shagreen

Individual proof coins too. This was certainly true in 1893 (it is mentioned in the 1894 Annual Report), so may have also been the case in 1839 and the years in between. The copper 1860s bear that out, because there is no scope for sets here Nick, does the RM report for 1894 give quantities of proofs struck, either singly or in sets, for 1893? Yes it does. Although it doesn't specify the denominations of the single proofs. The numbers quoted are: 756 gold + silver sets 17 gold only sets 556 silver only sets 95 gold single proofs 23 silver single proofs Which makes a total of 3187 gold proofs and 7895 silver proofs. Interestingly, no mention of the bronze proof pennies which Freeman lists (but Peck does not). Not that I've ever seen one! It only specifically mentions "specimen" coins of the new design, which might explain why any bronze proofs are excluded - given that the bronze coinage kept the young head for another two years. I have been informed that the tradition of presenting a sixpence to the new bride meant that additional proof sixpences were required. Lets also not forget the number of shilling obverse dies used to strike the 1839 set. If you have one look for the raised dot dead center on the reverse its seems only one reverse die was used but I need to do further research. This "location marker" is also seen on the Maundy 3d and Penny reverse from the same year.

Hello yes I have both types of proof farthings with and without the broken A - bought a broken A version recently in the Spink Auction were it was initially thought to be a copper version. I have checked to see if the obverse proof dies were used to strike the proof sovereign but that is still inconclusive. As for the penny I have only seen the version with the missing top curve to the C in ViCtoria despite examining about 20 coins. I am also interested in the die orientation varieties in this year set the medal alignments appear to be much rarer (excl.Cu)and available for all denominations. A very interesting set

Thank you Peter, I joined this chat group because after looking at the posts over the last month or so, you all seem like nice people with interesting things to say and knowledge to share. Yes the predecimal proof coins are rare and expensive - thats OK its actually the contemporary cases that give me the most trouble they are virtually uncollectable. I am actually a researcher by trade and do numismatic research as part of my hobby I really look forward to working more and sharing in this area of early proof coinage - particularly their methods of manufacture. Has anyone noticed that the horse on the 1893 proof crown reverse comes in with and without teeth versions- yes its true . This is not noted in the varities listed on the CGS website http://www.coingradingservices.co.uk/?page=valuations_by_grade_list but I expect its covered by one of the other die descriptions.

I collected both as a junior but went to coins because they are not flimsy paper with no intrinsic value and of course coins can have cartwheel luster