Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Recommended Posts

I wanted to pick your collective brains on the “onc tenth” florins of 1853-1860, and possible theories on how the error came about.

746668166_HeritageAuction231915Lot62266Apr1120191853_small.thumb.jpeg.fb553de304b3e0f1c0ebfb831a710afe.jpeg

1.       Is it a “c” or an “e” with the oblique bar missing? A comparison of the “e” and “c” on the obverse seems to show a slight difference in the width of the letters.

1280829109_1852_O(2)cdetail.jpg.b743ac818cd8b65d1b39b0a8c8d8d009.jpg          26422526_1852_O(2)edetail.jpg.9b6867f70615c4422b4d67691d00078c.jpg

2.       If it’s an “e” with the bar missing, is this due to die fill? The oblique bar is very fine, so this could be a possible explanation. But if so, why does it only affect the “e” in “one” and not that in “tenth” (or the “e” in “One florin”, for that matter)?

3.       Whether it’s a “c” or an “e” with a missing bar, could it be that a wrong or faulty puncheon was chosen when sinking the die? But again, why only the “e” in “one”?

4.       Is it possible that there were puncheons for the entire word “one”, one of them was faulty, and that this was occasionally used over the course of 7 years when sinking new reverse dies? Each pair of dies produced only around 25,000 coins at the time, so the 1853 florin alone (mintage nearly 4 million) would have required upwards of 150 dies.

5.       If 4 is the correct explanation, it could also explain the sudden disappearance of the error in 1860 – the faulty puncheon was detected and destroyed, or it wore out and was discarded.

6.       A quick survey of auction archives would suggest that the error is more common than might be inferred from Bull.

 

ESC 7th edition

Heritage

London Coin Auctions

Noonans

Spink

1853

“scarce”

2

3

1

1

1854

“4 seen”

1

9

1

1

1855

“5 seen”

1

 

 

 

1856

“7 seen”

1

 

 

 

1857

“6 seen”

 

 

1

 

1858

“4 seen”

 

 

 

 

1859

Not recorded

 

 

 

 

1860

“5 seen”

 

2

2

 

Number of examples of “onc tenth” florins offered at four auction houses between 2010 and 2023. With the exception of London Coins, most were not catalogued as “onc”.

Any thoughts or insight on this would be much appreciated.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are very interesting figures from those Auction Houses. I like the idea of a puncheon with the word "onc" being made by mistake and then worn out or destroyed, but there must have been a lot of them for that to happen over 7 years, so i do not know what to think. As for the amount of 1854 florins in your survey compared to other years, then i would say it could be because the other years with "onc" in fine condition or worse, do not get sold at auction because of the much lower value than the 1854 florin. To be honest, i had not really given too much thought how this might have happened before your post. Interesting subject though David.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought one in a Bloomsbury sale (2005-7 but can't find the relevant catalogue at the moment). It was clearly a broken punch or filled die as there was a trace of the missing bar. I returned it not as described because it wasn't a genuine ONC as claimed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you David for the stat analysis.  I didn't think about the reason behind, but i agree that it is not uncommon in various auctions.  I didn't own any onc example so far and was offered by a local dealer before (forget which year it's), but did not buy due to price.  Let me visit again later if it is still there.

Edited by Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2023 at 12:22 PM, david.bordeaux said:

I wanted to pick your collective brains on the “onc tenth” florins of 1853-1860, and possible theories on how the error came about.

746668166_HeritageAuction231915Lot62266Apr1120191853_small.thumb.jpeg.fb553de304b3e0f1c0ebfb831a710afe.jpeg

1.       Is it a “c” or an “e” with the oblique bar missing? A comparison of the “e” and “c” on the obverse seems to show a slight difference in the width of the letters.

1280829109_1852_O(2)cdetail.jpg.b743ac818cd8b65d1b39b0a8c8d8d009.jpg          26422526_1852_O(2)edetail.jpg.9b6867f70615c4422b4d67691d00078c.jpg

2.       If it’s an “e” with the bar missing, is this due to die fill? The oblique bar is very fine, so this could be a possible explanation. But if so, why does it only affect the “e” in “one” and not that in “tenth” (or the “e” in “One florin”, for that matter)?

