Nick

London Coins 'Realised Prices' archive is a good place to look. As for the R. Ingram example, the picture isn't particularly convincing. I dunno how lot 244 made more than 1179 in those results, 244 looks as though it had some cleaning to the OBV behind the bust of Victoria, very strange result that, 1179 looks far superior to me I agree, although 1179 seems to have quite a lot of surface marks in front of the face. The one thing that is annoying about London Coins pictures is the inconsistent style. Some are large, some are small, lighting and backgrounds vary which make comparisons difficult. They should just settle on a photographic setup and stick with it.

London Coins 'Realised Prices' archive is a good place to look. As for the R. Ingram example, the picture isn't particularly convincing.

Quite possibly, but you would probably need very sensitive measuring equipment. I wonder if it would be easier to measure the thermal conductivity, which would also differ between the two types.

Picture me tossing my 1935 proof crown trying to determine if it's the 0.500 or 0.925 silver content Saying that it's the only way I know how to tell the difference apart from chemically which you really don't want to do to your prized coins. Buy the way the ring is low for 0.925 and high for 0.500, not as previously stated. That's what it says in Davies book, but that's not the way I hear it. Comparing the sounds with 1919 and 1921 versions is a surefire way to discriminate the two types, however it sounds to the individual.

I wasn't suggesting you drop them from a great height. A millimetre or two above a work surface is sufficient and does no damage to small coins with little weight.

Actually, apart from a very rare example, all coins dated 1920 are 50% silver, i.e. a new alloy. It's PRE-1920 that they are sterling (92.5%) silver. The 50% silver lasted until 1946, then since 1947 all "silver" coins have been an alloy of copper and nickel. That's not quite true. There are 1920 sixpences and threepences of .925 and .500 silver. The easiest way to tell them apart is to let them fall (gently) on a hard surface and listen to the resulting sound. Then compare with a 1919 version (.925) and also with a 1921 (.500). To my ear the .925 is quite a sharp sound, whereas the .500 is a bit duller.

P'raps it's just the picture, but the one on the left doesn't look much like a hollow neck to me. Here's a hollow neck 1+A (Davies 1790).

Both websites are in Dutch. Go to Google, then select translate from "more" and paste the URL into the box. Google will then translate the page into English.

Most of the letters seem to be out of the proper alignment, which is a bit odd. The earlier Victorian coins were usually of a high standard of workmanship. Issues like these would tend to make me a little suspicious.

The wren farthings, ship halfpennies and thrift threepences sadly represented a blind alley in the development of our coinage. Since the accession of the present queen, the reverses of our everyday coins (i.e. excluding commemoratives) have all reverted to royal themes which really is a step backwards in my opinion. The only everyday coins that have reverse designs that I like are the 2007 Act of Union £2 and the 2009 Charles Darwin £2. Although not an everyday coin, I also really like the 2005 George and Dragon design by Timothy Noad as used on the gold sovereign.

Whilst browsing the Goldberg Coins website, I saw a stunning 1852 Gothic florin that reminded me of a question that I have wanted to ask for some time. What causes the lack of toning around the top of the letters of the legend that almost appears as if it were an inverse shadow? I've seen many examples ahowing this effect, but can't think what the cause might be.

I've seen chocolate coins with better outers than that! It actually doesn't look like a worn coin so much as a fake or an acid victim (does gold dissolve in acid?) Gold can be dissolved in aqua regia: a mixture of nitric acid and hydrochloric acid.

The current S.2789 had the former number S.2785.

I can't imagine anybody paying a thousand quid for this 1826 Two Pounds. It looks more like it should have chocolate in the middle.

