Leaderboard

The 1862 plain-edge proof Gothic florin (2849 in Bull, who records it as "not traced") sold for $21,600 (including buyer's premium) at Heritage yesterday. At least we know that it exists now.

I rather like the double florins myself but they are somewhat unloved and can be obtained significantly more cheaply than crowns. The main varieties for the 1887 is the "Arabic 1" (like you 1889) and the "Roman I". These are my examples: (1887 is the Roman and 1888 is the Arabic)

Today I'd like to share 2x six pence added, Ive really had a good look into these and hopefully these are right ish. 1566 Queen Elizabeth I six pence King Charles I. (Stuart (VI) six pence, CHRISTO AUSPICE REGNO “I reign with Christ as my protector" Reign 27 March 1625 – 30 January 1649 was a king of England, Scotland and Ireland, whose conflicts with parliament and his subjects led to civil war and his execution, beheaded in London, England, on January 30, 1649..... Wow! .

This is the halfcrown reverse - the design (like the shilling) is a bit of a dog’s dinner, but this proof makes it look quite good.

Hi H, The second 1889 is a double florin, which is why it is a little smaller. You are not the first to be confused by them. They were only issued 1887 to 1890 and became nicknamed "The Barmaid's ruin" because of the number of times they were mistaken for a Crown and so the wrong change given. They are not rare and a bit of a niche collectors area, being so few dates to go for. There are a few minor varieties, mostly to do with the font of the date. Because of this I would say yours is worth £20 to £30.

Quick update. Weighed in at EMR as 80/20 Cupro Nickel solids. £4.20 per kilo. 20kg. £84. Quick and simple. Heavy copper, currently £6.08 per kilo, for the bronze. And rolled Ali £1.10, for those interested. Blake.

These are honest examples. No problems with them. The edge inscription on Charles II crown reads "DECVS ET TVTAMEN ANNO REGNI VICESIMO OCTAVO". The phrase "DECVS ET TVTAMEN" was first used in 1662 and translates to "An ornament and a safeguard". The presence of an edge inscription would stop people from clipping the coins illegally to get some silver as mentioned in the above post. Hence the word "safeguard". The Charles II is perhaps worth £80. The 1892 is worth about £35.

For @Citizen H, Yes, it looks like there are problems with a number of the letters on the 1776 twopence, but that is not scarce for that era. Interesting, but not changing the value enormously. For @DaveG38- Does your 20 missing include 1 and 2 pence coins? I left those out - they are so small they drive me up the wall! I only went for the 3 and 4 pence coins - missing both the 1765s, which are always very scarce, the 1792 3 pence (wire money), and then for some reason 1743 and 1703 4 pence. I haven't searched for these for years, maybe I should have another look. For @Mr T, I agree on patience. I got the majority of my collection through serendipity rather than great expense. Many came to me when I was dealing as part of bundles offered to me for sale in the markets, or in response to general newspaper adverts. These days too many people are internet savvy and so these bargains don't happen much anymore. Recently I have had to lay out more serious money to fill the remaining gaps!

Hi H, I am not sure any of those three would really be classified as Maundy money. The 1838 twopence is one of two years in Victoria's reign when twopences were issued for general circulation, mostly in the colonies. (The other is 1848.) For the other two, prior to 1797 pennies, twopences, threepences and fourpences were issued in silver for general circulation. The designs were the same for the Maundy coins, but the latter were generally of a higher standard. The circulation coins turn up generally well worn from day to day usage. The middle twopence is George III so the date must be 1776, not 1716. Still very nice coins to have in your collection. Because these smaller coins are generally much cheaper than the larger silver coins of the same era, they make great collections. I set about trying to get all the dates for threepences and fourpences pre 1797 and have achieved all but 5 back to 1670. One is actually the 1703 fourpence you have!

Wow! Those are really rare (only the 4th I’ve seen in about 10 years), and this is by far the best one. Very very envious!

A recent buy at york fantastic grade and really rare , hoping to buy a "new model crown " in the near future , well it just needs a little luck

That's a very nice three halfpence (usually pronounced three ha'pence). I love these tiny coins and have managed to get all the dates eventually. (1837 is the trickiest I seem to remember.) Although technically colonial, they were legal tender in the UK.

Crowns were not struck for George III until very late into his reign in 1818. The standard of striking of these crows was very high and they were delivered to banks wrapped in soft paper. Pistrucci placed his whole surname on both the obverse and reverse to indicate that he was the engraver for both. This was considered to be self indulgent and he was obliged to use just his initials B.P. in future. The St George and Dragon design became iconic but the garter belt was removed for later use. You won't be able to see it on your example due to wear, but the letters WWP (initials of the Master of the Mint) was put on the buckle of the garter. I imagine your example is worth about £100. The edge dinks would have taken the price down a bit.

It is…but it’s totally unnecessary I think to see the tone carelessly removed from the high spots, especially for a coin of such prestige! I see it all the time on lesser coins, where I can imagine someone has ‘pulled’ a coin across a surface to pick it up, rather than ‘hook’ it up (more difficult to do with hammered, of course). I discovered, quite by accident, that one of the worst offenders is the grey ‘neutral’ boards that come with cameras nowadays, they are comparable to 1000 grit sandpaper when a coin is dragged off it. Many coins are horribly scarred this way (I attach an example).

I love the XL to the side of the bust , ironic he was a poison dwarf at about 5 foot 2

They both look like the real things are supposed to - the writing on the edge is the lettered edge that was done when the coin was struck in a lettered collar. It was quite an innovation for the 17th century and was obviously used on higher denomination coins as a safeguard against clipping and counterfeiting. Unfortunately I don't have my 1676 crown imaged - but it circulated a long time - deep into the 18th century as it is also "loved"

Ah, no wasn't me, and yes kept just in case it comes in handy..... on one Sunday afternoon trudging around a hot field looking at stalls that are best described as one stop away a rubbish dump... I happen upon a paste table with carrier bags loaded with bones... turns out the fella is house clearance service and a loft at a doctors house was cleared, all sorts of medical equipment and.... stuff was sold. last knockings at 3pm find what you want and make an offer..... my kinda chat! so skull was sold to his mate and the rest had to go as his wife didn't want it back in the house...by order! so manage to find the right hand and with £3.20p to my name a deal was done!

Its that cold our local flash has frozen.

I would be surprised if the dates didn't mean something to your grandfather. Kept in a Queen Mary tin and no date later than 1919. A full run from 1912 to 1919 may be significant. Maybe change kept from his pay or even the profits from games of "Put & Take". I have some collections like these and I wouldn't assign an indvidual value to each item in a collection. The value is in the group and possible explanations for its existence.

My Grandfather,

Getting somewhat off topic but too right - I was telling a family member recently that there are some coins that money can't get you - only patience can.

There are also scarce varieties in 1888 and 1889 where the second I of VICTORIA is missing part of the upper serif (die infill) making it look like a 1. Only significantly more valuable in higher grades.

It's so irritating when a nice coin is damaged but at least it is still worth its bullion value. Selling it would probably be best as it will irritate you every time you look at at, knowing how the damage was caused. But it would be infinitely worse if the coin is a high grade early shilling.

Doesn't look suspicious to me. If I want to make certain, I would check its weight. Can also see if it is the correct thickness and diameter by comparing with a genuine half sovereign. But I wouldn't want to keep it because of the scratch.