1887 double florin proofs

[Nick]

Spink, Davies and ESC all refer to two types of 1887 double florin proofs: one having an arabic 1 and the other a roman I in the date. The relative rarities/values given by these references (Spink £450:£575, Davies £160:£180, ESC S:R) would imply that there were not that many more of the arabic 1 variety than the roman I. However, ESC states that it was the arabic 1 variety that was issued in the proof sets.

Q1) Has anybody ever seen a roman I proof double florin? I can't find any in the auction archives that I've looked in.

Q2) Anybody know roughly how many of each type were issued?

[Peckris]

Spink, Davies and ESC all refer to two types of 1887 double florin proofs: one having an arabic 1 and the other a roman I in the date. The relative rarities/values given by these references (Spink £450:£575, Davies £160:£180, ESC S:R) would imply that there were not that many more of the arabic 1 variety than the roman I. However, ESC states that it was the arabic 1 variety that was issued in the proof sets.

Q1) Has anybody ever seen a roman I proof double florin? I can't find any in the auction archives that I've looked in.

Q2) Anybody know roughly how many of each type were issued?

Our friend 1887 will know the answer if anyone does He opened my eyes to the sheer number of minor varieties that exist.

[1887jubilee]

Spink, Davies and ESC all refer to two types of 1887 double florin proofs: one having an arabic 1 and the other a roman I in the date. The relative rarities/values given by these references (Spink £450:£575, Davies £160:£180, ESC S:R) would imply that there were not that many more of the arabic 1 variety than the roman I. However, ESC states that it was the arabic 1 variety that was issued in the proof sets.

Q1) Has anybody ever seen a roman I proof double florin? I can't find any in the auction archives that I've looked in.

Q2) Anybody know roughly how many of each type were issued?

Our friend 1887 will know the answer if anyone does He opened my eyes to the sheer number of minor varieties that exist.

Thank you for your vote of confidence. All you say is perfectly correct the Arabic 1 was used in the sets which would indicate that 797 were Arabic 1 but I have read that mintage of the proof double florin was, as with the other silver coins, 1084. This allows for up to 287 others. Recent work shows the proportion of Roman to Arabic double florins in a sample of 591 to be 200 Roman to 391 Arabic. This is using the reverse A and B as given in Davies. I have no way of knowing whether this proportion holds for the remaining 287 or if it applies at all, all I can say is, yes there are proof Roman I coins. You should also remember the specimen sets have a proportion of Roman I coins and people often mistake the high quality coins for proofs. Again the currency coins, that is those using the currency dies also have occasional proof or proof like strikings. As the years go by the best uncirculated coins, especially early strikings, take on an appearence of being proof but held up against the real thing it is easy to tell the difference. I would be happy to examine anything you think might be a Roman proof and send you photos of mine if you provide email. Obverse and reverse needed. As to value the last one I picked up for £140 not long ago. If I were pushed for a mintage number it would have to be less than 150 unless of course all the 287 are Roman.

[Peter]

Spink, Davies and ESC all refer to two types of 1887 double florin proofs: one having an arabic 1 and the other a roman I in the date. The relative rarities/values given by these references (Spink £450:£575, Davies £160:£180, ESC S:R) would imply that there were not that many more of the arabic 1 variety than the roman I. However, ESC states that it was the arabic 1 variety that was issued in the proof sets.

Q1) Has anybody ever seen a roman I proof double florin? I can't find any in the auction archives that I've looked in.

Q2) Anybody know roughly how many of each type were issued?

Our friend 1887 will know the answer if anyone does He opened my eyes to the sheer number of minor varieties that exist.

Thank you for your vote of confidence. All you say is perfectly correct the Arabic 1 was used in the sets which would indicate that 797 were Arabic 1 but I have read that mintage of the proof double florin was, as with the other silver coins, 1084. This allows for up to 287 others. Recent work shows the proportion of Roman to Arabic double florins in a sample of 591 to be 200 Roman to 391 Arabic. This is using the reverse A and B as given in Davies. I have no way of knowing whether this proportion holds for the remaining 287 or if it applies at all, all I can say is, yes there are proof Roman I coins. You should also remember the specimen sets have a proportion of Roman I coins and people often mistake the high quality coins for proofs. Again the currency coins, that is those using the currency dies also have occasional proof or proof like strikings. As the years go by the best uncirculated coins, especially early strikings, take on an appearence of being proof but held up against the real thing it is easy to tell the difference. I would be happy to examine anything you think might be a Roman proof and send you photos of mine if you provide email. Obverse and reverse needed. As to value the last one I picked up for £140 not long ago. If I were pushed for a mintage number it would have to be less than 150 unless of course all the 287 are Roman.