I think it's unlikely that these were polished blanks (i.e. prepared for proofs) - the proof striking quantity would have been known in advance and the right number of blanks (plus maybe a few extra for contingency) would have been prepared. There are simply far too many prooflike currency pieces - or at least, UNC examples with highly mirrored fields but with the raised design not mirrored - to be explained by polished blanks. I believe it is more likely that the proof dies were used on normal blanks once the proof strikings were complete, as there would have been plenty of life left in them. Even with a single strike rather than double, this would have produced coins with a prooflike finish, but without the sharp rims that the specially prepared blanks would have had. The next step down would be the early strikes from new currency dies, which might have had something of a prooflike appearance, until inspected fairly closely. Thanks. Your explanation does indeed sound more likely.

Our friend 1887 will know the answer if anyone does He opened my eyes to the sheer number of minor varieties that exist. Thank you for your vote of confidence. All you say is perfectly correct the Arabic 1 was used in the sets which would indicate that 797 were Arabic 1 but I have read that mintage of the proof double florin was, as with the other silver coins, 1084. This allows for up to 287 others. Recent work shows the proportion of Roman to Arabic double florins in a sample of 591 to be 200 Roman to 391 Arabic. This is using the reverse A and B as given in Davies. I have no way of knowing whether this proportion holds for the remaining 287 or if it applies at all, all I can say is, yes there are proof Roman I coins. You should also remember the specimen sets have a proportion of Roman I coins and people often mistake the high quality coins for proofs. Again the currency coins, that is those using the currency dies also have occasional proof or proof like strikings. As the years go by the best uncirculated coins, especially early strikings, take on an appearence of being proof but held up against the real thing it is easy to tell the difference. I would be happy to examine anything you think might be a Roman proof and send you photos of mine if you provide email. Obverse and reverse needed. As to value the last one I picked up for £140 not long ago. If I were pushed for a mintage number it would have to be less than 150 unless of course all the 287 are Roman. Many thanks for the information. I do have a decent Roman I example, but it is definitely just a currency piece. However, I now have hope that there is a Roman I proof out there somewhere that might appear for sale at some point in the future. I remember reading somewhere that there are many Victorian coins produced from highly polished blanks that appear to be proofs, but are not. All of the genuine proofs I have seen possess a distinctive uniform rim with sharp edge milling.

It's a 25p (crown) issued in 1977 to commemorate the Queen's Silver Jubilee. Rather common I'm afraid.

Except it's NOT a flat disc That's why it's something different

Agreed. So it's another type B5. It seems strange that a major London auction house would make such a mistake. ESC is pretty clear that type B4 has 48 arcs.

I should have counted the arcs/trefoils before I posted the link. It's only got 42 and is therefore ESC 848 and type B5. Uh....correct. I hadn't checked them either. Cancel the above, it isn't exactly what we want, but the general principle still applies. I have found a reference to what may be a type B4 florin. DNW auction 8 Oct 1999, lot 1072 "Florin, 1877, stop after date, no WW, die 6 (ESC 847-R3; S 3893). Almost as struck, very rare". However, it doesn't mention the number of trefoils, so it may not be 48. Unfortunately, there is only a small picture of the reverse on their website and I don't have any DNW auction catalogues that early.

I should have counted the arcs/trefoils before I posted the link. It's only got 42 and is therefore ESC 848 and type B5.

I haven't found a good image, but did find this one ESC 847

Here is a picture of an 1877 Davies 762 florin. On your example, the bottom edge of Victoria's dress is not very well defined and there is almost no discernible gap between the dress and the arc and trefoil border. My guess is that the WW has become obscured by the encroaching dress line. Is it possible to post the full picture Nick so we can see the cross on Viccies crown. In my very 1st 2 pictures you can quite clearly see the difference between the 2 rims to the trefoils, pic 1 has a gap whereas pic 2 has'nt Sure. Here it is.

Here is a picture of an 1877 Davies 762 florin. On your example, the bottom edge of Victoria's dress is not very well defined and there is almost no discernible gap between the dress and the arc and trefoil border. My guess is that the WW has become obscured by the encroaching dress line.

Ebay shilling ring. You will have to plough through the various threads...also on CC. No longer on CC. Infer what you will from its disappearance...