that I pointed out The coin was for my own collection and research purposes the tax was refunded.

The leading authority on this subject is, as indicated by other members, David J de Sola Rogers. His facinating book "Toy Coins" 1990 was available from Galata Print and is still available from your local library. I have recently borrowed it from the inter library lending service. Ask for it using the details above and ISBN number 0951667106. If you want details of any of the 1887 toy money please ask and I will try to help as I have my own copy of that part of the book. Most pieces are easily obtained for a few pounds but, as with most collections, the specialist pieces command much more. However de Sola Rogers is not infallible and some of the pieces he gives as RRR are still easy to come by. Note he uses a different rarity scale from the norm. The Fitzwilliam Museum has a good selection and this is able to be viewed online but this is only because de Sola's collection is now in the Fitzwilliam. Another helpful site is found by googling "half farthing". While not complete the collections available will give you lots to get a good insight into the vast field of Toy Coins. I hope this is a help in getting you started.

yup youre right .....ive seen some of those £2 polo mint coins on ebay, you take the middle out and claim its rare I shot the centre clean out of a £2 at 25yds. once so I guess they do exist. Will I get done for defacing a coin of the realm or for only defacing half a coin of the realm. The home secretary might give me only half the sentence.

I reckon the 2nd is 10c-f based on the legend EDWAR R ANGL DNS HYB I FIND THE BEST GUIDE FOR THESE IS THE GALATA GUIDE TO THE PENNIES OF EDWARD I & II £20 AND A LOT MORE READABLE THAN SPINK, NORTH, OR WREN. EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE READ THEM ALL IT IS NOT EASY. I would add the reverse has straight sided Ns unbarred and closed C with a straight bar. this isn't listed after class 9

The more I look at this one the more it looks like 10c-f crown 2 The drapery is particularly noticable, closed e late s bifoliate crown with very small spears,no punctuation in or after the legend, see Galata guide.

I reckon the 2nd is 10c-f based on the legend EDWAR R ANGL DNS HYB I FIND THE BEST GUIDE FOR THESE IS THE GALATA GUIDE TO THE PENNIES OF EDWARD I & II £20 AND A LOT MORE READABLE THAN SPINK, NORTH, OR WREN. EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE READ THEM ALL IT IS NOT EASY.

Our friend 1887 will know the answer if anyone does He opened my eyes to the sheer number of minor varieties that exist. Thank you for your vote of confidence. All you say is perfectly correct the Arabic 1 was used in the sets which would indicate that 797 were Arabic 1 but I have read that mintage of the proof double florin was, as with the other silver coins, 1084. This allows for up to 287 others. Recent work shows the proportion of Roman to Arabic double florins in a sample of 591 to be 200 Roman to 391 Arabic. This is using the reverse A and B as given in Davies. I have no way of knowing whether this proportion holds for the remaining 287 or if it applies at all, all I can say is, yes there are proof Roman I coins. You should also remember the specimen sets have a proportion of Roman I coins and people often mistake the high quality coins for proofs. Again the currency coins, that is those using the currency dies also have occasional proof or proof like strikings. As the years go by the best uncirculated coins, especially early strikings, take on an appearence of being proof but held up against the real thing it is easy to tell the difference. I would be happy to examine anything you think might be a Roman proof and send you photos of mine if you provide email. Obverse and reverse needed. As to value the last one I picked up for £140 not long ago. If I were pushed for a mintage number it would have to be less than 150 unless of course all the 287 are Roman.

Only needs a relative variety scarcity/rarity rating to be perfectamundo I must be in a minority then. I want to find other collectors with the same variety, though not too many! In my mind, 'unique' is useless for an undiscovered variety - no-one is interested - but a handful (or more), that's a different story. That would make my 1887 wreath reverse sixpence variety and my 1964 DEI GRAT A sixpence much more valuable. On the subject of this meisterwork don't forget ESC who have been there already and done a superb job. No point in re-inventing the wheel, but it would be useful to straighten a few spokes and put a few new ones in. But how to get all that (presumably copyrighted) stuff into a Wiki? Don't worry, I am still looking for another 1887 sixpence with a seven as wide as yours. I have managed to find about three different positions the closest also having overstruck 2nd. 8. (3 known). I agree a Wiki would be wonderful but human nature is against us. We all need to more generous with our knowledge and less concerned about what it might cost us. If we could all publish our work easily at least the numismatic world could acknowledge the discoverer in the same way a new species is named after the person that discovered it. (Peckris septem effusus)

Yes I concur with Badger. I have just had a quick look at 17 in my collection and 3 rev A have a large miss formed pellet slightly left of the bead. Similarly 5 rev B have the large miss formed pellet slightly left of the bead but the rim beads are wider. The 10 rev C all have the small pellet between beads. The sample includes a proof rev. C and Proof rev A. ( yes I know it isn't in the book and may just be a specimen). I look forward to hearing if there are any other variations.

Now now boys, let's not get too disparaging, the copper alone is shooting up in value. I do agree though the postage would be serious. However I did buy a bag in 1967 and still have it with it's lead Royal Mint seal if you would like to make an offer; bearing in mind it is in Plymouth. Perhaps you are due for a West country holiday.

Is "coin" a euphemism for "sister"? Is "gold" a euphemism for "hot"? Is "rare" a euphemism for "sh*gs like a barn door"? No "Rare" means he only has 5-20 known sisters.

Hello, I can confirm that from the information available to date I consider this coin to be a variation of the wreath type S3929. So far I have identified 20 1887 sixpences excluding the 12 additional patterns by Spink & Son ESC 1778-1784A. I should add that the 20 includes only one for the R/I variety BSC 1152. This is a difficult area and only the crispest uncirculated specimins are clear enough to differentiate under a microscope. Suffice it to say there are more than 3 and possibly up to 8 or 10 different R/I types. If you are a sixpence specialist you will probably have come across the recent sale of the Alfred Bole collection which is as fine as any I have seen but when it comes to the nit picking anorak like me there will always be a dot missing or a slightly different overstrike to keep my wife board to tears for hours on end. Previous commentators are right, most are worth little more than the usual coins. The exception is with pennies which, because there are so many collectors, fetch daft prices. Writing a paper about the 1887 series may help but the same could be said of any date. If you have anything of interest in the 1887 sixpences or would like to discus further please reply here in the first instance with contact details and I will respond as soon as I see it.

Hello, I can confirm that from the information available to date I consider this coin to be a variation of the wreath type S3929. So far I have identified 20 1887 sixpences excluding the 12 additional patterns by Spink & Son ESC 1778-1784A. I should add that the 20 includes only one for the R/I variety BSC 1152. This is a difficult area and only the crispest uncirculated specimins are clear enough to differentiate under a microscope. Suffice it to say there are more than 3 and possibly up to 8 or 10 different R/I types. If you are a sixpence specialist you will probably have come across the recent sale of the Alfred Bole collection which is as fine as any I have seen but when it comes to the nit picking anorak like me there will always be a dot missing or a slightly different overstrike to keep my wife board to tears for hours on end. Previous commentators are right, most are worth little more than the usual coins. The exception is with pennys which because there are so many collectors fetch daft prices. Writing a paper about the 1887 series may help but the same could be said of any date. If you have anything of interest in the 1887 sixpences or would like to discus further please reply here in the first instance with contact details and I will respond as soon as I see it.

The best book on this type of toy money is by a fellow called de Solo Rogers. There is also a good selection in the Fitzwilliam Museum and you can see them all on line. The book is seriously expensive but can be ordered to view from your library for £1.5. If the coins you are looking at are dated 1887 I have all the images and book details. Pay no attention to the rarity ratings as I have found them unreliable.