1881 Proof Sixpence

[jaggy]

Heritage have an 1881 Proof sixpence in their upcoming auction. When I look at ESC (6th Edition, No. 3252) it lists an 1881 proof sixpence with two arrows facing up which, I assume, refers to the die orientation. 

When I look at the coin on Heritage, it would appear that the orientation is different (i.e. two arrows facing opposite directions). 

So, what does the forum think.? Is this a proof? Is Heritage wrong? Is ESC wrong? Or is this an unlisted variety? Am I misreading this? Or have I got my assumptions horribly wrong?

http://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/great-britain-victoria-proof-6-pence-1881-pr63-ngc-/a/3044-29743.s?ic2=mytracked-lotspage-lotlinks-12202013

 

[Rob]

Difficult to say. The milling doesn't look particularly sharp considering. Is the milling spacing the same as for a normal 1881?

Heritage are just going by the TPG designation - they don't think for themselves.

ESC could well be wrong. 1881 shillings are noted with an inverted die axis. Bole 1831 was described as 6h (inverted).

Davies doesn't indicate any change in die axis from the norm.

[jaggy]

2 hours ago, Rob said:

Difficult to say. The milling doesn't look particularly sharp considering. Is the milling spacing the same as for a normal 1881?

Heritage are just going by the TPG designation - they don't think for themselves.

ESC could well be wrong. 1881 shillings are noted with an inverted die axis. Bole 1831 was described as 6h (inverted).

Davies doesn't indicate any change in die axis from the norm.

Appreciate the comments Rob! It would not be the first time I have found mistakes in the latest edition of ESC. I did note that Davies made no specific comment too.

Still, for a coin that will probably fetch $2000 plus, I'm not sure I want to take the chance.

[VickySilver]

Looks very much like proofs I have seen, mine is plain edge though not as  brilliantly toned; the edges look about typical - I have not seen these to be knife-edged. I really would not rule a coin in or out by orientation, even if one is seen as the norm.

It is true that there are currency Vickies of this era that can be very prooflike, especially the 6d and shilling denominations but think at least by the photo that this one does not appear objectionable. Hate to say it, but I just can not get myself to count milling & the "third face" or surface is important in an exclusionary sense I suppose. I tend to favour the denticle and edge configuration with respect to this. I like to look at details of the bust and strike of the rev. crown and leaves as well....blah, blah.

[azda]

Well, as we're talking about NGC attributions, what do we think of this unlisted proof?

 

https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/3923084-021/

[Mr T]

I wouldn't rely on the orientation alone as VickySilver says. Otherwise it could pass as a proof, though the cross above the orb on the crown is a little weak.

Proof dies being used for currency coins is something that has happened hasn't it?

1 hour ago, azda said:

Well, as we're talking about NGC attributions, what do we think of this unlisted proof?

 

https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/3923084-021/

Photos aren't great but maybe. It certainly looks better struck than most.

[azda]

39 minutes ago, Mr T said:

I wouldn't rely on the orientation alone as VickySilver says. Otherwise it could pass as a proof, though the cross above the orb on the crown is a little weak.

Proof dies being used for currency coins is something that has happened hasn't it?

Photos aren't great but maybe. It certainly looks better struck than most.

Its a strange one as no proof from 1868 is listed in anything i have. I'm wondering if its a case of "if it looks proof then it must be" for NGC graders.

[Rob]

1 hour ago, azda said:

Its a strange one as no proof from 1868 is listed in anything i have. I'm wondering if its a case of "if it looks proof then it must be" for NGC graders.

??

Peck 1929 is a bronze proof. P1930 the Cu-Ni proof and P1931 the Aluminium proof. The footnote says the latter was untraced, and presumably was a late striking given the metal wasn't available commercially until the early 1880s. It also assumes the listing in the Saward catalogue was correct and not an example in tin listed as aluminium in error. (Which would therefore make it likely to be a contemporary strike).

[azda]

I never saw anything for the date 1868, Peck does mention 1844 proofs though and if I remember rightly 1860? 

I'm out just now so nothing too hand

[Rob]

Yes, but those are coppers, not the bronze coinage.