1887jubilee

The magnification I have available is not quite as good as the camera and nor is my eyesight for that matter, but I'm pretty sure that the foot of the upright and the leg of the R are connected. I think that there is also a slight curve upwards where the foot meets the leg, which is what made me think it may be R/B. I will try and get some more photos from slightly different angles to see if I can get it any clearer. I think this photo shows it better. A good case for R/B could be made there. However, don't also discount the possibility that parts of a letter can join up - look at the 'leakage' on the right of the base of the T; the same thing might have happened with the R. Well you can't get any better than that. This photo convinces me the so called R/B is just an R/I. The particular effect is created by striking the I slightly twisted. You can see how it is low at the top of the R and particularly low on the left hand side this pushes the right hand serif further out to the right. It is still just possible there is a B in there somewhere just as there is a V in the R/V but the main point in both cases is the low and clearly visible top of the I . My vote is R/I previously known as R/B. Anyone else agree? Come on where are you Rob, let's here what you would be happy to go to print on.

I agree with Peck that the other one is more likely an R/I, because the top bar of the V would not be in the same position. If you could see the top bar of the V it would be to the left of the upright of the R. However, most pictures of R/? I have seen also have that doubled top bar. Here are a couple of pictures: one is R/V; the other is a possible R/B and both could probably also be called over I I am intrigued by the "R/B" photograph which is as clear as you can get, well done, but there is nothing like seeing the actual coin. when you hold it is there a nick in the leg of the R and are the right serif foot of the R and the leg connected? I have commented previously that I think the R/B is just an R/I with the right serif further over (see how the I is turned anticlockwise). What are your views. This is the first time I have seen a picture good enough to bring that view into doubt.

When you say 620 were JH, how many of these were shield reverse? did any of the JH Shield rev have the A in Victoria over a much higher A? I have come across this overstike just twice. Also do you know of any die varieties of the JEB on truncation type or was it a sole pairing of dies? 418. I would like to talk to you. 07967505509 Thank you, very interesting stats. That is a lot of 1887s to look through! Yeah sure thing, when is the best time(s) to call? 8-9:30 pm this sunday, most evenings after 7pm except Wednesday. Any call will get me during the day but I may not be near the files with all the detail. 10am is usually good.

We might need a picture to get us started please

When you say 620 were JH, how many of these were shield reverse? did any of the JH Shield rev have the A in Victoria over a much higher A? I have come across this overstike just twice. Also do you know of any die varieties of the JEB on truncation type or was it a sole pairing of dies? 418. I would like to talk to you. 07967505509

Well done they are as you say R/I and R/V. You can get the photo by holding the lens on the front of the camera and then using the macro option. It's all about focus.

That sounds more like the R over I (apparently there's a lot of these.) I can't resist putting in my two pennyworth any longer. Of the last 703 sixpences of 1887 I have examined 83 were YH and 620 JH. Of the Jubilee head 445 had short serif Rs and 175 had long serifs. Very close examination inclines me to the view that all 175 are of the type R/I. Further all the Rs are overstruck. So 25% of all 1887 sixpences are R/I but don't tell anyone or the bottom will drop out of the market. They really are very common. As for the R/B I think it safe to say this is not R/B but a form of the R/I where the overstrike is closer to the leg of the R. Certainly the R/B offered by St. James recently was just an R/I misdescribed. There are however many different versions of the R/I as each die seems to have been made individually and I have yet to ask the Royal Mint how many there were. I have as many as 40+ R/I s of these there at least 20+ different dies. I would really like to hear what Rob has to say on the subject before I give away all my hard work. PS how did you do the photo Declan; was it with a USB microscope?

I like the Weyl patterns also. I have the half penny P-2192 in FDC (Gem MS66). Can I have a go since it is well past the 2007 post. Rob will tell you I am an avid 1887 collector and have the P2193 ex Heritage 2007 and the Lead 3 date with "one or two others" ex Plymouth Auction Rooms 18/4/2008. I would like to have a chat about the 1887 coins. What would be the best way to communicate? I would be happy for Rob to give you my details. see my attachment below

Where did you get it? Goldberg's Terner Sale of May, 2003. Hardly seems possible it was eight years ago. Marv ..or that your reply took 4 and a half years Can I have a go since it is well past the 2007 post. Rob will tell you I am an avid 1887 collector and have the P2193 ex Heritage 2007 and the Lead 3 date with "one or two others" ex Plymouth Auction Rooms 18/4/2008. I would like to have a chat about the 1887 coins. What would be the best way to communicate? I would be happy for Rob to give you my details.

