Leaderboard

This is the halfcrown reverse - the design (like the shilling) is a bit of a dog’s dinner, but this proof makes it look quite good.

Hi H, The second 1889 is a double florin, which is why it is a little smaller. You are not the first to be confused by them. They were only issued 1887 to 1890 and became nicknamed "The Barmaid's ruin" because of the number of times they were mistaken for a Crown and so the wrong change given. They are not rare and a bit of a niche collectors area, being so few dates to go for. There are a few minor varieties, mostly to do with the font of the date. Because of this I would say yours is worth £20 to £30.

I rather like the double florins myself but they are somewhat unloved and can be obtained significantly more cheaply than crowns. The main varieties for the 1887 is the "Arabic 1" (like you 1889) and the "Roman I". These are my examples: (1887 is the Roman and 1888 is the Arabic)

I wonder if the die, having been annealed to soften for repair, might have had the developing die crack filled and polished at the same time that the ‘I’ was re-punched -a bit high, as you say -and perhaps colon repairs also? Thus two different stages in the life of a single die, though why wouldn’t the damaged ‘E’ be repaired as well….……? A damaged ‘E’ punch could have been used creating the ‘F’, but it would have had to be used separately while undertaking die repairs in 1843 and 1844, unless the 1843 die was skilfully filled and altered to 1844, assuming the master die was undamaged. The damaged ‘E-F’ looks so distinctive and similar that it is difficult to believe that it arose independently on different dies. I find this all rather confusing. Time for a beer- it’s the bellringers Christmas do tonight, much cheaper in January. Jerry

Could there have been a chipped master die, from which two (or more) working dies were struck? Had its use spanned 1843/44 production, that would explain die’s for both dates and differing die cracks. Jerry

The main difference that I can see - which would account for the flaw being in slightly different places - is that the I on the second example appears to be a bit higher than the first, which can also be seen in relation to the underlying character beneath it, the bottom of which protrudes. It looks as if the I was repunched TWICE.

I really like the good side and at least there's continuous with in my collecting of coins, 🤣 its all history and I'm learning, Cheers "H"

It is…but it’s totally unnecessary I think to see the tone carelessly removed from the high spots, especially for a coin of such prestige! I see it all the time on lesser coins, where I can imagine someone has ‘pulled’ a coin across a surface to pick it up, rather than ‘hook’ it up (more difficult to do with hammered, of course). I discovered, quite by accident, that one of the worst offenders is the grey ‘neutral’ boards that come with cameras nowadays, they are comparable to 1000 grit sandpaper when a coin is dragged off it. Many coins are horribly scarred this way (I attach an example).

Total beauty