Paddy

Agreed! I used to spend time and effort trying to debunk this rubbish, particularly when I was dealing part time, but now I have given up. A fool and his money is soon parted.

The OP has not been back since his query, and I suspect he won't be as he did not get the glowing response he sought!

Definitely the one on the left. As well as @Coinery's comments, the detail on the reverse is far nicer.

I know - I am fairly thick skinned, so I can live with their abuse when they do that! The background of the seller - the quantity and quality of their feedback and the fact that others on here have bought successfully from them in the past suggested that maybe they were genuinely unaware of the issue.

Just for the hell of it I messaged the seller yesterday evening to point out it was a replica (being polite!) and I see this morning that it has been taken down.

I am also not much into gold coinage, so I can add no expertise. I would say the RPD does not look so obvious to me, but others may have another view. Repairs and adjustments to the dies were very common in smaller denomination Victorian coins, so it doesn't seem unlikely on the Sovereigns.

... and it turns out the lines were some kind of glue/varnish residue. Same coin after an acetone bath:

OK - thanks, no problem!

The other pick up today was this 1874 Penny. I think it is 8+G making it F77, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. The lines in the fields, particularly on the reverse, are confusing. My original thought was die-clash, but I can' make out which parts of the design they could represent. The coin is currently taking an Acetone bath to make sure it is not some glue residue!

I think the 1927 florin (and also threepence?) are a target as these dates are not available in circulation coinage. For the date-run collectors they are appealing once the usual dates have been acquired. The 1927 proof Half crown would be far less appealing as the date can be ticked off with a circulation issue, even though the design is totally different.

I am here to eat humble pie! Having considered this coin for a while I finally got round to doing some direct comparison work, and have to conclude the doubters were right and it is not a recessed ear. Here is a comparison picture: On the left is my "normal" 1915. In the centre is my existing 1915 "recessed ear" complete with the indicative broken tooth. On the right is the one I hoped was a better "recessed ear", but side by side it clearly isn't. I had put too much faith in the depth of the trench to the left of the ear, whereas the fineness of the top of the ear and the absence of the rib in the centre of the ear seem to be better indicators when the broken tooth is absent.

Yes, I would go with repro too. The over-detailed eyebrows and moustache just don't seem to occur on genuine coins, even proofs.

Sadly passed in 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Unwin_(comedian)

ESC mentions a variety with no stop after HIB, but not one with ne stops at all on the reverse.

Seems fine this morning. Thanks for your efforts @Chris Perkins