Edward VII shilling variants

[1949threepence]

Whilst researching Edward VII shillings in readiness for me attempting to complete my 1902 to 36 collection with the rarest and most expensive of the set, I came across these variants listed by Gouby. The 1904 type 2a is from an original finding by Dave Webb of "onewebby" the e bay coin vendor.

He is right except that in the period from 1907 to 1910, the R's (as far as I can tell), mostly revert to the straight shortened version seen in the 1903 variant, listed as type 2a, not as per obverse 2.

Apologies if this has already been noted elsewhere.

link here

Edited August 24, 2009 by 1949threepence

[Peckris]

Whilst researching Edward VII shillings in readiness for me attempting to complete my 1902 to 36 collection with the rarest and most expensive of the set, I came across these variants listed by Gouby. The 1904 type 2a is from an original finding by Dave Webb of "onewebby" the e bay coin vendor.

He is right except that in the period from 1907 to 1910, the R's (as far as I can tell), mostly revert to the straight shortened version seen in the 1903 variant, listed as type 2a, not as per obverse 2.

Apologies if this has already been noted elsewhere.

link here

Interesting what people focus on. The difference between the "R"s is absolutely minuscule, negligible. Yet right there, in those photos, is what seems to me to be the major difference : the "D"s. On Obv 1 the D is huge, with a large inner space, and tightly close to the rim. On Obv 2, the D is squatter, much smaller inside, and much further away from the rim. This seems so obvious to me, it leaps from the page. The so-called "R lower than the baseline" effect is entirely down to the position of the adjacent D.

The words "wood", "tree", and "see" come to mind ...

(My remarks are directed at the person who made those descriptions 1949 - not at you!)

Edited August 24, 2009 by Peckris

[1949threepence]

Whilst researching Edward VII shillings in readiness for me attempting to complete my 1902 to 36 collection with the rarest and most expensive of the set, I came across these variants listed by Gouby. The 1904 type 2a is from an original finding by Dave Webb of "onewebby" the e bay coin vendor.

He is right except that in the period from 1907 to 1910, the R's (as far as I can tell), mostly revert to the straight shortened version seen in the 1903 variant, listed as type 2a, not as per obverse 2.

Apologies if this has already been noted elsewhere.

link here

Interesting what people focus on. The difference between the "R"s is absolutely minuscule, negligible. Yet right there, in those photos, is what seems to me to be the major difference : the "D"s. On Obv 1 the D is huge, with a large inner space, and tightly close to the rim. On Obv 2, the D is squatter, much smaller inside, and much further away from the rim. This seems so obvious to me, it leaps from the page. The so-called "R lower than the baseline" effect is entirely down to the position of the adjacent D.

The words "wood", "tree", and "see" come to mind ...

(My remarks are directed at the person who made those descriptions 1949 - not at you!)

Hmmm, you're right about the "D", Peck. In terms of distance from the rim, the same could be said for letters "W" & "V", as well.

[Gary D]

Whilst researching Edward VII shillings in readiness for me attempting to complete my 1902 to 36 collection with the rarest and most expensive of the set, I came across these variants listed by Gouby. The 1904 type 2a is from an original finding by Dave Webb of "onewebby" the e bay coin vendor.

He is right except that in the period from 1907 to 1910, the R's (as far as I can tell), mostly revert to the straight shortened version seen in the 1903 variant, listed as type 2a, not as per obverse 2.

Apologies if this has already been noted elsewhere.

link here

Interesting what people focus on. The difference between the "R"s is absolutely minuscule, negligible. Yet right there, in those photos, is what seems to me to be the major difference : the "D"s. On Obv 1 the D is huge, with a large inner space, and tightly close to the rim. On Obv 2, the D is squatter, much smaller inside, and much further away from the rim. This seems so obvious to me, it leaps from the page. The so-called "R lower than the baseline" effect is entirely down to the position of the adjacent D.

The words "wood", "tree", and "see" come to mind ...

(My remarks are directed at the person who made those descriptions 1949 - not at you!)

Hmmm, you're right about the "D", Peck. In terms of distance from the rim, the same could be said for letters "W" & "V", as well.

Interesting that a 1904 2a has been found. My collection is still in the bank after my trip to Netherlands and Germany so I can't check my 1904s but when I first read about the 1903 2a on Michaels site I checked mine and I have a 1 and 2a. I've now been looking for a 2 for ages and was beginning to think that the 2 didn't realy exist and what was being called the 2a was the only variety along with the 1.

