Gary D

I'm glad I wasn't eating my tea whilst reading that, it would've been all up the wall by now. Great stuff.

Yes I'd be very disapointed to miss a 1922 on ebay. One of the easiest things to spot is the 22 aligns with big teeth whereas the common 22 is to gap with small teeth.

A few days ago I noticed that my 1918KH was getting a bit green inbetween the teeth below the date so I've given it a bit of olive oil soak. I was just giving it a clean-up and notice the bird foot for the first time. I can decide if it's good or spoils it.

Tenner, I wouldn't want to think I robbed you. Looking at the picture there's several die cracks as well. I think this die had pretty much reached the end of its life.

And the 1923 obv 2

Gary, Looking at your photos of the five florins, whatever the outcome of the 'pointings' debate, there is no doubt in my mind that the 1923 with obverse 2 has a smaller head than the one with obverse 3. Assuming that both coins on the bottom row of your photo are the same size as they appear to be, then the head on the right is definitely smaller than that on the left - this is the other differentiator that Davies uses. When I compared your mule on the website with a 1920 obverse 2 florin and a 1923 'normal' florin with obverse 3, I again found that the one on your website is the same size as a normal obverse 2 type. My conclusion, based on what I see is that there are two types as defined by Davies. However, there may be another type and it would be useful to try and establish this from all three differentiators for these types. Here is the 1920, middle of top three.

I make it obv 3 davies 1752

Here are the three 1920 Florins and both 1923 Florins

I Then we ARE talking about an obverse that Davies doesn't know about. If you look at my picture above (Obv 2 left, 1914, and Obv 3 right, 1921) the I in GEORGIVS points to a bead on both. I was quoting Davies Then either Davies is mistaken or I have found a new variety. I've just checked my 1914 under a glass, and both the I of BRITT and GEORGIVS point to a bead. Unmistakeably. The photo on your site - pointing apart - is the shallow portrait (i.e. mostly like Obv 3). The I of GEORGIVS on your coin is to the right of a bead. On my 1926 it's to the left of a bead. And on my 1921 it appears to be directly to a bead. I think this whole topic needs to be revisited. The problem with photos is that the pointing can be very deceptive, and I think Davies is sometime a little off. It's a bit like the discussion about the 1911 penny where there is the shallow neck with I to tooth (Gouby X) and the normal round/flat neck with I to space. The round/flat neck can look quiet shallow on some examples. With the coin in hand the pointing definitly matches Davies description. You're absolutely right about pointings - last night I was checking under artificial light - this morning, in clear daylight with good visibility, the position is different : 1914 (Obv 2) : I of BRITT to a bead, I of GEORGIVS to a space (more or less) 1921 (Obv 3) : I of BRITT to the left of a bead, I of GEORGIVS to a bead (almost dead on) 1926 (Obv ?) : I of BRITT to the left of a bead, I of GEORGIVS to the left of a bead All three coins are minimum AUNC Ok, here's the problem(s) 1. Davies doesn't mention the I of BRITT, he only talks about the I of GEORGIVS. And he only talks about two obverses post-1911 (2 and 3). Yet from the pointings there seem to be at least three, but possibly four (see below). 2. I've not seen or studied a 1923 'mule' before, and despite googling, the only example I can look at is the picture on your website, which shows a clear example of a shallow portrait florin (pointings apart, everything else about it indicates this). Now, that means there are various conclusions we can draw. Conclusion A. Davies is right, there is a rare 1923 mule with the pre-1920 obverse (2). Yours isn't it. The pointings are correct for it, but the design is the shallow portrait. Which would make your coin a new variety, unrecorded by Davies. Conclusion B. Davies is partly right, partly wrong. Right, in that there is a 1923 rare variety with similar pointings to the pre-1920 obverse. Wrong, in that it's not a mule as it features the shallow portrait, and should be considered a new obverse. Yours would be that. I did flick back and forward from your florins page (1914) and your 1923 mule page, studying the pictures. It's no substitute for handling the actual coin, but everything about the picture tells me it's the shallow post-1920 design. I listed the relevant features in a post above. I need to look at this more closely when I get home tonight. The I of BRITT I got from Michael Gouby's site. 1920 & 1923 2 Obverse dies Obv. 2 I of BRITT to bead (Very rare in 1923) Obv. 3 I of BRITT to gap (Flat head *) [1921 -26] * With only SLIGHT wear the head looks only 'F

Then we ARE talking about an obverse that Davies doesn't know about. If you look at my picture above (Obv 2 left, 1914, and Obv 3 right, 1921) the I in GEORGIVS points to a bead on both. I was quoting Davies Then either Davies is mistaken or I have found a new variety. I've just checked my 1914 under a glass, and both the I of BRITT and GEORGIVS point to a bead. Unmistakeably. The photo on your site - pointing apart - is the shallow portrait (i.e. mostly like Obv 3). The I of GEORGIVS on your coin is to the right of a bead. On my 1926 it's to the left of a bead. And on my 1921 it appears to be directly to a bead. I think this whole topic needs to be revisited. The problem with photos is that the pointing can be very deceptive, and I think Davies is sometime a little off. It's a bit like the discussion about the 1911 penny where there is the shallow neck with I to tooth (Gouby X) and the normal round/flat neck with I to space. The round/flat neck can look quiet shallow on some examples. With the coin in hand the pointing definitly matches Davies description.

