Rob

ESC 1154, not 1152. It hasn't necessarily been tooled, though the hair detail does look sharper than normal.

Agreed. So it's another type B5. It seems strange that a major London auction house would make such a mistake. ESC is pretty clear that type B4 has 48 arcs. Not at all. Numismatics is littered with mistaken attributions, incorrect listings and the like. Look at the number of incorrect slabs out there. e.g. Hus got his 1844 third farthing from me. It was slabbed as a half. I will happily buy 1844 thirds slabbed as halves for the price of the latter all day long. Freeman acquired his unique F689A from Spink because they had it down in the Circular as a P2002. It's a totally different design, and when graded by NGC they attributed it as a P1983 which is still wrong, because the leaves on the reverse go in the opposite direction. I acquired my 1675/3/2 1/2d for a bargain price because it was listed in a London Coins sale catalogue as MS64 despite the label reading MS65. As it happens, it was the highest graded 1673 halfpenny at NGC, but it still didn't mean they got the date right which was obviously 5/3 without even resorting to a magnifying device. The reality is that virtually every sale catalogue has a list of notices correcting mistakes. Some sales are worse than others.

Rayner had a very close relationship with Harry Manville, and I have heard several opinions from different sources that he had a significant say in the variety and rarity attributions. The problem as ever is one of sufficient research material because you can't acquire statistically significant numbers of every silver coin from 1649 to the present day for both financial and practical reasons. Herein lies a sensible reason for a degree of trepidation when trying to compile an accurate reference volume.

I would say it has been listed as such since 1949 when Rayner first compiled ESC. The B1,2 etc goes up to B9. B4 must have been there from the beginning as you wouldn't leave a gap in anticipation of a bust waiting to be dicovered the date was already covered elsewhere. It has been listed as extremely rare since at least 1987. The only copy I have prior to that is 1970 which gives prices of Fine £10, VF £30 and EF £75.

I should have counted the arcs/trefoils before I posted the link. It's only got 42 and is therefore ESC 848 and type B5. Uh....correct. I hadn't checked them either. Cancel the above, it isn't exactly what we want, but the general principle still applies. I have found a reference to what may be a type B4 florin. DNW auction 8 Oct 1999, lot 1072 "Florin, 1877, stop after date, no WW, die 6 (ESC 847-R3; S 3893). Almost as struck, very rare". However, it doesn't mention the number of trefoils, so it may not be 48. Unfortunately, there is only a small picture of the reverse on their website and I don't have any DNW auction catalogues that early. 9th, not 8th October. A grotty picture, so make of it what you will. Looks like 42.

I should have counted the arcs/trefoils before I posted the link. It's only got 42 and is therefore ESC 848 and type B5. Uh....correct. I hadn't checked them either. Cancel the above, it isn't exactly what we want, but the general principle still applies.

I haven't found a good image, but did find this one ESC 847 Well straight away its wrong, ESC 847 is dot after date and they're quoting S3894........So unfortunately..............Also S3894 is UNLISTED in ESC No, that's one of the things we are looking for. The description is ESC 847var, S3894. The var makes the statement that it best fits ESC 847 but isn't quite the same. 847 has stop after date, that one doesn't, so is what we are looking for if it is genuinely no WW as opposed to a filled die, but the image isn't good enough. It still doesn't overcome the problem of a high grade version of Azda's die though. S3894 is type B4, so it is listed in ESC but only with stop after date.

Yes, that's another of the differences. Also there are a few minor differences in the ribbon immediately above the date (no fold on the left, thicker strand on the right). I'm impressed by your knowledge of Hocking! I can see myself getting around to asking them in around two years time LOL. I didn't know the references off the top of my head, just that Hocking contains the list of items in the RM museum as of 100 years ago. The big leap forward was learning to read about 50 years ago.

Another alternative approach might be to ask the RM museum for images of Hocking ref. 1394, 1395 & 1396 which are matrix, punch & die for the issue. Chances are it won't be the same, but there is an outside chance. I was going to say is it 7 over 6, but unless the crown has been filled and recut, this would have to be rejected. Looking at the image which seems a bit Heath Robinson ish, it could be a die produced at the beginning of the issue as a trial which was good enough to use as a production tool because there must have been a lot of pressure on the mint to get the revised reverse 6ds into circulation. A day saved in making a die is a lot of extra coins made. One more thought, the border teeth look a bit thinner than the usual ones. Any mileage in checking these on other coins. They look suspiciously like the teeth on the withdrawn type which would add credence to a trial piece.

