Rob

I haven't found a good image, but did find this one ESC 847 Well straight away its wrong, ESC 847 is dot after date and they're quoting S3894........So unfortunately..............Also S3894 is UNLISTED in ESC No, that's one of the things we are looking for. The description is ESC 847var, S3894. The var makes the statement that it best fits ESC 847 but isn't quite the same. 847 has stop after date, that one doesn't, so is what we are looking for if it is genuinely no WW as opposed to a filled die, but the image isn't good enough. It still doesn't overcome the problem of a high grade version of Azda's die though. S3894 is type B4, so it is listed in ESC but only with stop after date.

Yes, that's another of the differences. Also there are a few minor differences in the ribbon immediately above the date (no fold on the left, thicker strand on the right). I'm impressed by your knowledge of Hocking! I can see myself getting around to asking them in around two years time LOL. I didn't know the references off the top of my head, just that Hocking contains the list of items in the RM museum as of 100 years ago. The big leap forward was learning to read about 50 years ago.

Another alternative approach might be to ask the RM museum for images of Hocking ref. 1394, 1395 & 1396 which are matrix, punch & die for the issue. Chances are it won't be the same, but there is an outside chance. I was going to say is it 7 over 6, but unless the crown has been filled and recut, this would have to be rejected. Looking at the image which seems a bit Heath Robinson ish, it could be a die produced at the beginning of the issue as a trial which was good enough to use as a production tool because there must have been a lot of pressure on the mint to get the revised reverse 6ds into circulation. A day saved in making a die is a lot of extra coins made. One more thought, the border teeth look a bit thinner than the usual ones. Any mileage in checking these on other coins. They look suspiciously like the teeth on the withdrawn type which would add credence to a trial piece.

That's my whole point Rob. It's NOT a "minute difference". It's a bloody huge glaring "twice as big as normal" spacing. And I'm not one of your perpetual hopefuls ("Oh I'll post it at predecimal and show everyone that yet again I've got a massive rarity and soon I'll be famous"). I've STUDIED as many of those wreath reverse 1887 JH heads as I can lay my hands on, or through enlargements on eBay, and I can assure you, the spacing of that issue is pretty standard. Except for this one. I do not buy the "there are variations all over Victoria's reign" - not after the early 80s when the methods of production changed and as we all know from the bun penny (and all other) output from then on, there is a remarkable consistency compared to what went before. Anyway, that wasn't my main point. My main point was and is - all other varieties here cause an outburst of interest, enthusiasm and back-slapping congratulations. I don't see why my poor sixpence can't elicit a fraction of that instead of the wet blanket treatment. I've been suffering that with halfpennies for years. I think the prior sentence is the preserve of the penny enthusiasts. Sad, but true.

The problem with all these production variations as opposed to actual design variations is that they are an open ended can of worms. Minute differences in the spacing of the last digit or two have a definite place in the list of varieties for the specialist who drills down to the level of identifying individual die characteristics, but for your average punter it doesn't matter a jot as they will be for the most part satisfied with a relatively obvious difference in the overall design. Wide date, narrow date, or for the flat disc collectors out there, any visible date or no date. Young portrait/older features or whatever, it all depends on how clear it is at a glance. Double cut letters as a result of reinforcing a worn die or making an old blocked one serviceable will result in yet another variety, but as has been said before, to create the interest you need to publish something because that work will act as the reference to define the variety. 1887's interest in the date is a rare example of the detailed study that needs to be done if all of these microvarieties are to have any relevance. I wish him well in his endeavours, as the mint's voluminous output for this year would test the patience of the most ardent researcher. But if he doesn't complete it and nothing gets published, then ..... back to square one. I've got a coin with a double cut 8 and a 7 that's ......... To get back to the original point of this thread, what is needed is a clear image of a high grade die 39 coin with WW clearly visible or not so that we can say for certain if the die is the same one and the WW is hidden or not. At the moment we collectively appear to be p*****g in the wind as nobody is able to come up with conclusive proof one way or the other. Does anybody have a good image of an attested B4 florin? Both these are required if we are to settle this attribution.

In other words, only "one between two" for every inhabitant of Britain. Oh dear, a lot of people are going to go without. I won't deny you Peck.You can have my half I won't hear of such unselfishness Peter - I insist that you have it None of you will have it. I got it in my change this morning. Must put it on ebay asap. Very rare, could be unique, never seen one before. £1000 BIN or best offer. Where's the prat emoticon when you need one?

The 9 or 19 was based on the original picture. The blown up one looks like a 39 to me too. Do we have a good image of a high grade die 39 anywhere? If we could see the WW on one coin, it would establish the exact position of the WW and make the argument a lot more clear cut.

I bit the bullet and got the lot the other day as there are 24 new designers covered by the 29 coins in the series. Bring back the resident artist, or at least employ previously used ones rather than inflicting this on me. I don't want a collection full of modern dross. Please. There are now nearly as many attributed designers in the decimal period as I am aware of in the 800 years leading up to it.

