My new crown

[Danz]

Hi all. Just wanted to show off my new 1887 crown. It might not be anything special but i like it. I think it is in EF condition. Would you agree? Cheers all.

[Gollum]

Hi all. Just wanted to show off my new 1887 crown. It might not be anything special but i like it. I think it is in EF condition. Would you agree? Cheers all.

Ilike that !, but I am soooo tempted to spray paint it gold and wait for a chinese tourist to pass by

[Coinery]

Hi all. Just wanted to show off my new 1887 crown. It might not be anything special but i like it. I think it is in EF condition. Would you agree? Cheers all.

Not the best pictures, but it looks about there to me!

[azda]

Hi all. Just wanted to show off my new 1887 crown. It might not be anything special but i like it. I think it is in EF condition. Would you agree? Cheers all.

Ilike that !, but I am soooo tempted to spray paint it gold and wait for a chinese tourist to pass by

Would be better to set up a Chinese fake coin factory and sell them off to the Chinese and see how they like it

[Peckris]

Hi all. Just wanted to show off my new 1887 crown. It might not be anything special but i like it. I think it is in EF condition. Would you agree? Cheers all.

Yes, that's at least EF (minimal wear) and it has a very nice 'pewter' toning. Good coin!

[ski]

It might not be anything special but i like it. I think it is in EF condition.

if you like it then its special to you.....i like it, i havent got a crown of that year, i would love to have that coin in my collection. a very nice ef i think.

[1887jubilee]

Hi all. Just wanted to show off my new 1887 crown. It might not be anything special but i like it. I think it is in EF condition. Would you agree? Cheers all.

Yes it's a nice coin and from one who has quite a few of these you are off to a good start, but which one is it? Now there are several 1887 crowns and it is difficult to tell from your photos but you can see on the coin itself; 1) is the plume to the St. George head double struck or double engraved? 2) is the bottom right serif missing on the 1 of the date? 3) what is the distance between the R of VICTORIA and the T of BRITT? The range is from 34.65mm down to 33.59 for the proof. 4) is the top of the first 8 missing? Now that has whetted your interest there are at least ten or more different sizes in the 1887 Crown as the dies were made using a pantograph to reduce from the master plaster mould. As a guess by eye I would say yours if quite close to 34.00 or less. You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it?

[1887jubilee]

Hi all. Just wanted to show off my new 1887 crown. It might not be anything special but i like it. I think it is in EF condition. Would you agree? Cheers all.

Yes it's a nice coin and from one who has quite a few of these you are off to a good start, but which one is it? Now there are several 1887 crowns and it is difficult to tell from your photos but you can see on the coin itself; 1) is the plume to the St. George head double struck or double engraved? 2) is the bottom right serif missing on the 1 of the date? 3) what is the distance between the R of VICTORIA and the T of BRITT? The range is from 34.65mm down to 33.59 for the proof. 4) is the top of the first 8 missing? Now that has whetted your interest there are at least ten or more different sizes in the 1887 Crown as the dies were made using a pantograph to reduce from the master plaster mould. As a guess by eye I would say yours if quite close to 34.00 or less. You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it?

Sorry at number 3 it should read T of VICTORIA to R in REG

[Danz]

Hi all. Just wanted to show off my new 1887 crown. It might not be anything special but i like it. I think it is in EF condition. Would you agree? Cheers all.

Yes it's a nice coin and from one who has quite a few of these you are off to a good start, but which one is it? Now there are several 1887 crowns and it is difficult to tell from your photos but you can see on the coin itself; 1) is the plume to the St. George head double struck or double engraved? 2) is the bottom right serif missing on the 1 of the date? 3) what is the distance between the R of VICTORIA and the T of BRITT? The range is from 34.65mm down to 33.59 for the proof. 4) is the top of the first 8 missing? Now that has whetted your interest there are at least ten or more different sizes in the 1887 Crown as the dies were made using a pantograph to reduce from the master plaster mould. As a guess by eye I would say yours if quite close to 34.00 or less. You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it?

Sorry at number 3 it should read T of VICTORIA to R in REG

WOW. That is going to keep me busy. I will let you know my findings. I thought that they were all the same. Cheers Dan.

[azda]

Hi all. Just wanted to show off my new 1887 crown. It might not be anything special but i like it. I think it is in EF condition. Would you agree? Cheers all.

You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it?

Unless you're an engineer and use a micrometer you can get the exact dia with those without having to measure 10x

[1887jubilee]

Hi all. Just wanted to show off my new 1887 crown. It might not be anything special but i like it. I think it is in EF condition. Would you agree? Cheers all.

You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it?