That's my whole point Rob. It's NOT a "minute difference". It's a bloody huge glaring "twice as big as normal" spacing. And I'm not one of your perpetual hopefuls ("Oh I'll post it at predecimal and show everyone that yet again I've got a massive rarity and soon I'll be famous"). I've STUDIED as many of those wreath reverse 1887 JH heads as I can lay my hands on, or through enlargements on eBay, and I can assure you, the spacing of that issue is pretty standard. Except for this one. I do not buy the "there are variations all over Victoria's reign" - not after the early 80s when the methods of production changed and as we all know from the bun penny (and all other) output from then on, there is a remarkable consistency compared to what went before. Anyway, that wasn't my main point. My main point was and is - all other varieties here cause an outburst of interest, enthusiasm and back-slapping congratulations. I don't see why my poor sixpence can't elicit a fraction of that instead of the wet blanket treatment. I've been suffering that with halfpennies for years. I think the prior sentence is the preserve of the penny enthusiasts. Sad, but true.

The problem with all these production variations as opposed to actual design variations is that they are an open ended can of worms. Minute differences in the spacing of the last digit or two have a definite place in the list of varieties for the specialist who drills down to the level of identifying individual die characteristics, but for your average punter it doesn't matter a jot as they will be for the most part satisfied with a relatively obvious difference in the overall design. Wide date, narrow date, or for the flat disc collectors out there, any visible date or no date. Young portrait/older features or whatever, it all depends on how clear it is at a glance. Double cut letters as a result of reinforcing a worn die or making an old blocked one serviceable will result in yet another variety, but as has been said before, to create the interest you need to publish something because that work will act as the reference to define the variety. 1887's interest in the date is a rare example of the detailed study that needs to be done if all of these microvarieties are to have any relevance. I wish him well in his endeavours, as the mint's voluminous output for this year would test the patience of the most ardent researcher. But if he doesn't complete it and nothing gets published, then ..... back to square one. I've got a coin with a double cut 8 and a 7 that's ......... To get back to the original point of this thread, what is needed is a clear image of a high grade die 39 coin with WW clearly visible or not so that we can say for certain if the die is the same one and the WW is hidden or not. At the moment we collectively appear to be p*****g in the wind as nobody is able to come up with conclusive proof one way or the other. Does anybody have a good image of an attested B4 florin? Both these are required if we are to settle this attribution.

In other words, only "one between two" for every inhabitant of Britain. Oh dear, a lot of people are going to go without. I won't deny you Peck.You can have my half I won't hear of such unselfishness Peter - I insist that you have it None of you will have it. I got it in my change this morning. Must put it on ebay asap. Very rare, could be unique, never seen one before. £1000 BIN or best offer. Where's the prat emoticon when you need one?

The 9 or 19 was based on the original picture. The blown up one looks like a 39 to me too. Do we have a good image of a high grade die 39 anywhere? If we could see the WW on one coin, it would establish the exact position of the WW and make the argument a lot more clear cut.

I bit the bullet and got the lot the other day as there are 24 new designers covered by the 29 coins in the series. Bring back the resident artist, or at least employ previously used ones rather than inflicting this on me. I don't want a collection full of modern dross. Please. There are now nearly as many attributed designers in the decimal period as I am aware of in the 800 years leading up to it.

Correct. Rule 1. What I should be doing. Rule 2. What I should have done. Rule 3. What I am going to do. Rule 4. What I am not going to do. And most important of all. Rule 5. I will invariably make the wrong call regarding rules 1-4.

Hocking isn't very helpful as it doesn't list any florin matrix, die or anything else for this date, so unless they have something in their boxes that isn't listed, there is no RM museum option to corroborate the no WW.

Just noticed that you missed out Victoria but intend to collect Edward VII, in which case all the proofs are matt for this reign. There were no matt proofs made prior to this, so other than Ed. VII you can disregard them as it appears you wouldn't be interested in the later 20th century stuff which is when the sandblasted pieces were made.

What do you want to know? History? Value? Grade? Pictures would be necessary if either of the last two are required.

