Rob

The argument for calling them VIP proofs was that sets were thought to be made in limited quantities for people in high positions. It was also thought that having received one, the same people would be unlikely to advertise their prior ownership indicating their having made a bob or two from a gift, hence the lack of provenances indicating receipt directly from the mint. It all made for a feasible story. Having said that, I have also heard an unverifiable story that a visit by a party to the mint on one occasion finished with each of the participants striking a coin to take away as a momento. This was allegedly a proof, but as I said, unverifiable. It was however, one of the pieces that appears to crop up more often than others. Only the RM can provide a definitive answer - not the collecting or dealing fraternity.

As I said - from 1926 onwards. There were various trials and off-metal strikes in the first half of the decade, but from 1926 onwards, things like the Derwent Wood and McMillan patterns aside, they conformed to the regular currency designs.

Never heard of it happening. All the plated things like Barton's Metal were on previously prepared sheets as far as I was aware

Historically, or at least say 10-20 years or more ago, VIP was only attached to those years in which proofs were made in limited numbers (a handful of examples), i.e. the years in which sets were not made for the masses. The years in which it applied started from 1926 onwards when a few proofs were struck of all current denominations and continued up to the early 1960s. Notwithstanding the debate about the first year which some contend are not (though I'm happy that my 1926 halfpenny is one), there are coins extant with proof quality finish for all years in between, though not necessarily all denominations for every year due to gaps in the dates of currency issues. It should be noted that not all proof coins of these rare issues exhibit frosted devices. During the past 10 years, the phrase 'VIP' has been misappropriated in my opinion to include superior strikes with a cameo effect with a resultant explosion in the number of 'known' examples. There has been an occasional example of a set in contemporary boxes that were different to those issued for the masses, which if it could be proved were genuinely issued to 'VIP' recipients by the mint, could therefore be justifiably be classified as such. As VIP means very important person, it should include the likes of the Chancellor or the Queen, not Mrs Smith of 16 Acacia Avenue, Bognor Regis. The whole thing is a case of semantics in my opinion, and arguably a triumph of marketing over reality.

There are a few varieties, but nothing of any notable value because few people collect them.

Leaving aside the contentious locations for certain Civil War mint issues, there are a few glaring mistakes in the list - particularly assigning the Briot marks to Bristol. A lot of the provincial marks are particular to an individual engraver or location, so things can get a little messy to say the least, whilst one or two are still uncertain.

OK, I obviously didn't explain it very well as I was using the halfcrown as an example, where the profile is clearly a 4 sided podium with 5 distinct flat areas at completely different angles and I would have said struck from multiple blows because I don't think the force on the bounce would have been sufficient to strike up the different sections. The area showing the flash is sharply angled to the middle section and the bottom angle is equally sharp. Only the section from 9-11 o'clock isn't well struck. I can see the smaller ones will only require one blow and your explanation make perfect sense. I did say the die was struck from correctly made dies.

I don't know is the answer, but given the majority (all?) of disputed pieces are those where there is a relatively large mintage, it is quite conceivable that the really good ones are just early strikes. Clearly frosting is not a pre-requisite for a proof, as quite a few of the rare proof year coins for Elizabeth II are not frosted. Apologies for the crappy scan, but the attached 3d is clearly not frosted, yet the mintage was minimal.

It depends on whether it is classed as an imitative type or not as to where it is likely to be listed. I've checked there's nothing with the above description listed in Chautard for Florent V, but you could try looking in Engel et Serrure if you can find someone with a copy. Sorry, don't have one - a big gap in the library. Maybe John (Argentumandcoins) has a copy?

No, the detail will have been entered using the individual punch components in the correct place, with a small allowance for position from die to die. What has happened is that it takes a few blows of the hammer to make a coin from the finished dies, particularly in the case of those on a larger flan. If either the dies or the blank move relative to each other between blows, you can get what is termed a double strike. It is quite common for this to occur, in fact a cleanly struck large module hammered coin is a very desirable thing. The attached shows the effects of multiple hammer blows. 5 blows were required to strike the coin - the obvious angled parts top and bottom, together with the centre band which is similarly (but less obviously due to lighting conditions), angled on both left and right. The bit in the middle is flat. It also shows that the blank moved a little between strikes as indicated by the discontinuity in the inner circle by the horse's rump.

Or to put it another way - double striking.

Do they care? It is the TPGs and collectors who assign the 'Cameo' designation. I wouldn't be surprised if all the RM worries about is the polished field, the sharp milling and the square edging to characters and the rims that is required for a proof.

The reflected view will depend on the planarity of the die's field. Many dies are slightly domed to give a dished surface and so you will only see the image at the focal point. Getting a picture of yourself is therefore a bit hit and miss.

This is going to rumble on and on ad infinitum. FWIW, my take is a pre-requisite of good frosting, but absolutely mirror-like fields to complement it - as below. The field is the most crucial component in my opinion.

If he has been told by a dealer at Charing Cross that it is a £1200 coin all day long, then they would offer him £800 for it without question - somewhat better than the £430 net he will receive from eBay after costs. Wonder why he doesn't sell it to them?

Here you go. Here's one with the sprues still on it

Quiet. Everyone was finished by 2 o'clock.

Ah. Cadbury mint halfpenny - I only have a penny so wasn't on the ball.

Why is it a mule? Sorry I'm not too well up on unofficial things like tokens. Who made it for example?

Shows how much I can remember. I recognised the name, but the building eluded me. It's further down closer to Manchester at no. 266, was Grade II listed, but redeveloped, and now appears to be a Seat garage. https://salfordhistory.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/knoll-house-salford.html The guy in question was there from 1874 to 1891 according to the article.

Rare date in high grade, so lenience with the grading? Surely not.

Thanks. That will do for the database. I only knew who acquired it.

The Victoria St address would be next door to Manchester Cathedral too, so another reason for having a studio there.

looks right

I have no idea where Rock Mount or Dover St were. Much of the area has been redeveloped since the sixties. Bury New Road is still the main drag up the hill out of Manchester, but houses are virtually non-existent these days, with almost everything lower down below no. 390 flattened 50 years ago and redeveloped for business use. 36 Bury New Road would be next to Strangeways Hotel close to Waterloo Road amongst the asian wholesalers' premises, all bar a few builings of which post-date this period. Knolls House is 397 Bury New Road. Even some of the redeveloped bits were redeveloped again in the 90s onwards - Hooray!! Victoria Street is the continuation of Bury New Road, down by the Manchester Arena and Chetham's School. Almost everything has gone here, but the school would have opened up business opportunties. His residential address would have been between the two business addresses. Based on a theatrical group sharing the same address at Knolls House, it is unlikely that he lived there. Certainly the property is too large for a single family to live there, so both 1879 addresses would be business ones. I think all we can conclude is pre-1886 when he is recorded in the city centre.