Specimen Coins

[Paulus 1,942]

I have a question regarding, well, terminology I guess.

My 1937 proof set is stamped 'Specimen Coins' on the original box (I think they all were), and yet these are proof coins.

My 1935 'specimen' rocking horse crown has no stamp on the box and is not a proof.

Am I the only one who finds these description a little confusing?

I also have a 1960 'polished die' crown - is that a different process again?

Thanks to anyone who can shed any light (on these reflective fields!!)

[VickySilver 775]

I believe I can:

The 1937 Standard proof set was indeed labelled "Specimen Coins" and sounds to be of Royal Mint origin (the box).

The 1935 "specimen" Rocking Horse Crown is what we now refer to as "specimen" and was the consolation prize for those unsuccessful in obtaining the actual proof that was given for sale by lottery. It has incuse edge lettering and is not so well struck and usually not so contrasty as the actual proof.

The "polished die" coin for some reason is not called "specimen" though in fact meets at least some of the definitions of that designation.

Yes, these are confusing labels that change with time.....How about when an individual example of a coin is also referred to as a "specimen"? LOL

[Rob 3,001]

It has long been a moot point. As a rule of thumb, I think you need to view proofs as things that are better than specimens and struck from highly polished dies. In the case of the 1937 sets, it may just be that they used the word specimen as in 'an example of' because this is the only year (I think) that this phrase is used. The 1935 crowns were issued in presentation cases alongside a general issue from the banks. The mintage of over 700,000 tells us that most can't have been boxed, otherwise we would be surrounded by empty boxes. Those in the boxes were presumably produced as a specific run using a fresh die pair, but are inferior to genuine proofs.

If you look at the Victorian era cons, you have the same arguments trotted out where the Heaton mint bronzes from the 1870s have long been contentious. It is not questioned that they are a superior product, but when compared against a known proof they fall slightly short resulting in some such as Freeman calling them proofs while others condemn them as not being so.

Somewhere on here is an image of a currency, common year proof and VIP proof shilling alongside each other for comparison. If someone can find it please linkify, o/w I'll have to repost it. Ta.

[Paulus 1,942]

Thanks VS, that clarifies things a little ... I imagine though that 'normally' proof coins were referred to as such, by the Royal Mint and numismatists alike, in 1937 and before?

And thanks Rob, guess it is a bit of a moot point really, but I like to learn these things!

So in terms of 'superiority of die/strike' (and maybe other things) it goes currency > common year proof > specimen / polished dies > VIP proof - which is kinda what you would logically expect!

Edited September 10, 2015 by Paulus

[VickySilver 775]

Rob would know, but it is my recall that proofs are referred to as such when mentioned in the annual mint reports...

In the Bowers (?) sale of the Canadian portion of Norweb, there was a lengthy discussion on proof and specimen, etc.....

Also, the Spencer article in the 1982/83 Journal of the American Numismatic Association covered it in some very nice detail (I'd like to have seen his collection if he had one)...

[Rob 3,001]

Here are a couple of coins photographed under the same lighting conditions. The lighter one uses a bare flash, the darker has used a piece of translucent plastic to diffuse the light.

The one on the left is the contentious one, Freeman's own F329A which is the 1876H proof or specimen halfpenny depending on your view. The right hand one is Nicholson's 1879 proof. In the hand the 1876 is brilliant with full lustre whilst the 1879 has an olive/brown tone. The reverse die of the 1879 is markedly more concave than the other one.

[Rob 3,001]

[Rob 3,001]

And the reverses.

[Rob 3,001]

[Rob 3,001]

For me the most striking difference is the quality of the letters. The 1879 has essentially perfect lettering whereas the 1876 doesn't. The 1879 also wins when it comes to the fields, though not as conclusively as with the letters. Both have sharp rims. The 1879 has an overall sharper quality about it.

[Paulus 1,942]

Yes, that is shown clearly in those pics for those examples.My eye is also drawn to the lighthouse and the waves below, much sharper on the 1879 arguably 'full proof'! I find this fascinating Rob, thanks

[Rob 3,001]

It might not be wise to read too much into the reverses because one is rev. M and the other rev. O, so there will be differences in any case.