The time limit came and went, but nobody bit lol !!! Wonder why not? A VIP Churchill crown is worth £10k without the Satin Finish... imagine what that was worth ....and it was from "a pet and smoke free home", apparently.... Someone else must have seen the auction another one

Then we ARE talking about an obverse that Davies doesn't know about. If you look at my picture above (Obv 2 left, 1914, and Obv 3 right, 1921) the I in GEORGIVS points to a bead on both. I was quoting Davies

A further pointer is the pointing of the I in GEORGIVS. Obv.2 I to space full neck, and Obv.3 I to bead large low relief head.

Davies list both types, 1751 & 1752 You're right - I'm not yet used to Davies - his placing Obverse 3 BEFORE 2 in the listing is a bit counter-intuitive! Be that as it may - the obverse shown on CoinsGB seems to be the shallow design, therefore Obverse 3, therefore not the rare mule. I think you will find it is the rare mule. Just noticed that it's my coin.

I completely agree Peckris. The 'something not right' feeling for me, anyway, is the almost complete lack of marking or texture in the fields, compared to the obvious wear in the design. Presumably, in creating a die from an original coin the design wear would be replicated in a lack of die detail whereas tiny bag or handling marks in the fields would be flattened out. Nevertheless, it's much easier to spot these things with hindsight! I beleive they were artificiely worn by rubbing across a piece of leather. I tend to wear the high areas leaving the low areas pristene.

Davies list both types, 1751 & 1752

Yes, it was becoming a bit of a lynch mob. I don't see it being a lynch mob Sion, as i keep saying, if you had purchased a coin from said ebay seller and paid way over the odds i think attitudes would have changed. So i'll say no more on the forum about it The forum had been notified and eBay had been notified so there was not much more we could have done. Back on topic- http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/VIP-Satin-Finish-Commemorative-Churchill-Coin-1965-/290545090274?pt=UK_Coins_BritishComm_RL&hash=item43a5d63ee2#ht_500wt_1156 Almost worth it! Had to check out their other items just in case they had the complete set of VIPs. Nice pair of fingerless groves there.

The signature and the colon after GRA are different, your signature seems to be nearly on the neck whereas mine is lower I think the difference between the A of GRA and the colon dot is that your coin has lost the tip of the serif making the gap appear wider. What we need is someone in the know to come along and point out the differences. I do hope your coin turns out to be genuine all the same.

I've seen I think 3 on ebay, one I bought and resold in about F for £30. A second was again about fine that was on for a Buy it Now for £25 and unidentified, I thought about it for a while but it sold after a couple of weeks. I wasn't convince that I'd make any money on it as varities often are not very hot on ebay. My GVF I paid £120 at London Coins Dublin austion about 4-5 years ago. Thanks Gary, I think I have one but I'll need to see it in hand when it arrives. I'll upload pics once I get it. I always look for them and have come to the conclusion that if it is the I to tooth it's very obvious. If your not sure it's likely to be the common variety as the one can be deceiving.

I've seen I think 3 on ebay, one I bought and resold in about F for £30. A second was again about fine that was on for a Buy it Now for £25 and unidentified, I thought about it for a while but it sold after a couple of weeks. I wasn't convince that I'd make any money on it as varities often are not very hot on ebay. My GVF I paid £120 at London Coins Dublin austion about 4-5 years ago.

I don't know the history of these coins, I believe they came out of Turkey sometime in the seventies. Here's a side by side.

Gary, If that is a fake...then it is really a good fake. It looks like the real thing! It would be interesting to send it in for slabbing, and see what happens. I bought it from London Coins as a fake so I'm pretty confident that it is a fake........or maybe mmmm Azda, as to ring I think only being 0.025% low in silver content the ring would be meaningless. You need to go to nearer to 50% to be confident.

Sorry forgot to add the details, I was too caught up in adding the photos. Diameter and weight are spot on, finesse is down at 90% silver.

And the observe. I've always have problems with reducing the size of photos and on a recomendation of a work colleague I tried Microsoft power toys image resizer. I guess most of you already know of it but to me it was an epiphany. Once loaed you just right click on the picture file and choose resize. As easy as that and alway there.