cgs "variety"

[Sword 1,330]

I have recently brought two double florins from LCA. The 1887 was described by cgs as a new "variety" with "Broken J in J.EB." The 1888 is just a standard variety. I just can't see what exactly is broken with the J in the 1887. Photos of both coins are shown. Any ideas?

[Sword 1,330]

1888 photo

[just.me 23]

It could be the light but the 1887 looks like it is not quite as round at the bottom right of the curve, on the outside edge at the bottom of the downstroke where it would start to curve to the left? Sort of looks like a thin curve attached to a wider downstroke? Apart from that I can see nothing else, they both look pretty complete to me. If it is the slight mis-shape at the bottom right they are referring to, that is taking 'varieties' to another level. I collect micro varieties like date pointings, etc, but I wouldn't go that far. Hopefully someone else might see something.

[Paulus 1,942]

Looking at the CGS population report for 1887 DFs, they have variety 06 (Arabic 1 'J in JEB has no to left serif' (population 13)) and variety 07 (Roman I 'Broken J in JEB (population 1 and a very recent slabbing, so presumably yours?)

Doesn't necessarily help much unless the 'Broken J' in the Roman perhaps exhibits the same 'no to left serif', which is unclear from their pics.

Is yours a Roman I?

[PWA 1967 1,841]

I have found paul at c.g.s. (the guy who graded it) really helpful when i have asked him a question a couple of times.

The difference will be quickly explained by him and worth a quick phone call to find out.

[Paulus 1,942]

I have found paul at c.g.s. (the guy who graded it) really helpful when i have asked him a question a couple of times.

The difference will be quickly explained by him and worth a quick phone call to find out.

Agreed, Paul Redford his name is

[Sword 1,330]

Many thanks for your thoughts and advice gents.

Yes, it is the CGS variety 07 (Roman I). Looking with a loupe at the places you suggested, I think the bottom right of the curve is slightly double struck. I can just make out a tiny bit of left serif to the letter J (very faint). So I now assume the broken J means broken left serif to J.

[argentumandcoins 70]

CGS "varieties" are mainly just CGS trying to bump prices methinks! A different die pairing, error, corrected error etc are all true varieties but die fill in my opinion is not a variety.

[1887jubilee 36]

On 09/09/2015 at 8:03 PM, Sword said:

I have recently brought two double florins from LCA. The 1887 was described by cgs as a new "variety" with "Broken J in J.EB." The 1888 is just a standard variety. I just can't see what exactly is broken with the J in the 1887. Photos of both coins are shown. Any ideas?

I have been working with these double florins for about 10 years but only just spotted your post. Can you let me know if the 1887 is on an Arabic or Roman 1 reverse? At first the comparison with 1888 is rather pointless as the 1887 is clearly not even aligned to the same beads. The serifs are broken and worn so perhaps this is the thrust of what they are  saying. In comparison with other 1887 double florins the example you give just seems from a rather worn die. Nothing could be more normal. given the minting problems of the large coins. Perhaps there is something that is clear to the eye but not to the camera? I have checked my collection but not knowing exactly what they are calling broken I have been unable to pinpoint the problem. The right serif has a small chip off the corner but that occurs mainly on the obv 2 Davies. Can you give me the CGS  reference please and I will work further on it?

[Paulus 1,942]

It's Roman (or Roma if you are a careless CGS grader), and must be UIN 35660, as there is only 1 in their population report:

[Sword 1,330]

6 hours ago, 1887jubilee said:

I have been working with these double florins for about 10 years but only just spotted your post. Can you let me know if the 1887 is on an Arabic or Roman 1 reverse? At first the comparison with 1888 is rather pointless as the 1887 is clearly not even aligned to the same beads. The serifs are broken and worn so perhaps this is the thrust of what they are  saying. In comparison with other 1887 double florins the example you give just seems from a rather worn die. Nothing could be more normal. given the minting problems of the large coins. Perhaps there is something that is clear to the eye but not to the camera? I have checked my collection but not knowing exactly what they are calling broken I have been unable to pinpoint the problem. The right serif has a small chip off the corner but that occurs mainly on the obv 2 Davies. Can you give me the CGS  reference please and I will work further on it?

Thanks for the above. The coin is indeed the one that Paul has picked.