Nick

If that happens, you should withdraw the lot.

Looks like a proof to me.

$19,800

I wonder why his Grandad collected fake slabs?

Definitely, the result of multiple die clashes.

They make their own using a laser scanning machine.

Probably because it the scarcer of the two reverses for 1946 English shillings.

Sorry to disagree, but those marks on the 1957 halfcrown are classic bagmarks and not evidence of die clashing. The main reason being that the portrait is the deepest part of the die and thus protected from clash marks. Clash marks can only appear on the shallowest part of the die ie the fields.

Apart from the metal overflow on the rim, the design looks ok for an 1885 florin (Davies obv 9). However, it looks cleaned, so the bargepole rule should apply.

I have previously seen an 1878 DN 9 and it was a 5+B die pairing. There are about 4 times as many 6+B as there are 5+B 1878 shillings.

As far as I'm aware, die numbers started at 1 for each year and increased by one every time a new reverse die was produced (for example, 1869 used 15 reverse dies and 1872 used 155). Therefore the number of dies per year should be the mintage divided by the average mintage per die. However, the Royal Mint struggled to obtain decent steel during the die number period and thus some dies would only manage to strike a few coins before breaking whereas others might manage as many as 100,000. This means that some die numbers will be much rarer than others and some no longer extant. You would need a dedicated die number collector to share their research in order to discover the relative rarity of individual die numbers.

It should be quite easy to get an 1887 florin in decent grade for under £50. Just wait a bit longer, I'm sure something will turn up.

Easiest way to tell Davies obv 4 from Davies obv 5 is the tip of Victoria's bun. Davies obv 4 ends in a closed loop, Davies obv 5 ends in an open hook as per 1st picture. 1867 is the only year for which both obv 4 and obv 5 exist and there are two reverses, so 4 combinations; 4+A, 4+B, 5+A and 5+B. DN 16 & 17 are 5+B, DN 18 is 4+B, DN 23 is 5+A, all the rest are 4+A. The 2nd picture shows Davies obv 6 and obv 7. Both bun tips are closed loops but slightly different shapes. The Spink designations are Davies obv 4 (S.3904 & S.3905), obv 5 (S.3906A), obv 6 (S.3907A), obv 7 (S.3907).

Good work. Invaluable research for decimal coin collectors.

I've never seen any real differences in the CH. The only difference I have seen is the R. One type has a thicker upright and a wider internal loop, the other being the opposite.

Very suspect. The pictures show two different coins, neither of which has a die number when they should. The queen's dress is usually weakly defined, but these are not. Looks like 1877 florin can be added to the list of fakes.

The solution to missing avatars is usually to flush the cache of your browser.

Looks polished to me. Especially noticeable in the obverse fields and on the bust. You can see the original unbuffed surface in the periphery where the lettering has protected it against damage.

Not aware of any varieties, but I've seen so few I can't really comment. Have you got a picture of the smaller lettering you can share?

1827 sixpences are as rare as a rare thing. I think I've only seen two in reasonable condition, but missed out on both.

It's not a problem. It's just he's unlikely to see your message unless you tag him also (use the 'at' symbol followed by a space and then the username eg @Nick).

And he hasn't visited the forum for two and a half years.

Condoning tax evasion, Mike. Tut tut.

Yes. Name and shame.

I mostly used to use an external host, because it allowed me to retain control. If at any point, I wanted to edit or delete a photo, then I could. Upload a photo here now and you can do neither, even though the copyright resides with the photographer.