2 For attribution

[just.me]

Again, the same attribution but die number 7. (The picture was too big to upload so I had to chop the top off)

[azda]

Ok, i've enlarged what just.me uploaded and put them in photobucket

[azda]

and the last one

[azda]

Ok, and here's mine with a bit more tinkering. Still a distinct gap between bust and trefoils obviously leaving enough space for the WW. And the die number on my coin looks more like a 4 and 9, might be staring at it to long

Edited July 29, 2011 by azda

[Rob]

Thinking out loud, I think there is a good chance the bust too low type of die is what is most likely to be a no WW. If you think of the number of obverse dies that were produced, clearly the number of matrices would be a lot less. As the WW is optional decoration, its presence is not important, but the die number was important as a control, otherwise there would be no point in engraving it. So as in the case of die 39 where the die number crosses the truncation, it is obvious that the die number was punched in manually. Unfortunately, the only obverse matrix listed by Hocking in the RM museum (vol.2 no.1274) is listed as reading MDCCC, but this is the one reading BRIT and so we can't assume that the one reading BRITT was identical, but it is reasaonable to assume that WW should have been common to all. If the bust was punched in too low on one, then there is an argument for the WW to be missing in that instance. Whilst it is always easy to blame a filled or worn die for weak or missing characters simply because you see so many examples, there is also a case to be made for it not having been there in the first place.

On the assumption that the BRITT matrix only had MDCCC too, any images of a die 39 in whatever condition and whatever year might help. Or indeed, any obverse with a similarly low bust what ever the die number.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Rob

[azda]

This is what i've been actually trying to say, if the bust was punched lower, which in this case it seems to be, then there would be no WW as it would have taken it out. Glad we're getting a little further down the road with this.

[Rob]

This is what i've been actually trying to say, if the bust was punched lower, which in this case it seems to be, then there would be no WW as it would have taken it out. Glad we're getting a little further down the road with this.

I've never discounted this possibility, it is just that we need corroborative evidence. I don't know if the RM has dies etc. over and above those listed in Hocking, but if they did there is an outside chance the argument could be settled. Drop them an email with the question.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Rob

[azda]

This is what i've been actually trying to say, if the bust was punched lower, which in this case it seems to be, then there would be no WW as it would have taken it out. Glad we're getting a little further down the road with this.

I've never discounted this possibility, it is just that we need corroborative evidence. I don't know if the RM has dies etc. over and above those listed in Hocking, but if they did there is an outside chance the argument could be settled. Drop them an email with the question.

Lol, Rob you're talking to the wrong man about Hocking and emails to RM, i don't even know what/who Hocking is, i'm assuming someone like Davies and Rayner etc.

[Peckris]

This is what i've been actually trying to say, if the bust was punched lower, which in this case it seems to be, then there would be no WW as it would have taken it out. Glad we're getting a little further down the road with this.

Dave, I've been studying your picture quite closely, alongside just.me's uploaded images. What seems to be the case is that the bust on yours is the same position as on those others. It just LOOKS lower because it is very very weak (whether from the die, or just on that particular coin, it's really not possible to say) at the base of the bust where the WW would be. But, looking at the base of the bust both to the left and right of that area where it's less weak, it appears to be the same height as those others. However, it is very difficult to determine with absolute precision without overlaying the images in different colours one over the other.

[azda]

This is what i've been actually trying to say, if the bust was punched lower, which in this case it seems to be, then there would be no WW as it would have taken it out. Glad we're getting a little further down the road with this.

Dave, I've been studying your picture quite closely, alongside just.me's uploaded images. What seems to be the case is that the bust on yours is the same position as on those others. It just LOOKS lower because it is very very weak (whether from the die, or just on that particular coin, it's really not possible to say) at the base of the bust where the WW would be. But, looking at the base of the bust both to the left and right of that area where it's less weak, it appears to be the same height as those others. However, it is very difficult to determine with absolute precision without overlaying the images in different colours one over the other.

is it daveg38 thats good at that sort of thing? Someone on here does a good job with photoshop

[Rob]

This is what i've been actually trying to say, if the bust was punched lower, which in this case it seems to be, then there would be no WW as it would have taken it out. Glad we're getting a little further down the road with this.

I've never discounted this possibility, it is just that we need corroborative evidence. I don't know if the RM has dies etc. over and above those listed in Hocking, but if they did there is an outside chance the argument could be settled. Drop them an email with the question.

Lol, Rob you're talking to the wrong man about Hocking and emails to RM, i don't even know what/who Hocking is, i'm assuming someone like Davies and Rayner etc.

Hocking listed the contents of the RM museum in two volumes. vol.1 in 1906 listed the coins in the collection, vol.2 in 1910 listed the dies, medals and seals. This was an update to Webster's 1874 compiliation.