Gary

[Gary D]

Whilst researching Edward VII shillings in readiness for me attempting to complete my 1902 to 36 collection with the rarest and most expensive of the set, I came across these variants listed by Gouby. The 1904 type 2a is from an original finding by Dave Webb of "onewebby" the e bay coin vendor.

He is right except that in the period from 1907 to 1910, the R's (as far as I can tell), mostly revert to the straight shortened version seen in the 1903 variant, listed as type 2a, not as per obverse 2.

Apologies if this has already been noted elsewhere.

link here

Interesting what people focus on. The difference between the "R"s is absolutely minuscule, negligible. Yet right there, in those photos, is what seems to me to be the major difference : the "D"s. On Obv 1 the D is huge, with a large inner space, and tightly close to the rim. On Obv 2, the D is squatter, much smaller inside, and much further away from the rim. This seems so obvious to me, it leaps from the page. The so-called "R lower than the baseline" effect is entirely down to the position of the adjacent D.

The words "wood", "tree", and "see" come to mind ...

(My remarks are directed at the person who made those descriptions 1949 - not at you!)

Hmmm, you're right about the "D", Peck. In terms of distance from the rim, the same could be said for letters "W" & "V", as well.

Interesting that a 1904 2a has been found. My collection is still in the bank after my trip to Netherlands and Germany so I can't check my 1904s but when I first read about the 1903 2a on Michaels site I checked mine and I have a 1 and 2a. I've now been looking for a 2 for ages and was beginning to think that the 2 didn't realy exist and what was being called the 2a was the only variety along with the 1.

Gary

I see Dave Webb has now come up with a 1906 type 2a and by coinsidence my 1906 type 2 is a 2a. So I now have a 1903 type 1 and 2a, and 1906 type 1 and 2a. Comparing my both my 2a's with my 1904 and 1905 type 2s I'm starting to form the opinion that a 2a is just a 2 with a blocked die.

[1949threepence]

Whilst researching Edward VII shillings in readiness for me attempting to complete my 1902 to 36 collection with the rarest and most expensive of the set, I came across these variants listed by Gouby. The 1904 type 2a is from an original finding by Dave Webb of "onewebby" the e bay coin vendor.

He is right except that in the period from 1907 to 1910, the R's (as far as I can tell), mostly revert to the straight shortened version seen in the 1903 variant, listed as type 2a, not as per obverse 2.

Apologies if this has already been noted elsewhere.

link here

Interesting what people focus on. The difference between the "R"s is absolutely minuscule, negligible. Yet right there, in those photos, is what seems to me to be the major difference : the "D"s. On Obv 1 the D is huge, with a large inner space, and tightly close to the rim. On Obv 2, the D is squatter, much smaller inside, and much further away from the rim. This seems so obvious to me, it leaps from the page. The so-called "R lower than the baseline" effect is entirely down to the position of the adjacent D.

The words "wood", "tree", and "see" come to mind ...

(My remarks are directed at the person who made those descriptions 1949 - not at you!)

Hmmm, you're right about the "D", Peck. In terms of distance from the rim, the same could be said for letters "W" & "V", as well.

Interesting that a 1904 2a has been found. My collection is still in the bank after my trip to Netherlands and Germany so I can't check my 1904s but when I first read about the 1903 2a on Michaels site I checked mine and I have a 1 and 2a. I've now been looking for a 2 for ages and was beginning to think that the 2 didn't realy exist and what was being called the 2a was the only variety along with the 1.

Gary

I see Dave Webb has now come up with a 1906 type 2a and by coinsidence my 1906 type 2 is a 2a. So I now have a 1903 type 1 and 2a, and 1906 type 1 and 2a. Comparing my both my 2a's with my 1904 and 1905 type 2s I'm starting to form the opinion that a 2a is just a 2 with a blocked die.

The 1907 to 1910 ones, all seem to be type 2a.

[1949threepence]

One thing I did mean to mention is that the second 9 in 1909 shillings, appears to be bigger than the first (on all of them). Although I'm not sure if this is an optical illusion, and I don't have a measuring instrument small and precise enough to judge quantitavely.

[1949threepence]

I see Dave Webb has now come up with a 1906 type 2a and by coinsidence my 1906 type 2 is a 2a. So I now have a 1903 type 1 and 2a, and 1906 type 1 and 2a. Comparing my both my 2a's with my 1904 and 1905 type 2s I'm starting to form the opinion that a 2a is just a 2 with a blocked die.