This information is great and obviously time comsuming research.A coin Wiki would be a great place to issue such info or even an artical in coin news (coin monthly would have snapped your hand off)

I'm afraid my collection stops at a mid grade currency strike (I think )

[Nick]

Spink, Davies and ESC all refer to two types of 1887 double florin proofs: one having an arabic 1 and the other a roman I in the date. The relative rarities/values given by these references (Spink £450:£575, Davies £160:£180, ESC S:R) would imply that there were not that many more of the arabic 1 variety than the roman I. However, ESC states that it was the arabic 1 variety that was issued in the proof sets.

Q1) Has anybody ever seen a roman I proof double florin? I can't find any in the auction archives that I've looked in.

Q2) Anybody know roughly how many of each type were issued?

Our friend 1887 will know the answer if anyone does He opened my eyes to the sheer number of minor varieties that exist.

Thank you for your vote of confidence. All you say is perfectly correct the Arabic 1 was used in the sets which would indicate that 797 were Arabic 1 but I have read that mintage of the proof double florin was, as with the other silver coins, 1084. This allows for up to 287 others. Recent work shows the proportion of Roman to Arabic double florins in a sample of 591 to be 200 Roman to 391 Arabic. This is using the reverse A and B as given in Davies. I have no way of knowing whether this proportion holds for the remaining 287 or if it applies at all, all I can say is, yes there are proof Roman I coins. You should also remember the specimen sets have a proportion of Roman I coins and people often mistake the high quality coins for proofs. Again the currency coins, that is those using the currency dies also have occasional proof or proof like strikings. As the years go by the best uncirculated coins, especially early strikings, take on an appearence of being proof but held up against the real thing it is easy to tell the difference. I would be happy to examine anything you think might be a Roman proof and send you photos of mine if you provide email. Obverse and reverse needed. As to value the last one I picked up for £140 not long ago. If I were pushed for a mintage number it would have to be less than 150 unless of course all the 287 are Roman.

Many thanks for the information. I do have a decent Roman I example, but it is definitely just a currency piece. However, I now have hope that there is a Roman I proof out there somewhere that might appear for sale at some point in the future.

I remember reading somewhere that there are many Victorian coins produced from highly polished blanks that appear to be proofs, but are not. All of the genuine proofs I have seen possess a distinctive uniform rim with sharp edge milling.

[ski]

sorry to go off at a slight tangent.....

ive just been looking at double florins in the forthcoming london coin auctions. 1 of the coins (1888) is advertised as having the upper left serif of the letter j from jeb initials on the neck as missing. ive checked my collection of double florins and to me this seems normal on a coin graded around vf as it seems to be just worn away. the advertised coin is graded a/unc

i have some EF examples also and there is a hint of both serifs, the exception being an ef 1889 inv 1.

my unc all seem to have a full J.

is this just an indicator of wear and therefore grade or just plain old fashioned sales pitch, or are there known but uncatalogued varieties.

Ski

[Peckris]

Spink, Davies and ESC all refer to two types of 1887 double florin proofs: one having an arabic 1 and the other a roman I in the date. The relative rarities/values given by these references (Spink £450:£575, Davies £160:£180, ESC S:R) would imply that there were not that many more of the arabic 1 variety than the roman I. However, ESC states that it was the arabic 1 variety that was issued in the proof sets.

Q1) Has anybody ever seen a roman I proof double florin? I can't find any in the auction archives that I've looked in.

Q2) Anybody know roughly how many of each type were issued?

Our friend 1887 will know the answer if anyone does He opened my eyes to the sheer number of minor varieties that exist.