When you say "3 date 1887 pieces in lead" I know you mean they have three dates but do you also mean there is more than one of them and if so are they part of your collection? No, the 1887 pieces in lead with 3 dates appear to be unique. Thank goodness I have got it then.

Thank you all for your help. Which type was this taken with? 1.3mp or 2.0 mp? Is it the x500 or the x400? does it have software for measuring distances as some advertise?

When you say "3 date 1887 pieces in lead" I know you mean they have three dates but do you also mean there is more than one of them and if so are they part of your collection?

Has anybody got one of these and is it any good for coins? They cost about £20 on ebay and have magnification up to x500 but that seems too powerful for most of my needs. Can you buy them anywhere else other than ebay?

This is sometimes true, but it doesn't necessarily follow. Proofs are done on polished specially prepared blanks, double struck, using dies that have been similarly polished. Many such dies are then used for business strikes. If impaired, there would be no way to distinguish them, unless the "proof" still has a razor sharp rim edge, but even this cannot be ruled as conclusive. Remember a proof is not a separate design or issue as such, it is a method or standard of striking which may use exactly the same dies as the normal issues. Agree and see my note below.

Yes it's a nice coin and from one who has quite a few of these you are off to a good start, but which one is it? Now there are several 1887 crowns and it is difficult to tell from your photos but you can see on the coin itself; 1) is the plume to the St. George head double struck or double engraved? 2) is the bottom right serif missing on the 1 of the date? 3) what is the distance between the R of VICTORIA and the T of BRITT? The range is from 34.65mm down to 33.59 for the proof. 4) is the top of the first 8 missing? Now that has whetted your interest there are at least ten or more different sizes in the 1887 Crown as the dies were made using a pantograph to reduce from the master plaster mould. As a guess by eye I would say yours if quite close to 34.00 or less. You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it? Sorry at number 3 it should read T of VICTORIA to R in REG Where exactly should it be measured from? Top of the T to top of R, bottom of T to bottom of R? The measurement is taken from the top of the T in VICTORIA to the top of the R in REG. Great care is needed to ensure the slight bevel on the edge of the lettering is included, minute though it is, and that the calliper is absolutely square with the top of the T. Substantial errors can easily occur as the top of the R is a couple of degrees off square. This is more pronounced depending on the strike. The callipers are cheap enough on ebay.

You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it? Unless you're an engineer and use a micrometer you can get the exact dia with those without having to measure 10x Ah yes but remember your experiments at school, it is always important to take the readings several times and take an average in order to reduce errors. I have found that even using vernier callipers the readings vary by plus or minus.09mm but if you average 10 readings an accuracy of + or - .01 is achievable. I have toyed with using a USB microscope but I think there would be a loss of accuracy. Any information on these from someone who has one would be helpful The reading will vary accoring to how much pressure your applying to the vernier, you can get 10 different readings if the same pressure is not applied. With a micrometer it has a small ratchet on the end and the same pressure can only be applied until the ratchet and digital reading stops. I now have my own question for you 1887 jubilee, how do you tell proof issue 1887 Crown from a normal currency issue, is it the I's in Victoria pointing to beads? You really have picked a good question to ask but the answer is not so simple. The 797 proof crowns in the long sets and the other 225? odd in the silver sets are easy as the thick rim and 33.59 T-R are defining features. The I to a bead is not difficult as there are no beads only dentils and on all crowns I have the I points almost in line with one of these. It varys on the double florin which of course has beads. There are somewhat lesser proof coins or at least "proof like" coins which have been minted with "proof dies" or "polished flans" or "early strike" and these truly can in some cases be described as proof. I have currency proofs at 34.20, 34.22, 34.54, There were also specimen sets which were not proofs but had a high quality finish the problem is that a perfect example of a specimen set coin looks to the average punter to be a proof. When you see the real thing though it is pretty unmistakable. As a rule if in doubt, it isn't. I am posting again later with a photo of the T-R measurement which you will see is not possible to take with a micrometer, would that it were.

