1887 Half Crown

[King Norton 1]

Hi

I am a new member and this is my first post.

I have in my collection a 1887 Victoria Half Crown - I would say UNC, but then again, as it is mine, I probably would. I would like to know whether there is an easy way of determining if it is indeed a proof as I have suspected for some time now. The field is as nice as they come and the detail is very sharp, but upon looking at others both 'normal' and so called proof, I am still at a loss as to how to tell them apart.

[RobJ 0]

Hi King Norton,

Welcome to the forum.

Sadly as I am new here I'm unable to offer you any advice. However I'm sure that a more knowledgeable member will be able to give you the answers that you require

I would also advise uploading a picture of both the Obverse and Reverse of your coin if you are able to do so.

[King Norton 1]

Hi RobJ

Thanks for your reply. I have tried to upload some images but the message tells me that the files are too big (1.8mb & 2.1mb).

The scans are at 1200dpi so if I get some more time tomorrow I will try again at a lower resolution.

[RobJ 0]

I believe that there is an upload limit of 150kb. So yours are just fractionally over that.

A suggestion perhaps would be to upload them elsewhere and post a link here as that way you would not have to sacrifice on image resolution.

[Accumulator 52]

Not sure if these images are of any use but the field on mine (which I have always assumed to be a proof) has a definite mirror finish.

[Accumulator 52]

Obverse:

[Colin G. 147]

If you want to send images to me via my website, I can host them, but even at that size, some people may struggle to open them on line. I can always resize them as well.

A proof is not all about the mirrored field, because in many circumstances early strikes can also give a very similar appearance and could be described as proof like. I know this may not be much help, but after handling a proof you will be able to tell the difference instantly in nearly every case.

Another forum member Rob Pearce gave me the best description, which is that the edges feel sharp to the touch, the teeth and lettering are also always super sharp, much sharper than is present on a circulation coin, but again some early strikes can also have a sharp appearance.

[azda 973]

I'm not so sure that it is, i think the I's in VICTORIA must point to a border tooth. Don't quote me, but am sure thats what i heard

[Red Riley 2]

Another forum member Rob Pearce gave me the best description, which is that the edges feel sharp to the touch, the teeth and lettering are also always super sharp, much sharper than is present on a circulation coin, but again some early strikes can also have a sharp appearance.

...and some proofs can be very badly made, especially the more recent ones.

[Colin G. 147]

...and some proofs can be very badly made, especially the more recent ones.

Very true, some of the South African farthings are really poor in relation to depth of field

As promised here are links to King norton's Half Crown

Image 1

Image 2

[Accumulator 52]

You could be right azda, I'd be interested to know? There's one on eBay 'from a proof set' - which of course may not be true, at the moment. Using only my iPhone it's hard to be 100% but the 'i's appear to point slightly to one side of the gaps, like on mine.

[Accumulator 52]

Sorry I can't post a link using the iPhone!

[King Norton 1]

Hi

Thanks for the response. If you look at the link below, there are two 1887 Half Crowns shown. The 'normal' and a proof (sadly just reverse side).

The '1' of 1887 points to differing beads. The 'normal' points directly at a bead, the 'proof' is slightly offset.

My coin appears to be similar to the so called 'proof'.

http://www.ukcoinpics.co.uk/halfc.html

Just as well I don't show you my 1887 proof sixpence, thats a whole new argument.

[Rob 3,001]

...and some proofs can be very badly made, especially the more recent ones.

Very true, some of the South African farthings are really poor in relation to depth of field

As promised here are links to King norton's Half Crown

Image 1

Image 2

The image doesn't suggest a proof, but if it is it looks to have been badly mishandled or has seen a little circulation.

[Geoff T 3]

Hi

I am a new member and this is my first post.

I have in my collection a 1887 Victoria Half Crown - I would say UNC, but then again, as it is mine, I probably would. I would like to know whether there is an easy way of determining if it is indeed a proof as I have suspected for some time now. The field is as nice as they come and the detail is very sharp, but upon looking at others both 'normal' and so called proof, I am still at a loss as to how to tell them apart.

Hi,

I'm assuming that you mean the Jubilee Head 1887; if you have a Young Head proof you're luckier than most of us. Some of the early strikings of the JH 1887 coins look like proofs as they have a mirror-like surface, but they don't have the other hallmarks of the genuine proofs such as the the sharper milling. I have the 1887 JH proof as well as a proof-like early striking of the 1887 JH florin, and when you put them together the difference is obvious. 1887 JH is extremely common, but if you have one of the early strikings it's still a very nice coin.

Geoff

[Peter 615]

The YH (BUN) of 1887 are sought after.

I bought a GVF 2/6 for £40 from a dealer....it wasn't GVF but I kept all the same...It was the fine price...the dealer is an expert on tokens...I also got a 1875 small date 1/4d and a 1849 1/4d both EF for £6 each.

There was a dealer at the Midland Coin fair who had ef 1869 1/4ds for £5 each..I filled my boots...just know your subject and enjoy.

No one is a expert on ALL coins.I once went to a coin fair and ended up with a 1750 holster pistol..shot myself in the foot.Alhough after much debate with Mrs Peter she has forgiven me.I've bought more treasures than turds...and I married her.

[Accumulator 52]

Geoff, in retrospect, I'm sure you're right about mine too. It's probably just an early striking. I tend to collect the best I can find/afford of each date and if this happens to be a proof, that's fine. The 1887 is a particularly mirrored finish compared to the adjacent years, hence my assumption, but it may well not meet the other criteria which determine a genuine proof. The acid test would be a comparison with an 1887 proof set. Someone here must have one?

[Hello17 3]

with out pics it aint that easy

seeing your new you arn't grading it to hardly coz some people are like "IT HAS TO BE MEGA SHINY TO BE UNCIRCULATED!!!"

and then they get a coin mwith good detail on it and under grade it

coins before 1920 dont shine as much now as you should clean them if they are silver

hope you have a nice time....

ps. sounding li,ke a robot.

[Peckris 579]

I have several 1887 JH coins that are very prooflike, in that - like yours - they have mirrored fields. This is a hallmark of an early currency strike, some of which may have used the same dies used for proofs.

Three things to say:

1. If the design is not mirrored but the fields are, that's a good sign that the coin has not been cleaned.

2. Early strikes should still command a premium over later ones, but not as much as they would in the USA (hopefully we will catch up on that one).

3. Genuine proofs have a rim whose edges are very sharp - if yours looks UNC but without sharp edges, it's probably not a proof.

Hope that helps.

[Nonmortuus 848]

On 16/11/2010 at 11:34 PM, azda said:

I'm not so sure that it is, i think the I's in VICTORIA must point to a border tooth. Don't quote me, but am sure thats what i heard

As you said don't quote you I thought I would ? did you ever find out if this was the case Azda?

[azda 973]

On 2/8/2017 at 8:03 PM, Nonmortuus said:

As you said don't quote you I thought I would ? did you ever find out if this was the case Azda?

Lol, since that was written in 2010 i must have forgotten all about it