1940 Florin Mint Error or Fake Error?

[Mat 2]

Hello guys, I have come across this 1940 florin, please tell me what you think. I do know one sided blanks appear now and again but I have never come across a blank florin.

I cannot see any signs of abrasions at all, even though a loupe.

However the weight is 10.5g opposed to the standard of 11.3g??. Is it possible for an error in this format to be lighter than the standard for some reason or another?

Please let me know your thoughts on this coin.

....and please look at my other recent posting and unlisted Varity which I need help on.

Mat

[DaveG38 405]

Hello guys, I have come across this 1940 florin, please tell me what you think. I do know one sided blanks appear now and again but I have never come across a blank florin.

I cannot see any signs of abrasions at all, even though a loupe.

However the weight is 10.5g opposed to the standard of 11.3g??. Is it possible for an error in this format to be lighter than the standard for some reason or another?

Please let me know your thoughts on this coin.

....and please look at my other recent posting and unlisted Varity which I need help on.

Mat

Given the lower than usual weight, which is unlikely for a blank at the time, the most probable explanation is that somebody shaved off the obverse for reasons best known to themselves. Indeed on the picture there seems to be signs of the obverse beading at the bottom, suggesting that the planing off wasn't done perfectly.

[Bronze & Copper Collector 412]

I would tend to agree with Dave's assessment...

[Mat 2]

Thanks for the help Dave & Bronze Copper,

As soon as it arrived in the post I thought some one has been up to no good with it from the beading. They have done a very good job at smoothing the surface over though, there is no pattern to the surface under a loupe at all which would indicate the motion of filing or grinding down...

Oh well I dont mind loosing the £4 I paid for it just incase it was genuine. I will chuck it in the pile of George III 1763 shillings which have been made in china :-)

Mat

[VickySilver 830]

Mat, I would not completely condemn the coin just yet as it should be seen in hand perhaps at Baldwins or maybe Neil Paisley or other expert. I can not say as I really would have to see the coin in hand. The amount of material lost compared to the usual flan is not very large and would not itself be an huge issue. The reeding overlap is a bit curious and would think that careful examination of this area is shere I would concentrate. I would suggest a stereo dissecting scope of 30 power to start. Obviously, post mint milling marks could be disguised, but at L4 you do not have much loss if it is false.

[Mat 2]

Mat, I would not completely condemn the coin just yet as it should be seen in hand perhaps at Baldwins or maybe Neil Paisley or other expert. I can not say as I really would have to see the coin in hand. The amount of material lost compared to the usual flan is not very large and would not itself be an huge issue. The reeding overlap is a bit curious and would think that careful examination of this area is shere I would concentrate. I would suggest a stereo dissecting scope of 30 power to start. Obviously, post mint milling marks could be disguised, but at L4 you do not have much loss if it is false.

Thanks for the Reply V-silver, and all the other replys you always give to my posts I think we have a lot in common regarding coins!

I have added a few more pictures to see if you can make more of an opinion on it. The left over beading on the surface is very very slightly raised to the rest of the very flat smooth surface.

I am not quite sure of the minting process in those days, do you think it is possible the reverse was struck, then the machine realised the flan is not the correct weight, then rejected the coin?? Or somthing along those lines...

[VickySilver 830]

Very interesting...It looks as though the rim area may have been the result of impact (drop or?) after the net results of strike and whatever else may have been done to the coin. It definately is not as I first thought possible that this was an area of incomplete milling [off] of the obverse.

It is still possible that the obverse was milled off and then abraded irregularly by whatever means and then suffered the rim bruise from contact.

If only 0.8 gm. is short from the standard, then there should be some image left; it is only a guess but I think to completely remove bust device and all lettering without a seeming trace that removal of more than this amount of metal would be required. Perhaps if we were better at math we could estimate the minimum amount of metal removal required but 10% loss would be 1.13 gm, so it appears that something less than 7% of the metal is short from the standard.

The coin is not specimen which is obvious and yet I have known a 1937 matte specimen reverse florin with a blank obverse (don't know the weight of it). I have a 1970 10 P with no obverse and it is genuine with slight waviness to the obverse side. Also the Colin Adams sale had two pennies from I think 1965 that were in the striking chamber likely at the same time, one with blank obverse and the other with blank reverse with one coin being some 0.6 gm. short of standard. They also had a bit of waviness to the unstruck side and not as smooth as yours - I think that is the slightly bothersome aspect although the matte coin precedent is mentioned.

Well, without seeing it I can not really comment further...