You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it? Unless you're an engineer and use a micrometer you can get the exact dia with those without having to measure 10x Ah yes but remember your experiments at school, it is always important to take the readings several times and take an average in order to reduce errors. I have found that even using vernier callipers the readings vary by plus or minus.09mm but if you average 10 readings an accuracy of + or - .01 is achievable. I have toyed with using a USB microscope but I think there would be a loss of accuracy. Any information on these from someone who has one would be helpful

Thanks Garry. Apart from the first page, that first one has come out fine. (But the site I had to get it from ... GAAAAAH! Don't the stupid people who create those 'captchas' understand that a robot can't read ANYTHING in a picture? On the other hand, if they put a wavy line through the characters, then humans can't read it either!! What a bunch of total pillocks!) Anything on 1887 £5 or £2 in there. I can't get it to download.

Yes it's a nice coin and from one who has quite a few of these you are off to a good start, but which one is it? Now there are several 1887 crowns and it is difficult to tell from your photos but you can see on the coin itself; 1) is the plume to the St. George head double struck or double engraved? 2) is the bottom right serif missing on the 1 of the date? 3) what is the distance between the R of VICTORIA and the T of BRITT? The range is from 34.65mm down to 33.59 for the proof. 4) is the top of the first 8 missing? Now that has whetted your interest there are at least ten or more different sizes in the 1887 Crown as the dies were made using a pantograph to reduce from the master plaster mould. As a guess by eye I would say yours if quite close to 34.00 or less. You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it? Sorry at number 3 it should read T of VICTORIA to R in REG

Yes it's a nice coin and from one who has quite a few of these you are off to a good start, but which one is it? Now there are several 1887 crowns and it is difficult to tell from your photos but you can see on the coin itself; 1) is the plume to the St. George head double struck or double engraved? 2) is the bottom right serif missing on the 1 of the date? 3) what is the distance between the R of VICTORIA and the T of BRITT? The range is from 34.65mm down to 33.59 for the proof. 4) is the top of the first 8 missing? Now that has whetted your interest there are at least ten or more different sizes in the 1887 Crown as the dies were made using a pantograph to reduce from the master plaster mould. As a guess by eye I would say yours if quite close to 34.00 or less. You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it?

I have to agree with Peckris the only way to get the feel of the auction is to have a telephone bid or better still the live internet links provided by Sixbid and the saleroom.com Both these services are invaluable as they are as good as being in the saleroom without having to do the journey. Nobody likes being squeezed but it is always that last bid you feel slightly uncomfortable with that wins the day. Another way to play it if you know who is buying is to let the dealer buy the coin, without pushing him up, then contact him afterwards. Risky but it occasionally works.

I don't wish to seem sanctimonious but this problem has cropped up 2000 years ago over a Roman tax. Jesus' answer was sinple "render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. Why should we want to cheat either the tax man or a forum god? I have been taxed at UK customs but on the occasions that I pointed out The coin was for my own collection and research purposes the tax was refunded.

The leading authority on this subject is, as indicated by other members, David J de Sola Rogers. His facinating book "Toy Coins" 1990 was available from Galata Print and is still available from your local library. I have recently borrowed it from the inter library lending service. Ask for it using the details above and ISBN number 0951667106. If you want details of any of the 1887 toy money please ask and I will try to help as I have my own copy of that part of the book. Most pieces are easily obtained for a few pounds but, as with most collections, the specialist pieces command much more. However de Sola Rogers is not infallible and some of the pieces he gives as RRR are still easy to come by. Note he uses a different rarity scale from the norm. The Fitzwilliam Museum has a good selection and this is able to be viewed online but this is only because de Sola's collection is now in the Fitzwilliam. Another helpful site is found by googling "half farthing". While not complete the collections available will give you lots to get a good insight into the vast field of Toy Coins. I hope this is a help in getting you started.

yup youre right .....ive seen some of those £2 polo mint coins on ebay, you take the middle out and claim its rare I shot the centre clean out of a £2 at 25yds. once so I guess they do exist. Will I get done for defacing a coin of the realm or for only defacing half a coin of the realm. The home secretary might give me only half the sentence.

I reckon the 2nd is 10c-f based on the legend EDWAR R ANGL DNS HYB I FIND THE BEST GUIDE FOR THESE IS THE GALATA GUIDE TO THE PENNIES OF EDWARD I & II £20 AND A LOT MORE READABLE THAN SPINK, NORTH, OR WREN. EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE READ THEM ALL IT IS NOT EASY. I would add the reverse has straight sided Ns unbarred and closed C with a straight bar. this isn't listed after class 9