Unless you're an engineer and use a micrometer you can get the exact dia with those without having to measure 10x

Ah yes but remember your experiments at school, it is always important to take the readings several times and take an average in order to reduce errors. I have found that even using vernier callipers the readings vary by plus or minus.09mm but if you average 10 readings an accuracy of + or - .01 is achievable. I have toyed with using a USB microscope but I think there would be a loss of accuracy. Any information on these from someone who has one would be helpful

[azda]

Hi all. Just wanted to show off my new 1887 crown. It might not be anything special but i like it. I think it is in EF condition. Would you agree? Cheers all.

You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it?

Unless you're an engineer and use a micrometer you can get the exact dia with those without having to measure 10x

Ah yes but remember your experiments at school, it is always important to take the readings several times and take an average in order to reduce errors. I have found that even using vernier callipers the readings vary by plus or minus.09mm but if you average 10 readings an accuracy of + or - .01 is achievable. I have toyed with using a USB microscope but I think there would be a loss of accuracy. Any information on these from someone who has one would be helpful

The reading will vary accoring to how much pressure your applying to the vernier, you can get 10 different readings if the same pressure is not applied. With a micrometer it has a small ratchet on the end and the same pressure can only be applied until the ratchet and digital reading stops. I now have my own question for you 1887 jubilee, how do you tell proof issue 1887 Crown from a normal currency issue, is it the I's in Victoria pointing to beads?

Edited January 19, 2012 by azda

[Nick]

Hi all. Just wanted to show off my new 1887 crown. It might not be anything special but i like it. I think it is in EF condition. Would you agree? Cheers all.

You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it?

Unless you're an engineer and use a micrometer you can get the exact dia with those without having to measure 10x

Ah yes but remember your experiments at school, it is always important to take the readings several times and take an average in order to reduce errors. I have found that even using vernier callipers the readings vary by plus or minus.09mm but if you average 10 readings an accuracy of + or - .01 is achievable. I have toyed with using a USB microscope but I think there would be a loss of accuracy. Any information on these from someone who has one would be helpful

The reading will vary accoring to how much pressure your applying to the vernier, you can get 10 different readings if the same pressure is not applied. With a micrometer it has a small ratchet on the end and the same pressure can only be applied until the ratchet and digital reading stops. I now have my own question for you 1887 jubilee, how do you tell proof issue 1887 Crown from a normal currency issue, is it the I's in Victoria pointing to beads?

You can ususally distinguish proofs by the rim. They have broad uniform rims with very sharp edge milling.

[azda]

I understand that Nick, but there must be some other distinguishing feature other than the rim, especially if impaired

[Nick]

I understand that Nick, but there must be some other distinguishing feature other than the rim, especially if impaired

I'm not aware of any difference in pointings on the crown. AFAIK they are all from the same die pairing (Davies 1+A). However, 1887s original post hinted that there are distances that can be measured to identify individual dies. Perhaps, he will elaborate.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Nick

[azda]

Hi all. Just wanted to show off my new 1887 crown. It might not be anything special but i like it. I think it is in EF condition. Would you agree? Cheers all.

Yes it's a nice coin and from one who has quite a few of these you are off to a good start, but which one is it? Now there are several 1887 crowns and it is difficult to tell from your photos but you can see on the coin itself; 1) is the plume to the St. George head double struck or double engraved? 2) is the bottom right serif missing on the 1 of the date? 3) what is the distance between the R of VICTORIA and the T of BRITT? The range is from 34.65mm down to 33.59 for the proof. 4) is the top of the first 8 missing? Now that has whetted your interest there are at least ten or more different sizes in the 1887 Crown as the dies were made using a pantograph to reduce from the master plaster mould. As a guess by eye I would say yours if quite close to 34.00 or less. You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it?

Sorry at number 3 it should read T of VICTORIA to R in REG

Where exactly should it be measured from? Top of the T to top of R, bottom of T to bottom of R?

[Nick]

Hi all. Just wanted to show off my new 1887 crown. It might not be anything special but i like it. I think it is in EF condition. Would you agree? Cheers all.

Yes it's a nice coin and from one who has quite a few of these you are off to a good start, but which one is it? Now there are several 1887 crowns and it is difficult to tell from your photos but you can see on the coin itself; 1) is the plume to the St. George head double struck or double engraved? 2) is the bottom right serif missing on the 1 of the date? 3) what is the distance between the R of VICTORIA and the T of BRITT? The range is from 34.65mm down to 33.59 for the proof. 4) is the top of the first 8 missing? Now that has whetted your interest there are at least ten or more different sizes in the 1887 Crown as the dies were made using a pantograph to reduce from the master plaster mould. As a guess by eye I would say yours if quite close to 34.00 or less. You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it?

