david.bordeaux

For anyone using the Google Drive workaround, don't forget to set the permissions: right click > Share > Share, then change from "Restricted access" to "Anyone with the link" (Viewer).

Also trying a link to Google Drive to see if that works: Obverse link Reverse link

Could anyone kindly help with identifying this penny? HENRICUS [III] on the obverse and I think I can make out a sceptre. With a bit of imagination, the reverse legend might be NICOLE ON LVND. Possibly Class 5, but I can't narrow it down any further. Any help would be much appreciated. Penny_B_O@0.1x.pdf Penny_B_R@0.1x.pdf (Posting PDFs due to the recurring 403 problem.)

If a silver proof does exist, and assuming it is the same thickness as the cupro-nickel crown, it would be more easily identifiable by weight than by the unreliable "ring" test: Cu-Ni: 28.27590 g (the standard weight given in the Coinage Act 1946) .925 silver: 32.82 g .999 silver: 33.16 g Otherwise, a silver coin of the same weight as the cupro-nickel crown would be noticeably thinner (about 2.47 mm compared with 2.91 mm, so easily visible to the naked eye when placed side by side). This is due to the differing densities of the metals/alloys: Ag 10.49 g/cm3, sterling silver 10.3845, cupro-nickel 8.9455.

I spoke to Graham Dyer two weeks ago at the Michael Dolley symposium in London and can confirm that he is still an encyclopaedic source of information on the Mint. Best to contact him via the Mint Museum, as Rob suggests.

The entry for 4337 in the 7th edition of Bull has been corrected to read "Struck in cupro-nickel".

Here is the relevant page from Linecar and Stone, in case this is of help. Linecar.pdf

I wonder if the sale will include the "proof florin with a wide gap below the truncation"? Bull and other cataloguers imply wrongly that this is the "normal" proof, but in fact nearly all the 1887 proof florins have the later obverse with a narrow gap.

The 1862 plain-edge proof Gothic florin (2849 in Bull, who records it as "not traced") sold for $21,600 (including buyer's premium) at Heritage yesterday. At least we know that it exists now.

Jameson 1004 to 1008 are all Poseidon, so maybe a misreading or misattribution?

Not Jourdan but Jameson? - Collection R. Jameson Tome 1

Does this exist? Anybody got one or seen one? It has been listed since The Milled SIlver Coinage of England (Spink, 1925) and appears in "old" ESC as 807B and the current edition of Bull as 2825 (with rarity R3). Davies lists it as 723 but with an asterisk to indicate "to be confirmed". I suspect it is one of those errors that have been copied and pasted from the 1925 book (like the 1887 florin with 34 arcs). Dickinson wrote in 1978 and 1980 (Seaby Coin and Medal Bulletin) that the 1853 florin with a stop after the date was "unlikely to exist" and I am inclined to agree.

You can consult them at the National Archives in Kew. Apart from that, you might find something useful in the online papers (up to 1992) of the Royal Mint Advisory Committee - they discussed a new coinage for the Solomon Islands in 1975.

On the subject of London Coins, I see from my invoice for the June sale that their buyer's commission is soon to go up to 18.5%

The Royal Mint Museum has confirmed that 28.30 mm is incorrect and according to "the data used in the Museum, sourced from the production records held in our archive" the diameter for all florins from 1893-1970 should be 28.50 mm.

There seems to be great confusion about the diameter of the UK silver florin between 1893 and 1970. Some sources, including the Royal Mint shop and the Numista website, indicate a change of diameter in 1937, giving 28.30 mm for 1893-1936 and 28.50 mm for 1937-1970. Other sources give a single (but different!) diameter for all florins between 1893 and 1970: Krause (28.3 mm), Wikipedia (28.5 mm), Peter Davies (28 mm) and Matthew Dickinson (28.5 mm). Analysis of the coins in my collection refutes the idea of a small increase in diameter in 1937. On the contrary, there is a statistically significant decrease in diameter. I find no evidence for the existence of a florin measuring 28.30 mm of any date. For 1893 to 1936, the diameters measured range from 28.44 to 28.74 mm. From 1937 to 1970, from 28.36 to 28.57 mm. Assuming that the Mint measured in inches, my conclusion is that the correct (nominal) diameters for florins are as listed below: Godless 1849: nominal diameter 1.10 in = 27.94 mm (rounded to 28 mm) Gothic 1852-1887: 1.18 in = 29.972 mm (30 mm) Jubilee 1887-1892: 1.16 in = 29.464 mm (29.5 mm) 1893-1936: 1.125 in = 28.575 mm (28.6 mm) 1937-1970: 1.12 in* = 28.448 mm (28.4 mm) *Another possibility is that the diameter was “metricated” in 1937 to 28.50 mm Unfortunately the Coinage Acts give only the weight and fineness of each denomination, and not the diameter. Any thoughts on this would be gratefully received.

I have since discovered that George de Saulles died of peritonitis after surgery for appendicitis.

In fact he was only 41. So far I have only found that he died after a "very short illness". In his obituary in the Numismatic Chronicle, his former employer John Pinches suggests that overwork contributed to his death: "It is to be feared that his devotion to his art, which kept him working early and late, weakened a constitution never very robust and helped on the end so much to be deplored."

I recently bought this 1895 penny, completely outside my usual area of interest, as I'm doing some research into George de Saulles. I know next to nothing about pennies, but assume from the price I paid that this is the more common variety of high/low tide on the reverse?

Possibly Raymond Carlyon-Britton (died April 1960), son of P.W.P.?

Newly listed, a 1951 crown (complete with a shabby ink-stained cardboard case) for just 250 pounds plus postage. Rush before someone snaps it up!

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

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).

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

And another in Noonan's sale on 10 May, Lot 103. But I'm not entirely convinced that these 1864 florins (all with obverse die no. 64) are fakes. Apart from the strange "n" in tenth, they look absolutely spot on (unless I'm missing something). Could they simply be genuine coins with an error on the reverse die that was paired with obverse die no. 64?