The double florin thread

[Mynki 23]

Does anyone else collect these? As there are not too many versions available I'd like one of every type including proof. 

Please post pictures of yours if you have any.

In the meantime, you've guessed what I'm going to ask you all! 

I'm saying EF. I've stopped short of of gEF as there are a couple of obvious marks on the obverse which stand out, as well as other marks and wear on both sides. I disagree completely with the seller that it's UNC. What are your thoughts? 

 

[SWANNY 25]

Can you post a bigger picture to help grade it , Thanks

[Paulus 1,942]

Here is my 1887 Roman I graded CGS 75 (UNC or near so).

I would tentatively agree with your assessment of EF on the 1890, would like bigger pics though.

Edit - I can zoom in in Photobucket @SWANNY(click on the pic first)

Edited February 13, 2016 by Paulus

[Mynki 23]

Do the photobucket pics help? 

[Paulus 1,942]

Yes, leaning towards NEF now

[copper123 1,352]

A proof will cost a pretty penny , looks like GEF to me  obverse maybe a little marked but cannot see properly from that scan not big enough

[VickySilver 775]

FWIW, I will go EF on this one and am "net" grading it because of the relatively bad cheek gash.

[Paulus 1,942]

Here is the zoomed in pic from Photobucket

[copper123 1,352]

GEF/A/unc from that

[Mynki 23]

2 hours ago, Paulus said:

Here is my 1887 Roman I graded CGS 75 (UNC or near so).

I would tentatively agree with your assessment of EF on the 1890, would like bigger pics though.

Edit - I can zoom in in Photobucket @SWANNY(click on the pic first)

That's a nice coin Paulus. Just out of interest, what light did you photograph that in? 

[Paulus 1,942]

That's a CGS pic - they use an LED lamp (at least they did when I went to visit them)

[Stuntman 264]

I'd go with at least EF for Mynki's 1890.

I have a couple of Double Florins - an 1887 Arabic 1 graded GEF by the seller and an 1889 which is Fine, maybe slightly better.  the former coin is very pleasing on the eye, I bought it about a year ago from a dealer who is a forum member here.  The latter coin was a birthday present over about 35 years ago when I was a schoolboy!

[Sword 1,330]

I have brought two last year. This 1888 is CGS 78.

[Sword 1,330]

This 1887 is CGS 75

[scott 129]

just this one

[Mynki 23]

Great coins gents.

I've had the pictures of the coin in the opening post on my large desktop screen earlier. I think the obverse is still EF. But I've compared the reverse with the picture in the standard guide to grading British coins book. Looking at page 201 the English lions and crowns resemble the AU picture more than the EF picture which shows wear not seen on the actual coin in question. However there are some marks on one of the scepters. I'm going on pictures only, but am now leaning to obverse - EF, reverse -a/UNC. 

So, in your opinion is the REVERSE a/UNC due to minimal wear or do the marks in the scepter knock it down to EF? 

On topic, never seen one of these before...

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Collectable-silver-1887-Queen-Victoria-Jubilee-18-Double-florins-coin-chain-/381529851447?hash=item58d4f38637:g:qiMAAOSwqYBWpiI1

[Rob 3,002]

http://

[Paulus 1,942]

Never seen one of those, IOM I take it? Zinc, blimey ...

[Mynki 23]

Is that a fantasy coin? 

[Rob 3,002]

No, Huth pattern. I've got one struck in iron as well.

[mrbadexample 985]

I've just bought my first. 1887, Roman I. May I have, please, your opinions on grade? Secondly, how can I determine if this is a proof? It wasn't sold as such, but there's something about it that makes me think it might be. The fields have a mirror-like quality that I can't convey in a photo, and I don't think it's due to cleaning. It's quite dark toned, which again is not really apparent from the photos.

[mrbadexample 985]

Further pictures: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxBRenK8v0n-T0dhdTdzNWFoZ2c&usp=sharing

The first four (sorry, I didn't turn the obverse on its side, and I don't know how to rotate it in Google Drive) were taken outside, and the camera decided it needed the flash. The last two were taken inside by the window with the flash turned off. I'm hopeless at photography but pleased with the above two.

[VickySilver 775]

Reverse looks very proofy, the obverse not. As I have posted elsewhere, this is a vintage for the Royal Mint that very prooflike silver was struck. I have seen some offered as proofs even from non-standard years that IMO are not. 

 

Not well-worded, but I feel a coin has to prove its proof status to be accepted as such.

 

BTW, a nice coin there!

[mrbadexample 985]

5 minutes ago, VickySilver said:

Reverse looks very proofy, the obverse not. As I have posted elsewhere, this is a vintage for the Royal Mint that very prooflike silver was struck. I have seen some offered as proofs even from non-standard years that IMO are not. 

 

Not well-worded, but I feel a coin has to prove its proof status to be accepted as such.

 

BTW, a nice coin there!

Thanks. I would agree that proof should be sought.  I know what you mean about the year too - a lot of the silver seems in particularly good shape. I always put that down to people putting the coins aside as it was the golden jubilee year. 

What if I were to have it slabbed? If I sent it to CGS as a proof, would they tell me if it wasn't? By the same token, if I sent it as a normal strike, would they tell me if it was a proof?

The more I look at it, the more I'm convinced.

[jaggy 528]

Here are the two that I own:

[