It might be a good time to email the mint because Graham Dyer who was the curator but is now retired has been working there part time in the past few months, or at least he was there 6 weeks ago. He was researching Hocking recently as he contacted me about some correspondence between Hocking, Lawrence and Lincoln relevant to my Weyl patterns (he was one of the referees). He is also a very learned person about all things milled from the RM and best of all very helpful because it is right up his street. Send an email to the mint asking the question. Don't put Kevin Clancy's (the current curator) nose out of joint by addressing it directly to GD, so suggest you send in an email by the regular channels. If there is any useful material, he would send you pictures foc as he has always been good like that. He likes people that do research.

[just.me]

OK, this might throw another spanner in the works but this is how I see it, There were 68 numbered dies used in 1877, so if a die 1 was entered on an obverse 3 with WW, every die number 1 1877 Florin would have to be an obverse 3 with a WW. . . . . if die 68 was entered on to a die which had obverse 4 with no WW then all 1877 Florins with die number 68 would have to be an obverse 4 with no WW. So each of the 68 numbers is uniquely attributed to only 1 die.

Here are the confirmed attributions of 1877 florin die numbers that had been recorded. My last update was a few years ago so some of the unrecorded ones may well have now been recorded. (I've been collecting the Shilling die numbers the past few years and haven't kept upto date with the Florins and Sixpences)

Davies obverse 3 is confirmed to have die numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 37, 39, 56, 59, 61.

Davies obverse 4 is confirmed to have die numbers 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 63, 68.

The numbers missing from above 1, 6, 9, 1112, 19, etc. etc. were unconfirmed or unrecorded at the time.

I have a low grade example of an 1877 die 39 (D742) with a discernible WW. I will take a photo shortly.

[Rob]

OK, this might throw another spanner in the works but this is how I see it, There were 68 numbered dies used in 1877, so if a die 1 was entered on an obverse 3 with WW, every die number 1 1877 Florin would have to be an obverse 3 with a WW. . . . . if die 68 was entered on to a die which had obverse 4 with no WW then all 1877 Florins with die number 68 would have to be an obverse 4 with no WW. So each of the 68 numbers is uniquely attributed to only 1 die.

Here are the confirmed attributions of 1877 florin die numbers that had been recorded. My last update was a few years ago so some of the unrecorded ones may well have now been recorded. (I've been collecting the Shilling die numbers the past few years and haven't kept upto date with the Florins and Sixpences)

Davies obverse 3 is confirmed to have die numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 37, 39, 56, 59, 61.

Davies obverse 4 is confirmed to have die numbers 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 63, 68.

The numbers missing from above 1, 6, 9, 1112, 19, etc. etc. were unconfirmed or unrecorded at the time.

I have a low grade example of an 1877 die 39 (D742) with a discernible WW. I will take a photo shortly.

I concur with the above argument and think this is a constructive spanner.

Any die 39 with a clear WW should I think be conclusive.

It is worth noting that Davies doesn't list a highest die number for no WW and stop after date, which suggests he may not have seen one, but could also potentially imply that there was no die number visible either if he did see one. I suspect that the absence of a die number means the former and that the entry was made based on its prior recording in ESC. ESC lists die 62 as the highest die number for no WW, but has a stop after date. This is not on your list above, but surely this list must have been compiled post Rayner's book if it was listed in the 1970 standard catalogue and the B4 number was taken from the ESC classification? Spink simply list the date and not whether there is a stop after or not, so we can be reasonably certain that it refers to the ESC entry. A die 62 obverse picture would be very helpful here.

[just.me]

here is the low grade 1877 die 39. (this has been comfirmed against a high grade 1877 die 39 coin.

If its too small, could you possibly enlarge it for me Azda, I have never used Photobucket before. (By the way I like your oversized scans )

[azda]

here is the low grade 1877 die 39. (this has been comfirmed against a high grade 1877 die 39 coin.

If its too small, could you possibly enlarge it for me Azda, I have never used Photobucket before. (By the way I like your oversized scans )

Again, there seems to be some distance between trefoils and bust, but that could be to the wear.

[Peckris]

here is the low grade 1877 die 39. (this has been comfirmed against a high grade 1877 die 39 coin.

If its too small, could you possibly enlarge it for me Azda, I have never used Photobucket before. (By the way I like your oversized scans )

It's actually just the right size Fits neatly into a tabbed browser with bookmarks bar on a 17" screen, which just by coincidence... (By the way, you mean Photoshop not Photobucket, the latter is a picture hosting site!)

For f***'s sake don't encourage him!

Edited July 29, 2011 by Peckris