The second one with no WW isn't listed in Davies or ESC, hence the S3894 attribution. Stop after date is mentioned only.

I've got a couple more here which should help to muddy the water a bit. Two examples of an 1876H halfpenny. The first is a regular currency piece and the second is contentious. Freeman (whose coin this was) contends that the second coin is a proof, whilst others maintain it is a specimen striking. i.e. struck to a higher standard, but not to proof standard. This is a bone of contention. The letters are clearly better on the second coin having sharper sides to them whereas the obviously inferior currency piece has letters which have rounded angles due to die fill and general wear and tear. The fields on the second one are much better too, although the first coin does have prooflike fields in the hand which must not be confused with actual proof fields. The latter may well have parallel raised lines from polishing when viewed under a glass. The rims on the second are clearly sharper than the first, but overall, not so well centred. I also forgot to add in the first reply that proof rims are often slightly wider than those on currency coins. I'll see what else I can dig out to give you a bit more, but can't help with your chosen denominations as I haven't collected them as a series in the past. Others might be able to help here.

Welcome. You are not the first person to ask this question, but thank you for asking it rather than automatically assuming you have a proof which is the usual way things happen. (This forum is regularly visited by people who automatically assume they have a proof if their coin is in good condition). Proofs are special strikings and are usually from polished dies. There are a few usual features which once you are familiar with them makes a proof fairly easy to identify. The first thing to remember is that they were never intended for circulation, usually being struck as part of a presentation set. Therefore they are usually found in top grade, though may be impaired with scratches if not looked after. Some are relatively common when sets were made for the public, but others are extremely rare with only a handful known. The fields on a proof are typically mirrors, though there are some matt proofs which were sandblasted by the mint to make photographing them easier. Do not worry or assume that if a coin has a matt surface it is a sandblasted proof. As there were only ever a handful of these made for any issue, it is unlikely you will ever see one, let alone inadvertently acquire one. The rim quality is very good and so a proof will usually have sharp 90 degree rims/edges. The lettering on a proof will often be sharper, with near vertical sides to the characters as opposed to having more angled sides to the letters. The edge milling if present will be sharp or significantly more so than a currency piece of the same issue to the touch. Proofs are also struck sometimes with plain edges whereas the normal currency pieces would historically have a milled edge. Some years only exist as proofs with a different edge to the currency pieces. The detail on the portrait will be crisper. The design may also be frosted, but not necessarily so. This is done by sandblasting the die and then polishing the fields, which on the die are the highest point. This gives a cameo effect. Royal Mint sets which were produced in quantity had less care taken over them, so may not exhibit all qualities, particularly the frosted design. That is a quick list of typical features. Attached is a comparison of 3 shillings which although outside of your collecting period, demonstrate the above points quite well. It has been posted elsewhere on the forum in reply to earlier questions. As you can see from the attached scan, the left piece is a currency coin, the middle one is a 1953 proof set coin and the one on the right is a 1958 VIP proof shilling. The normal matt finish of a currency coin is what you would normally see. The 1953 is struck from overall polished dies whilst the VIP proof has a frosted bust with mirror fields. You may also be able to just make out the sharper milling. If you want to collect proofs, do not buy them unless they are in top grade. a badly impaired proof with certain exceptions will be worth only a small amount over the value of a currency piece.

First one. die 68, 42 arcs. S3895, ESC 848, D764. Second one. Die 9 or 19?, 48 arcs. Can't see a WW but you had better look again, so looks like S3894 as opposed to S3893. ESC -, D -.

What's all this then? How can you have a mule with an obverse and a reverse that should be paired. Same mintmarks both sides and the correct obverse and reverse. Sorry Mat, couldn't resist, i'm feeling mischievous. It's a straight S2668, S2669 has the plume over shield reverse. The portrait looks almost too strong though, as if it has been tooled, but that should be simple to verify under a glass.

I'm not sure how he will realise that he has changed from milled to hammered. Both types of offering were dire.

How about 100%??! Henry VI Groat ooooooh. loverly. I don't need one but, £100 less or a bit more and I'd start to get interested. It's a £300 coin, but worth paying a bit extra for. As common as the type is, that is a splendid example. If it is ex-RCB and has a Seaby ticket/envelope, it should be possible to establish wherever it was listed. It might even have a few more tickets because RCB noted provenances.