Freeman describes rev. O as similar to M but the lighthouse is slightly thinner, the masonry is weak at the top, the drapery over Britannia's left should is more distinct and the sandal now has straps.

[PWA 1967 1,841]

And the reverses.

They are really nice and you can tell the 1879 is a proof.

I have an 1876 H specimen penny.

Its c.g.s. 26028 but not as nice as that.

[Paulus 1,942]

Pete's 1876 H Specimen Penny

[Gary1000 41]

The way I look at it, possibly incorrectly, you have currency dies and polished dies along with plain blanks and polished blanks.

Polished die and polished blank gives a proof.

Polished die and plain blank gives a specimen (1935 specimen crown)

Plain die and polished blank give proof like (1951, 1960 crowns)

Plain die and plain blank gives currency coinage.

[VickySilver 775]

Also quality/strength of the strike. Hate to drum up the poor ole 1953 crown again, but the strength of detail reflects this as does the [overated] knife edge.

Edited September 11, 2015 by VickySilver

[shagreen 24]

Examination of archived (pre 1950's documents from the Royal Mint and its branches reveals that officers interchanged the terms specimen and proof even in the same document.

One retired Mint officer I spoke to mentioned work instructions were issued for 5 levels of "proof" production from (1) selected business strikes through to (5) polished planchets, special die treatments and different press set ups (striking conditions). Unfortunately I havent been able to track down these documents - any one here know ?

My view is all proofs are specimens but not all specimens are proofs. The meaning of the words has changed over the last 150 years as have many other English words. The words in scientific context have different meanings again.

As an example for the Mint using the terms; in 1955 The Melbourne branch Mint struck both proof and specimen coins and charged 2/- and 6d premium respectively. The difference was subtle as the specimens were struck from fresh "working" dies and not subjected to normal handling (hand picked) the best way to discriminate between the strikes is by the higher level of reflectivity in the fields and definition in the rim decoration i.e. beads, egg/dart features and flatness of the rim for the proof strikes.

Given proofs are essentially hand made the quality will vary from year to year and should one look back at say 19^th C. pieces dated 1839 and 1887 they reveal many variations in their finish over the years they were issued, - as they were made in small batches with different dies and press set ups.

One real plus numismatically for these specimen / proof strikes is their special handling at the Mint and no wear from circulation make die research on the as struck coins straight forward.

[Paulus 1,942]

Very interesting post Shagreen, thanks!

[VickySilver 775]

Yes, indeed, excellent addition!

[Sword 1,330]

Am I correct to assume that the "normal" Victorian Maundy sets are also specimens? How close are they to proof standard?

[VickySilver 775]

Wow, you brought up a tricky one. Besides the proof Maundy sets from years like 1839 or 1853 there are also a few actual proofs of other years.

But back to the central part of your question: I would term these specimen (even though this is a slightly nebulous term) because there was a bit more effort put into them than the standard currency coins. The threepence is a good example: these are more sharply struck, but a slight confusion arises because they could be struck in a "finish" that ranges from satin-like to more mirror prooflike, and not just one or the other but on a spectrum.

Unfortunately, and because of this we see 3ds from years like 1847, 1848 and 1852 (others too) that were either not struck in currency form, or in small numbers for "Colonial usage". In fact, the coins we may see occasionally on sale directly or by auction are nearly always liberated examples from Maundy sets that are leaning toward the satin finish and this even includes coins sold by the likes of Spink in their grand old days. The giveaway? They are better struck [nearly always] than the ordinary currency pieces. This shows up on the regularity and sharpness of the denticles and the outline of the devices - I said it this way because even the central part of Vick's effigy can be slightly mushy even on these better prepped and usually better prepped specimens.

Steve Hill and I some years ago had a lengthy discussion, and this is also his opinion....

Edited September 13, 2015 by VickySilver

[Sword 1,330]

Many thanks for your reply VS!