Thank you for your vote of confidence. All you say is perfectly correct the Arabic 1 was used in the sets which would indicate that 797 were Arabic 1 but I have read that mintage of the proof double florin was, as with the other silver coins, 1084. This allows for up to 287 others. Recent work shows the proportion of Roman to Arabic double florins in a sample of 591 to be 200 Roman to 391 Arabic. This is using the reverse A and B as given in Davies. I have no way of knowing whether this proportion holds for the remaining 287 or if it applies at all, all I can say is, yes there are proof Roman I coins. You should also remember the specimen sets have a proportion of Roman I coins and people often mistake the high quality coins for proofs. Again the currency coins, that is those using the currency dies also have occasional proof or proof like strikings. As the years go by the best uncirculated coins, especially early strikings, take on an appearence of being proof but held up against the real thing it is easy to tell the difference. I would be happy to examine anything you think might be a Roman proof and send you photos of mine if you provide email. Obverse and reverse needed. As to value the last one I picked up for £140 not long ago. If I were pushed for a mintage number it would have to be less than 150 unless of course all the 287 are Roman.

Many thanks for the information. I do have a decent Roman I example, but it is definitely just a currency piece. However, I now have hope that there is a Roman I proof out there somewhere that might appear for sale at some point in the future.

I remember reading somewhere that there are many Victorian coins produced from highly polished blanks that appear to be proofs, but are not. All of the genuine proofs I have seen possess a distinctive uniform rim with sharp edge milling.

I think it's unlikely that these were polished blanks (i.e. prepared for proofs) - the proof striking quantity would have been known in advance and the right number of blanks (plus maybe a few extra for contingency) would have been prepared. There are simply far too many prooflike currency pieces - or at least, UNC examples with highly mirrored fields but with the raised design not mirrored - to be explained by polished blanks.

I believe it is more likely that the proof dies were used on normal blanks once the proof strikings were complete, as there would have been plenty of life left in them. Even with a single strike rather than double, this would have produced coins with a prooflike finish, but without the sharp rims that the specially prepared blanks would have had. The next step down would be the early strikes from new currency dies, which might have had something of a prooflike appearance, until inspected fairly closely.

[Nick]

Many thanks for the information. I do have a decent Roman I example, but it is definitely just a currency piece. However, I now have hope that there is a Roman I proof out there somewhere that might appear for sale at some point in the future.

I remember reading somewhere that there are many Victorian coins produced from highly polished blanks that appear to be proofs, but are not. All of the genuine proofs I have seen possess a distinctive uniform rim with sharp edge milling.

I think it's unlikely that these were polished blanks (i.e. prepared for proofs) - the proof striking quantity would have been known in advance and the right number of blanks (plus maybe a few extra for contingency) would have been prepared. There are simply far too many prooflike currency pieces - or at least, UNC examples with highly mirrored fields but with the raised design not mirrored - to be explained by polished blanks.

I believe it is more likely that the proof dies were used on normal blanks once the proof strikings were complete, as there would have been plenty of life left in them. Even with a single strike rather than double, this would have produced coins with a prooflike finish, but without the sharp rims that the specially prepared blanks would have had. The next step down would be the early strikes from new currency dies, which might have had something of a prooflike appearance, until inspected fairly closely.

Thanks. Your explanation does indeed sound more likely.

[gpwallis]

Here is one for sale in NZ- opening bid about 30 pounds.

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=900970974

[Rob]

Here is one for sale in NZ- opening bid about 30 pounds.

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=900970974

That isn't a proof. The rims are too narrow and it's been polished to ********

[Paulus]

As Rob says... if you're a collector leave well alone

[shagreen]

Here are some links to a "proof" strike, the coin is part of an early issue of the set

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5iok4nrofzsbd4g/f2%201887%20double%20florin%20ex%20nobles%20rev.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0vqwddst6k0n2yh/f1%201887%20double%20florin%20ex%20nobles%20obv.jpg?dl=0

[VickySilver]

Excellent there, Peck. The same is true of many Vick silver issues where the line between proof and currency is sometimes very, very difficult. Also, in some years where no certain proofs are known, there are specimens that appear to be better than just "early strikes".

And please, let's not go there with the 3d maundy/currency problems...

[1887jubilee]

Well Hello , Yes I am still alive after a year or so out. You will all have noticed the photos posted by shagreen above show a reverse die with a Roman I but how many noticed the obverse is the die type 2 BSC. normally associated with the Arabic reverse B. I regret it is much more complicated than that as there is also a 1/A proof so in fact there are coins 1/A, 1/B 2/A and 2/B all not publishe yet so I reserve rights. Andrew

[1887jubilee]

On 11/08/2011 at 11:09 AM, Nick said:

Many thanks for the information. I do have a decent Roman I example, but it is definitely just a currency piece. However, I now have hope that there is a Roman I proof out there somewhere that might appear for sale at some point in the future.