Correct. Rule 1. What I should be doing. Rule 2. What I should have done. Rule 3. What I am going to do. Rule 4. What I am not going to do. And most important of all. Rule 5. I will invariably make the wrong call regarding rules 1-4.

Hocking isn't very helpful as it doesn't list any florin matrix, die or anything else for this date, so unless they have something in their boxes that isn't listed, there is no RM museum option to corroborate the no WW.

Just noticed that you missed out Victoria but intend to collect Edward VII, in which case all the proofs are matt for this reign. There were no matt proofs made prior to this, so other than Ed. VII you can disregard them as it appears you wouldn't be interested in the later 20th century stuff which is when the sandblasted pieces were made.

What do you want to know? History? Value? Grade? Pictures would be necessary if either of the last two are required.

The second one with no WW isn't listed in Davies or ESC, hence the S3894 attribution. Stop after date is mentioned only.

I've got a couple more here which should help to muddy the water a bit. Two examples of an 1876H halfpenny. The first is a regular currency piece and the second is contentious. Freeman (whose coin this was) contends that the second coin is a proof, whilst others maintain it is a specimen striking. i.e. struck to a higher standard, but not to proof standard. This is a bone of contention. The letters are clearly better on the second coin having sharper sides to them whereas the obviously inferior currency piece has letters which have rounded angles due to die fill and general wear and tear. The fields on the second one are much better too, although the first coin does have prooflike fields in the hand which must not be confused with actual proof fields. The latter may well have parallel raised lines from polishing when viewed under a glass. The rims on the second are clearly sharper than the first, but overall, not so well centred. I also forgot to add in the first reply that proof rims are often slightly wider than those on currency coins. I'll see what else I can dig out to give you a bit more, but can't help with your chosen denominations as I haven't collected them as a series in the past. Others might be able to help here.

Welcome. You are not the first person to ask this question, but thank you for asking it rather than automatically assuming you have a proof which is the usual way things happen. (This forum is regularly visited by people who automatically assume they have a proof if their coin is in good condition). Proofs are special strikings and are usually from polished dies. There are a few usual features which once you are familiar with them makes a proof fairly easy to identify. The first thing to remember is that they were never intended for circulation, usually being struck as part of a presentation set. Therefore they are usually found in top grade, though may be impaired with scratches if not looked after. Some are relatively common when sets were made for the public, but others are extremely rare with only a handful known. The fields on a proof are typically mirrors, though there are some matt proofs which were sandblasted by the mint to make photographing them easier. Do not worry or assume that if a coin has a matt surface it is a sandblasted proof. As there were only ever a handful of these made for any issue, it is unlikely you will ever see one, let alone inadvertently acquire one. The rim quality is very good and so a proof will usually have sharp 90 degree rims/edges. The lettering on a proof will often be sharper, with near vertical sides to the characters as opposed to having more angled sides to the letters. The edge milling if present will be sharp or significantly more so than a currency piece of the same issue to the touch. Proofs are also struck sometimes with plain edges whereas the normal currency pieces would historically have a milled edge. Some years only exist as proofs with a different edge to the currency pieces. The detail on the portrait will be crisper. The design may also be frosted, but not necessarily so. This is done by sandblasting the die and then polishing the fields, which on the die are the highest point. This gives a cameo effect. Royal Mint sets which were produced in quantity had less care taken over them, so may not exhibit all qualities, particularly the frosted design. That is a quick list of typical features. Attached is a comparison of 3 shillings which although outside of your collecting period, demonstrate the above points quite well. It has been posted elsewhere on the forum in reply to earlier questions. As you can see from the attached scan, the left piece is a currency coin, the middle one is a 1953 proof set coin and the one on the right is a 1958 VIP proof shilling. The normal matt finish of a currency coin is what you would normally see. The 1953 is struck from overall polished dies whilst the VIP proof has a frosted bust with mirror fields. You may also be able to just make out the sharper milling. If you want to collect proofs, do not buy them unless they are in top grade. a badly impaired proof with certain exceptions will be worth only a small amount over the value of a currency piece.

First one. die 68, 42 arcs. S3895, ESC 848, D764. Second one. Die 9 or 19?, 48 arcs. Can't see a WW but you had better look again, so looks like S3894 as opposed to S3893. ESC -, D -.

What's all this then? How can you have a mule with an obverse and a reverse that should be paired. Same mintmarks both sides and the correct obverse and reverse. Sorry Mat, couldn't resist, i'm feeling mischievous. It's a straight S2668, S2669 has the plume over shield reverse. The portrait looks almost too strong though, as if it has been tooled, but that should be simple to verify under a glass.

I'm not sure how he will realise that he has changed from milled to hammered. Both types of offering were dire.

How about 100%??! Henry VI Groat ooooooh. loverly. I don't need one but, £100 less or a bit more and I'd start to get interested. It's a £300 coin, but worth paying a bit extra for. As common as the type is, that is a splendid example. If it is ex-RCB and has a Seaby ticket/envelope, it should be possible to establish wherever it was listed. It might even have a few more tickets because RCB noted provenances.

