2 Shillings 1901

[palves 0]

Hi,

Just want to share with you my recent acquisition...

see picture here

I collect Portuguese coins, but I have a crush on Victorian coins... I am trying to get one coin of each type and do not care about year. I am still missing a Gothic head, any suggestion for a coin/year (best grade for price) to get?

Thanks

[declanwmagee 122]

Hi,

Just want to share with you my recent acquisition...

see picture here

I collect Portuguese coins, but I have a crush on Victorian coins... I am trying to get one coin of each type and do not care about year. I am still missing a Gothic head, any suggestion for a coin/year (best grade for price) to get?

Thanks

Very nice - do you stand the coins on edge to take your photos?

[Gary 7]

Very nice - do you stand the coins on edge to take your photos?

Nice coin.

Looks like its stood up against a piece of card. I use a tripod to look down on the coin, a lot easier but a little tricky for lighting.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Gary

[palves 0]

Very nice - do you stand the coins on edge to take your photos?

Yes. I use a 3 pounds tripod and put the coin on top of something with support in the back. I have found this quite easy for lighting and no need to spend money. This said I am not a Pro and this quality is fine for me.

thanks.

[argentumandcoins 70]

1883 is probably the commonest of the Gothic Florins, so should be the best chance of obtaining a decent grade at the lowest price.

[Red Riley 2]

1883 is probably the commonest of the Gothic Florins, so should be the best chance of obtaining a decent grade at the lowest price.

Personally...I would say 1872, which is also the only Gothic I ever saw in circulation, but if date is irrelevant, just wait and see what comes up. In my opinion though, the earlier portrait (the change happened in 1879) is the nicer. A similar portrait, although completely different lettering appeared on the 1849 'Godless' florin and these are relatively common in high grade, so may be a best buy.

[azda 979]

Hi,

Just want to share with you my recent acquisition...

see picture here

I collect Portuguese coins, but I have a crush on Victorian coins... I am trying to get one coin of each type and do not care about year. I am still missing a Gothic head, any suggestion for a coin/year (best grade for price) to get?

Thanks

A very nice purchase there Palves

[Peckris 579]

Hi,

Just want to share with you my recent acquisition...

see picture here

I collect Portuguese coins, but I have a crush on Victorian coins... I am trying to get one coin of each type and do not care about year. I am still missing a Gothic head, any suggestion for a coin/year (best grade for price) to get?

Thanks

1872, 1881, 1883, 1884, 1886 - they are all affordable florins.

[Red Riley 2]

Maybe it's their relative lack of history, but the florin tends to be an overlooked denomination and personally I think that's sad. Their lack of a past though has meant that the designs have tended to be less staid than any of the other silver denominations bar the crown and in my view the Godless, Gothic and Standing Britannia series are all time classics and the Victoria Old Head pieces were quite pretty too. On the other hand the 1937-51 design was perhaps one of the dullest to appear on any British coin...

[Mat 2]

1883 is probably the commonest of the Gothic Florins, so should be the best chance of obtaining a decent grade at the lowest price.

Personally...I would say 1872, which is also the only Gothic I ever saw in circulation...

Wow your doing very well for you age!

[RobJ 0]

Hi,

Just want to share with you my recent acquisition...

see picture here

Very nice coin Palves.

[RobJ 0]

Maybe it's their relative lack of history, but the florin tends to be an overlooked denomination and personally I think that's sad. Their lack of a past though has meant that the designs have tended to be less staid than any of the other silver denominations bar the crown and in my view the Godless, Gothic and Standing Britannia series are all time classics and the Victoria Old Head pieces were quite pretty too. On the other hand the 1937-51 design was perhaps one of the dullest to appear on any British coin...

I totally agree with you there Red.

The Florin is a very nice and I think very under appreciated coin. The were not too big and not too small, but I think that they were just right.