I remember reading somewhere that there are many Victorian coins produced from highly polished blanks that appear to be proofs, but are not. All of the genuine proofs I have seen possess a distinctive uniform rim with sharp edge milling.

In the last few weeks London Coins offered a Roman Proof 4/- but the best looking one I have seen recently at Heritage went to an Australian bidder. see

http://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/world-coins/great-britain-victoria-proof-double-florin-1887-pr66-cameo-pcgs-/a/3044-29768.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

a very fine example                  

[VickySilver]

Wow! A beautiful coin. I've left these alone entirely (along with the 1 1/2d, and the 2d)....

[SWANNY]

This all makes me think that all I have is a highly polished normal coin

It has no toning, and mirror like surface

[MattTheRiley]

I just bought this recently.  I think it is a Proof.  What do you folks think?

 

[Mynki]

It really doesn't look like the proofs I have seen to be honest. 

[DaveG38]

The edge really isn't right for a proof for me.

[1887jubilee]

I have been studying these and the other 1887 denominations for 20 years and it does not get any easier. As time goes on what was once obvious and, came in an original cased set to prove it, is no longer helpful as so many sets have been broken up. What I can say is the the cased curency set I have would, for the quality of coins, pass as proof for several of the pieces. Knowing this I have become VERY critical of proof status. Even the American piece I posted above though certified has rims with raised edges and, shine though it might, I would hesitate without having the coin in hand. I admit your coin is a cracker and if it were a curency piece at £100+ it would be fine. But when a proof is £1,000+ you have to be so careful. It has a lovely tone but given the knocks, wear on the lion and rims I would have to say it is probably not one of the 1084.recorded. The Royal Mint are very helpful and will tell you if you take or post it.

[mrbadexample]

So what are the key indicators 1887? I also thought I might have a proof (although now accept this is unlikely) here  https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxBRenK8v0n-T0dhdTdzNWFoZ2c&usp=sharing due to a mirror-like quality of the fields (which I cannot convey in a photo). I'd appreciate your opinion.

Edited March 5, 2016 by mrbadexample

[VickySilver]

OK, I have to add this bit in as I have been collecting for a while myself and possibly have seen a coin or two. Although some coins are obvious as to their designation, some are IMO not. To put the cart before the horse, I would say that overall is that there is no clear borderline between many of the 19th C. proofs in silver and high quality specimen or even currency pieces. I know that complicates things a bit, but I have seen some come coins certified or offered in a major auction as proof that I would not accept as such and just the opposite as well. Another "corollary" set would be the currency/Maundy 3ds.

 

What I have seen is individuals state that THEY would only accept a coin as proof if it demonstrated "X" quality. In no way does that fully exclude coins intended and apparently prepped as proofs by the mint itself. Why? No matter how seemingly rigid guidelines at the mint might be, I am not at all certain they were followed at all times. There are so many examples, but one would be the proof coinage of 1839 that was apparently struck and released under many circumstances over many years. Other issues could well be urgency of production: how soon sets or coins might be required for particular people or events.

 

And what about other factors? Does a coin struck slowly with increased striking force with an early stage die produce equal or possibly even greater device detail, mirroring of fields, or crisp rims and milling compared with a coin struck twice or multiple times at a lower striking force? Because a coin is issued as part of a set, be it currency, specimen, or proof mean that it must match in quality or production its set mates? I have certainly seen sets that were apparently original with varied quality of coins within. I could go on and on....

[mrbadexample]

If someone had told me mine was a proof I would have believed them. There is enough about the quality of the fields to let me think this might be the case. However, the breaks in the lions' tails would make me think different, as they indicate a lower quality of strike. I don't really know enough about the edges to come to a decision one way or the other. 

[Rob]

6 minutes ago, mrbadexample said:

If someone had told me mine was a proof I would have believed them. There is enough about the quality of the fields to let me think this might be the case. However, the breaks in the lions' tails would make me think different, as they indicate a lower quality of strike. I don't really know enough about the edges to come to a decision one way or the other. 

The broken tails would indicate either a broken punch or a blocked die. Whilst the latter would not be expected, a lot of special strikings do not have perfect legends or other parts of the design.