Yep, and he wants £500 for it as a "buy it now" or best offer ~ see it here

I'm not sure it's worth it.

[1949threepence]

At the risk of becoming a bore, I'm returning to this subject. A 1903 shilling I bought recently, EF but rather dirty, seems to have an elongated "9" in the date, compared to others. First I've seen like this.

[DaveG38]

Hi all,

At the risk of going into anorak mode, can I just clarify our collective understanding about these Edward VII shillings?

As I see it there are:

1902 - Obv 1

1903 - Obv 1 and Obv 2a (as newly defined)

1904 - Obv 1 and Obv 2

1905 - Obv 2 with Obv 1 reported by Davies but unconfirmed.

1906 - Obv 1, Obv 2 and Obv 2a (the latter as found by Onewebby)

1907- 1910 - all Obv 2.

Somewhere in this thread there is mention of a 1904 with Obv 2a, but no reference to where this came from. Its not on the Michael Coins website, so I wondered if anybody can enlighten me as follows:

1. Is there an identified Obv 2a for 1904?

2. Can anybody confirm an Obv 1 for 1905?

3. Does my list above represent the known state of tis series or is there anything else lurking about?

Thanks.

[Gary D]

Hi all,

At the risk of going into anorak mode, can I just clarify our collective understanding about these Edward VII shillings?

As I see it there are:

1902 - Obv 1

1903 - Obv 1 and Obv 2a (as newly defined)

1904 - Obv 1 and Obv 2

1905 - Obv 2 with Obv 1 reported by Davies but unconfirmed.

1906 - Obv 1, Obv 2 and Obv 2a (the latter as found by Onewebby)

1907- 1910 - all Obv 2.

Somewhere in this thread there is mention of a 1904 with Obv 2a, but no reference to where this came from. Its not on the Michael Coins website, so I wondered if anybody can enlighten me as follows:

1. Is there an identified Obv 2a for 1904?

2. Can anybody confirm an Obv 1 for 1905?

3. Does my list above represent the known state of tis series or is there anything else lurking about?

Thanks.

I've got 1903 obv 1 and 2a, 1905 obv 1 and 2, 1906 obv 1 and 2a

Gary

[1949threepence]

Hi all,

At the risk of going into anorak mode, can I just clarify our collective understanding about these Edward VII shillings?

As I see it there are:

1902 - Obv 1

1903 - Obv 1 and Obv 2a (as newly defined)

1904 - Obv 1 and Obv 2

1905 - Obv 2 with Obv 1 reported by Davies but unconfirmed.

1906 - Obv 1, Obv 2 and Obv 2a (the latter as found by Onewebby)

1907- 1910 - all Obv 2.

Somewhere in this thread there is mention of a 1904 with Obv 2a, but no reference to where this came from. Its not on the Michael Coins website, so I wondered if anybody can enlighten me as follows:

1. Is there an identified Obv 2a for 1904?

2. Can anybody confirm an Obv 1 for 1905?

3. Does my list above represent the known state of tis series or is there anything else lurking about?

Thanks.

There is a 1904 obv 2a, and it is shown in the link in post No 1 of this thread. It was discovered by Dave Webb of e bay "one webby" fame, and he's currently got one up there as a buy it now for £500.

[DaveG38]

1949 Threepence,

Thanks for this. I followed the link to Michael Gouby's website, but didn't scroll all the way down the page. Smack on wrist and write 100 times 'I must look more thoroughly in future.'

[DaveG38]

A final thought. It looks like there 's an Obv 2a for 1903, 1904 and 1906, so logic says there might be one for 1905? Anyone willing to check theirs to see?

PS: Thanks to Gary D for confirming the 1905 Obv 1 type.

[Rob]

I've got a 1905 with the 1st & 4th R's with a tail and the 2nd & 3rd short. Don't know if that is already covered though. The D's are as for obv.2 and the E's have a shorter top bar.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Rob

[1949threepence]

I see Dave Webb has now come up with a 1906 type 2a and by coinsidence my 1906 type 2 is a 2a. So I now have a 1903 type 1 and 2a, and 1906 type 1 and 2a. Comparing my both my 2a's with my 1904 and 1905 type 2s I'm starting to form the opinion that a 2a is just a 2 with a blocked die.

Yep, and he wants £500 for it as a "buy it now" or best offer ~ see it here

I'm not sure it's worth it.

Over 6 months have elapsed, and it's still for sale @ £500

Evidently not perceived as a bargain.