Sorry at number 3 it should read T of VICTORIA to R in REG

Where exactly should it be measured from? Top of the T to top of R, bottom of T to bottom of R?

Looks like it should be top of T to top of R.

[Peckris]

I understand that Nick, but there must be some other distinguishing feature other than the rim, especially if impaired

This is sometimes true, but it doesn't necessarily follow. Proofs are done on polished specially prepared blanks, double struck, using dies that have been similarly polished. Many such dies are then used for business strikes. If impaired, there would be no way to distinguish them, unless the "proof" still has a razor sharp rim edge, but even this cannot be ruled as conclusive. Remember a proof is not a separate design or issue as such, it is a method or standard of striking which may use exactly the same dies as the normal issues.

[1887jubilee]

Hi all. Just wanted to show off my new 1887 crown. It might not be anything special but i like it. I think it is in EF condition. Would you agree? Cheers all.

You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it?

Unless you're an engineer and use a micrometer you can get the exact dia with those without having to measure 10x

Ah yes but remember your experiments at school, it is always important to take the readings several times and take an average in order to reduce errors. I have found that even using vernier callipers the readings vary by plus or minus.09mm but if you average 10 readings an accuracy of + or - .01 is achievable. I have toyed with using a USB microscope but I think there would be a loss of accuracy. Any information on these from someone who has one would be helpful

The reading will vary accoring to how much pressure your applying to the vernier, you can get 10 different readings if the same pressure is not applied. With a micrometer it has a small ratchet on the end and the same pressure can only be applied until the ratchet and digital reading stops. I now have my own question for you 1887 jubilee, how do you tell proof issue 1887 Crown from a normal currency issue, is it the I's in Victoria pointing to beads?

You really have picked a good question to ask but the answer is not so simple. The 797 proof crowns in the long sets and the other 225? odd in the silver sets are easy as the thick rim and 33.59 T-R are defining features. The I to a bead is not difficult as there are no beads only dentils and on all crowns I have the I points almost in line with one of these. It varys on the double florin which of course has beads. There are somewhat lesser proof coins or at least "proof like" coins which have been minted with "proof dies" or "polished flans" or "early strike" and these truly can in some cases be described as proof. I have currency proofs at 34.20, 34.22, 34.54, There were also specimen sets which were not proofs but had a high quality finish the problem is that a perfect example of a specimen set coin looks to the average punter to be a proof. When you see the real thing though it is pretty unmistakable. As a rule if in doubt, it isn't. I am posting again later with a photo of the T-R measurement which you will see is not possible to take with a micrometer, would that it were.

[1887jubilee]

Hi all. Just wanted to show off my new 1887 crown. It might not be anything special but i like it. I think it is in EF condition. Would you agree? Cheers all.

Yes it's a nice coin and from one who has quite a few of these you are off to a good start, but which one is it? Now there are several 1887 crowns and it is difficult to tell from your photos but you can see on the coin itself; 1) is the plume to the St. George head double struck or double engraved? 2) is the bottom right serif missing on the 1 of the date? 3) what is the distance between the R of VICTORIA and the T of BRITT? The range is from 34.65mm down to 33.59 for the proof. 4) is the top of the first 8 missing? Now that has whetted your interest there are at least ten or more different sizes in the 1887 Crown as the dies were made using a pantograph to reduce from the master plaster mould. As a guess by eye I would say yours if quite close to 34.00 or less. You will need a vernier calliper to measure it and also need to take at least 10 readings to get any meaningful average. All a bit anoraky for most but that's what we are here for isn't it?

Sorry at number 3 it should read T of VICTORIA to R in REG

Where exactly should it be measured from? Top of the T to top of R, bottom of T to bottom of R?

The measurement is taken from the top of the T in VICTORIA to the top of the R in REG. Great care is needed to ensure the slight bevel on the edge of the lettering is included, minute though it is, and that the calliper is absolutely square with the top of the T. Substantial errors can easily occur as the top of the R is a couple of degrees off square. This is more pronounced depending on the strike. The callipers are cheap enough on ebay.

[1887jubilee]

I understand that Nick, but there must be some other distinguishing feature other than the rim, especially if impaired

This is sometimes true, but it doesn't necessarily follow. Proofs are done on polished specially prepared blanks, double struck, using dies that have been similarly polished. Many such dies are then used for business strikes. If impaired, there would be no way to distinguish them, unless the "proof" still has a razor sharp rim edge, but even this cannot be ruled as conclusive. Remember a proof is not a separate design or issue as such, it is a method or standard of striking which may use exactly the same dies as the normal issues.

Agree and see my note below.