3.       Whether it’s a “c” or an “e” with a missing bar, could it be that a wrong or faulty puncheon was chosen when sinking the die? But again, why only the “e” in “one”?

4.       Is it possible that there were puncheons for the entire word “one”, one of them was faulty, and that this was occasionally used over the course of 7 years when sinking new reverse dies? Each pair of dies produced only around 25,000 coins at the time, so the 1853 florin alone (mintage nearly 4 million) would have required upwards of 150 dies.

5.       If 4 is the correct explanation, it could also explain the sudden disappearance of the error in 1860 – the faulty puncheon was detected and destroyed, or it wore out and was discarded.

6.       A quick survey of auction archives would suggest that the error is more common than might be inferred from Bull.

 

ESC 7th edition

Heritage

London Coin Auctions

Noonans

Spink

1853

“scarce”

2

3

1

1

1854

“4 seen”

1

9

1

1

1855

“5 seen”

1

 

 

 

1856

“7 seen”

1

 

 

 

1857

“6 seen”

 

 

1

 

1858

“4 seen”

 

 

 

 

1859

Not recorded

 

 

 

 

1860

“5 seen”

 

2

2

 

Number of examples of “onc tenth” florins offered at four auction houses between 2010 and 2023. With the exception of London Coins, most were not catalogued as “onc”.

Any thoughts or insight on this would be much appreciated.

 

I think London Coins / CGS are more inclined to count die filled as "varieties".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2023 at 8:29 PM, Rob said:

I bought one in a Bloomsbury sale (2005-7 but can't find the relevant catalogue at the moment). It was clearly a broken punch or filled die as there was a trace of the missing bar. I returned it not as described because it wasn't a genuine ONC as claimed.

Interesting that there was a trace of the missing bar, as it is completely missing in the examples I found on auction sites. This contrasts with the so-called xxr error in the 1881, where there is almost always a trace of the missing serif. In both cases, I think a broken punch is more likely than die fill, given that only specific letters are affected. 

Also interesting that florins were being catalogued as "onc" as early as 2005-7. Does anyone know when onc florins were first spotted? All I know is that they are in the 7th edition of ESC (2020) but not in the 4th edition (1974).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trick of the light but the c and e look different - like the top bar is shorter on the c.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An examination of the collection at the British Museum revealed one very clear example of "onc": the 1857.

872633144_BM1857oncsmall.thumb.jpg.bd4c1e4912a0f5ab8efdc15c75aa675f.jpg 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is catalogued as "possibly a proof ? according to D. Fealy" and it undoubtedly has proof-like fields and is in FDC condition. 

I regard this as further evidence in favour of an error in die preparation (and against the theory of simple die-fill - proofs are not made from worn dies...).

As always, any thoughts welcome - and does anyone know anything about "D. Fealy"?  

Postscript: it is perhaps natural that the opportunity to handle and examine such splendid coins in museum collections initially evokes feelings of envy in the collector. But it soon gives way to the more rational analysis that such specimens are really best off in a public collection that is accessible to all - and not, thank goodness, encapsulated in plastic.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly seems to have the properrties of a proof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, david.bordeaux said:

An examination of the collection at the British Museum revealed one very clear example of "onc": the 1857.

872633144_BM1857oncsmall.thumb.jpg.bd4c1e4912a0f5ab8efdc15c75aa675f.jpg 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is catalogued as "possibly a proof ? according to D. Fealy" and it undoubtedly has proof-like fields and is in FDC condition. 

I regard this as further evidence in favour of an error in die preparation (and against the theory of simple die-fill - proofs are not made from worn dies...).

As always, any thoughts welcome - and does anyone know anything about "D. Fealy"?  

Postscript: it is perhaps natural that the opportunity to handle and examine such splendid coins in museum collections initially evokes feelings of envy in the collector. But it soon gives way to the more rational analysis that such specimens are really best off in a public collection that is accessible to all - and not, thank goodness, encapsulated in plastic.

It is a very nice gothic florin, rare to see with such prooflike field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×