1887 Shillings

[Sleepy]

We did the 1887 Sixpences a couple of weeks back, so how about moving on to the 1887 Shillings. Could anyone confirm or not whether this is a 1887 Shilling with the Large Garter and Q with almost no tail, Davies 981. I have the other 2 mentioned by Davies the looped tailed Q and long tailed Q 980 and 982. I was also wondering if there any other varieties not mentioned by Davies. 

[Sleepy]

And here's the other 2 for comparison.

[1887jubilee]

Looks like a classic Rev. B unless you have other information. Of course it comes in proof as well......... or does it?

When you say "we did the sixpences" what were your conclusions? I have worked on an analysis of over 2000 and I don't know of anyone who has come up with anything in the statistical form of pie charts, and statistics that I could talk to. The only other person that has heard it all is my grand daughter and since it sends her to sleep ................the floor is open.

[Unwilling Numismatist]

Don't forget the Young Head and there are some variations in date width, however I'm not sure these would really qualify as a variety.

As for proofs, I remain unconvinced, as early strikes with good preservation are akin to a "prooflike" appearance. 

Given the existence of commemorative sets for 1887, it wouldn't be out of the realms of possibiility, however I am yest to see anything that thoroughly convinces me for the common shillling.

there are certainly other 1887 coins which would meet the criteria, so I am keeping an open mind and watching carefully.

5 minutes ago, 1887jubilee said:

The only other person that has heard it all is my grand daughter and since it sends her to sleep ................the floor is open. 

I wish I had the time and nearby location so that I could hear it all!!

She's a lucky young lady,

 

Attached for the fun of it are some pics of my most photogenic shillings (a,b and c), however they were unfortunately mistreated before arriving with me.

 

[1887jubilee]

Rev. A proof. anyone seen rev. B proof?

Edited October 21, 2018 by 1887jubilee

[Unwilling Numismatist]

Sweet!

I'd best start saving some more!

[Sleepy]

That proof shilling is a beauty, and it answers a thought I was having about my type B being a proof that fell on hard times, it has that bluey golden toning that you see on proofs, but now I can see from the detail shown on the proof that mine is no way near.

[Unwilling Numismatist]

19 hours ago, 1887jubilee said:

 I have worked on an analysis of over 2000 and I don't know of anyone who has come up with anything in the statistical form of pie charts, and statistics that I could talk to.

Do you have notes of the analysis, I'd be happy to correlate the data into something pie-like if it would lend itself to that.

 

[Unwilling Numismatist]

18 hours ago, 1887jubilee said:

Rev. A proof. anyone seen rev. B proof?

Are there any distinguishing features other than the strike and the finish which could determine  a proof?

My Rev A has a look about it, but due to it's hard life even if it were a proof in a past life, it certainly doesn't pass for one now - an early strike is the closest I'd personally give it until it can be proven something else.

Rev B's  are what my comment was related to - I remain unconvinced, but keep an open mind.

[DaveG38]

For this series, I've always examined the sharpness of the edges. Proofs are very sharp indeed, compared to 'prooflike' examples. Many 'proofs' that are advertised on eBay have quite blunted edges, which means for me they are not proofs.

[rpeddie]

if you are talking about what i think you are, i look at the same thing.

Most times the reeding/milling on the edges of the proofs is a lot more sharp and well defined.