azda

Again, there seems to be some distance between trefoils and bust, but that could be to the wear.

Dave, I've been studying your picture quite closely, alongside just.me's uploaded images. What seems to be the case is that the bust on yours is the same position as on those others. It just LOOKS lower because it is very very weak (whether from the die, or just on that particular coin, it's really not possible to say) at the base of the bust where the WW would be. But, looking at the base of the bust both to the left and right of that area where it's less weak, it appears to be the same height as those others. However, it is very difficult to determine with absolute precision without overlaying the images in different colours one over the other. is it daveg38 thats good at that sort of thing? Someone on here does a good job with photoshop

I've never discounted this possibility, it is just that we need corroborative evidence. I don't know if the RM has dies etc. over and above those listed in Hocking, but if they did there is an outside chance the argument could be settled. Drop them an email with the question. Lol, Rob you're talking to the wrong man about Hocking and emails to RM, i don't even know what/who Hocking is, i'm assuming someone like Davies and Rayner etc.

This is what i've been actually trying to say, if the bust was punched lower, which in this case it seems to be, then there would be no WW as it would have taken it out. Glad we're getting a little further down the road with this.

Ok, and here's mine with a bit more tinkering. Still a distinct gap between bust and trefoils obviously leaving enough space for the WW. And the die number on my coin looks more like a 4 and 9, might be staring at it to long

and the last one

Ok, i've enlarged what just.me uploaded and put them in photobucket

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. Unfortunately Nick, we are only human and therefor prone to making mistakes, unless you're feamle that is

Wondering if the OBV of this has been tooled, the hair doesn't look right for some reason, unless its the scan. ESC 1152?

Just a guess, Peter? Lol

You've hit the nail on the head.Currently varieties are not a science and unpublished ones not in ESC / Peck /Freeman will always need industry acceptance. Obvious examples of "missed" varieties are eventually added to the "accepted" list.(1858 small date 1/4d) On absolutefarthings Colin has just ploughed ahead and specialists can either take it or leave it.I have viewed it with caution but use my own gut feeling.I now realise some are too petty after my wife accidently dropped my trays (whilst moving for decorating)I still haven't matched them all up. Lets not go down the stamp collectors 20 shades of red avenue.If we are umming and arring over a piece for for so long and now need to go to "arbitration" is this what we really want? I think we already know in what ball park we're playing in regarding the Florin, the problem is now, to nail it down to one or the other we or i need to find out why there's no apparent WW on the coin, which is so far S3893 or 94, and obviously S3894 being the rarer of the 2.Obviously it's known and has been since? i have 3 spink books since 2009 (since i started collecting the British coins) and all the quote S3894 as extremely rare, it would be nice to find out how long the quote has been there for

Well my computer is palying silly buggers, so you'll just have to spin your heads like an owl

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

Thats probably more or leas the problem Peck, if its unique then its like buying a disc me old bean. Unfortunately the 1877 has been listed, so its known, just not what it looks like

I agree peck, but obviously no one knows how many of these exist and by the looks of things no one actually knows what it looks like. It could be unique or there could be dozens, its the finding things out , thats the joy of collecting my sour graped old pal

It looks like obv6 rev I but i'd wait on another opinion as i'm just using my iphone and that die pairing is rare

Ok

I'm personally not, perhaps Rob?

Ok, wel due to the confusion on this i'm going to keep this one until it can be verified one way or the other.

Ok, i'll upload this again. The picture i've looked at and the die number to me looks like 19, the 1st digit does'nt look much like a 3, although as i've said, the ticket has die 8. So.......Onwards, now to my mind, that looks more like 19 now than 39, so as i've been saying, we can make it look like what we want if we stare long enough, but if we stare long enough, we still can't see WW to the right of the last digit. Also just.me, you stated that the die numbering was done by hand, was this done with a hammer and punch, because by the looks of Nicks picture the number looks raised to me, so i'm curious how that might have been done. If it was done by a punch, surely it would be incused, the WW in Nicks picture also looks raised.

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. If you look back at Nicks full picture of the coin from Davies book i assume, then the WW is just to the right of the last digit. I have scoped to the right of the last didgit and more without any hint of WW. If Nicks picture is of a Davies 762 then i'm still not convinced of what just.me is saying, both OBVs are different in bust to rim and full cross showing

Ok, so the ticket i have saying die number 8 is so far obsolete then?

Ok so back to Nicks pic, you can See a Full Cross in the crown and mine? We can all see things when we stare long enough At it, i mentioned i had a ticket with the coin that states die 8, again thats anyones guess, but you seem sure its die 39, yet rob had it down for 9 or 19 Nicks davies 762 is totally different to my picture hence the reason i don't see your theory, you said all those d 762s were die 39, yet thats die 3

Or the fact that the bust is obviously lower and that there's nö WW. There is no evidence of WW being there at all, i cannot see your theory just.me

Hi Dave, much bettrer close up. I am 99% sure that is a die 39. the die numbers were all hand punched and it is identical to other 39s I've seen. the trefoil to the right of the 9 is also misshaped which is on other 39s too. the style of the 3 is flat topped and is very often filled at the top. But still no WW