1887 double florin proofs

[mrbadexample]

What do you mean by a broken punch Rob? 

[Rob]

You have punches for regularly used features such as letter, numbers, shields etc. These are not hand engraved, but entered onto the die by physically hammering the character into the soft metal before the die is hardened. It is this action which allows you to identify different dies because the detail is never an exact replication of the previous one. These punches are made of hardened metal, but can break just like anything else, so the finer the detail, the more likely it is that a piece could break off.

[Sword]

On ‎04‎/‎03‎/‎2016 at 7:12 PM, 1887jubilee said:

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.

It would be really great if you could post photos of some of your best currency coins (i.e. those that can be pass as proof). I would love to see how good currency coins can get.

[1887jubilee]

On 06/03/2016 at 0:56 AM, Rob said:

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.

Entirely agree. The broken tails problem on the rev. "Roman I" die is progressive and you can find specimens with lions 4,5 & 6 (counting from the date) most often damaged. Similarly the shield on the Scotish lion is damaged on the "Arabic" rev. This too is progresive and even seen on the proof Arabic. This is quite plausible as "proofs" were issued into 1888. If we could build a better data base of these coins we could eventually have a decision committee rather like that used to authenticate paintings. VickySilver for Chairman? Any votes?

[Colin G.]

On 6 March 2016 at 11:47 AM, Sword said:

It would be really great if you could post photos of some of your best currency coins (i.e. those that can be pass as proof). I would love to see how good currency coins can get.

I think this is a really difficult proposition. Many of the bronze proof farthings of the Victorian Bunhead series that I have seen, I can not convince myself are actually proofs. They appear to be specimen like and were obviously produced with special attention, but do not compare to the known proofs from the years sets were issued. Therein lies the problem, I would say they are a specimen coin whilst others may say they are proofs....some circulation coins also have been struck from what appear to be specially prepared dies, or are early strikes so they present with a clean strike and mirrorlikek fields. The 1895 veiled head farthing is a good example, they can also be found with a cameo effect and proof like fields, yet are certainly circulation strikes, but from what were a new set of dies for a new design.