The date 1791 is a Taylor concoction. No Droz pattern with this date is known. The type is a Peck R66 which is struck from the reverse die of type R17 which in turn was derived from type R8. Due to Taylor having to remove the original date of 1790 in order to insert 1791, he also removed most of the signature below the date. Originally this read DROZ.INV.. There was also an F in the top right of the exergue of which only the top bar remains.

Herein lies the moral dilemma. If you are going to set up a business that purports to be a standard bearer for genuineness and general fidelity, then it is incompatible to accept any coin for slabbing that has been modified or otherwise "improved". I'm not criticising the workmanship, but if you are going to have rules, then they have to be uniformly applied. You can't have a system that everyone swears by based on a confidence that a coin is untampered with only to throw out the rule book because something looks nice. Otherwise, what is the problem with someone sneaking modern counterfeits past the graders having removed the identifying features? After all, the metal could be right, the design could be right, the method of manufacture could be right and with a bit of judicious modification, they could all be made to look different. People would complain if this happened and was discovered. You can't have selective application of any set of rules if the system's integrity depends on those rules. Coins routinely get rejected by the TPGs for environmental damage, or cleaning that nobody else can see; I can't see how this can be considered acceptable if their standards are to have any credibility.

No it doesn't imply that Stephen Fenton did, or had the work done - that is just one possibility and would require him to be registered outside the EU for tax purposes if the first sentence was to apply. Having a shop in London is incompatible with that tax status as he would fall foul of the 90 day rule. The coin was in the sale with 5% import VAT which means the vendor was resident for tax purposes outside the EU. Odds on it was consigned by someone from the US as it was slabbed by a US company, but that doesn't mean impropriety can be assigned to SF or any other named individual as they could equally have been Australian, Canadian or Japanese for example. All three countries have a healthy collecting base for British material, but the limited period available to get the work done between end of March 2010 and when the catalogue was produced - say July, means there was little opportunity to trade the coin by the time it had been "improved" and slabbed and consigned. PCGS don't "improve" coins, but there are companies that do using lasers. Hus put a link up to some examples on the PCGS forum of coins that had been improved to make them unrecognisable from their original state. The scuff would have failed a grade test, but small hairlines are allowed. That is why it would be done in the first place. A Genuine label on a slab will not attract the same kudos (or dollars) as a Proof 64 ultra cameo label. It is done simply for money, but the way in which it gets there leaves a big question mark hanging over it, the slabbing company and the consignor assuming he/she and the "improver" are one and the same person. Like Azda, I don't like myself or other people being taken for a ride.

St. James's Catalogue obv. Catalogue rev. Anyone care to disagree with me?

My scan

How can they tell, do you think? What do they know that you lot don't? Sadly, you can't rely on them. One of the gold pattern halfpennies I bought at Plymouth in 2008 with a large scratch/scuff on the cheek and subsequently sold resurfaced in last September's St.James's sale with the mark removed and now resides in an NGC PF64 ultra cameo slab instead of whatever code they give for damage or altered. Someone paid over US$30K for a tooled coin, which I can almost guarantee was done unknowingly. Having said that, when I posted the info on a US forum, the silence was deafening, so I guess they didn't care too much that it had slipped through and assume the guarantee of genuineness was more important. Shite, isn't it? Rob Who did you sell it to and for how much? I'm horrified that this could happen with a £20k coin. How have NGC taken the news?....something like this could cause serious damage to slabbing companies. But hey a slabber isn't an expert in some of our specialised fields. I sold it to Steven Fenton at the Harrogate fair in March 2010 for a sum between what I paid for it and what it sold for in the Sept. sale where it resurfaced in the slab. It had a 5% import surcharge for EU bidders, so had obviously been exported outside the EU in the interim. I assume that it went across the pond. The hammer price was £17K (or about £20K with the premium) and was sold to an American dealer, so it is reasonable to assume it is now Stateside again. I did a thread on the PCGS forum called slab images as I was trying to get an NGC archived image to see what they had and compare it with the Plymouth sale CD images together with my own and the Mitchell-David and other properties patterns and proofs. NGC may or may not know about it as this would require them to monitor the PCGS forum. Clearly they aren't going to wave a big flag saying we can't tell a tooled coin when we see one. This incidentally goes full circle back to the question of provenance. A unique gold coin will always be imaged in modern times, so modifying it to remove blemishes is crass because someone is going to point it out. Having owned the coin for a couple years, I know I'm not wrong and so I raised the issue. For a forum filled with people extolling the virtues and benefits of slabbing, the minimal response was very surprising. So...if you hadn't owned the coin could you tell if it had been tooled? Would a gold coin with a blemish assist with its authenticity? Several years ago I was looking to invest in some hammered gold...alas I didn't.I was warned by CC. I would have bought VF nicely struck examples. Yes, but only as a consequence of my recording sales data for rare and/or high grade examples because I would have compared it with the images from the Plymouth sale. Authenticity is greatly assisted by being able to tie a coin to a previous image. Provenances can be confirmed by having known buyers of specific lots even if the coin isn't illustrated, but a picture tells a thousand words. Here are a few images. sorry for many posts but I can't put them in the same frame. Plymouth sale CD image obverse. Reverse