I do think that it was important to introduce them aswell as there was a 'Gap' in the Denominations between the Shilling and Half Crown. I also think that the later Generations would have had to introduce a coin to 'Fill the gap' between Denominations at some stage, as even if there wasn't a huge demand for it at its time of introduction, there certainly was in later years.

The Godless and Gothic Designs are truly beautiful Designs. It is a shame that they were not continued further.

I really like the Standing Britannia Design. It was very fresh and original, for the time, it is a shame that it was around only briefly.

I do think that Design could have been carried forward, but sadly when George V asscended the Throne, I personally think that the coinage Designs became rather more austere.

Although, I do rather like the 1927/8 Threepence and Sixpence Designs.

[Red Riley 2]

1883 is probably the commonest of the Gothic Florins, so should be the best chance of obtaining a decent grade at the lowest price.

Personally...I would say 1872, which is also the only Gothic I ever saw in circulation...

Wow your doing very well for you age!

Thank you, but it really is true. The coin was about 100 years old at the time though.

[RobJ 0]

Thank you, but it really is true. The coin was about 100 years old at the time though.

That is a really excellent find from circulation Red.

[Peckris 579]

On the other hand the 1937-51 design was perhaps one of the dullest to appear on any British coin...

OMG, wasn't it just? Downright plain ugly!

I do think that it was important to introduce them aswell as there was a 'Gap' in the Denominations between the Shilling and Half Crown. I also think that the later Generations would have had to introduce a coin to 'Fill the gap' between Denominations at some stage, as even if there wasn't a huge demand for it at its time of introduction, there certainly was in later years.

That wasn't the reason. It was actually the first stage of an intended decimalisation. Florins - as one tenth of a pound (the legend on the first issue) - were to replace halfcrowns, which is why there are no halfcrowns for 25 years until popular support demanded their return in 1874.

[RobJ 0]

That wasn't the reason. It was actually the first stage of an intended decimalisation. Florins - as one tenth of a pound (the legend on the first issue) - were to replace halfcrowns, which is why there are no halfcrowns for 25 years until popular support demanded their return in 1874.

Thats right. I had read about it being the first stage of an intended Decimalisation of British Coinage. It wasn't greeted too warmly either if I remember correctly. lol

However, I did not know that was why there wasn't any Half Crowns Issued between those two dates.

Thanks for that information Peckris.

[Red Riley 2]

Thats right. I had read about it being the first stage of an intended Decimalisation of British Coinage. It wasn't greeted too warmly either if I remember correctly. lol

However, I did not know that was why there wasn't any Half Crowns Issued between those two dates.

Thanks for that information Peckris.

People don't like change as that twerp in the Yorkshire Post proved, but it was stir crazy not to go through with decimalisation in the 1850s. The re-introduction of the half crown was a mistake as we then had two denominations far too close to each other. But I guess we learnt to live with it and the anti-change brigade were presumably happy as Larry. In the meantime much school time was wasted teaching kids a bizarre and over-complicated system which really should have drifted off into the sunset 100 or more years before it finally did.

[RobJ 0]

People don't like change as that twerp in the Yorkshire Post proved, but it was stir crazy not to go through with decimalisation in the 1850s. The re-introduction of the half crown was a mistake as we then had two denominations far too close to each other. But I guess we learnt to live with it and the anti-change brigade were presumably happy as Larry. In the meantime much school time was wasted teaching kids a bizarre and over-complicated system which really should have drifted off into the sunset 100 or more years before it finally did.

I think that it certainly would have made more sense if Britain had gone Decimimal when it was first proposed. It makes a lot more sense and certainly is easier to count and work out money using a Decimal System.

I think as you say, it comes down to fear of change and 'The Unknown.' I imagine that many people then, as they are still today, would have been 'Set in their ways' and the proposition of change would have horrified them. Much as it did for many people when Britain finally did go Decimal in 1971.

I can also imagine that the Florin would have been an unpopular coin when it was first introduced due to the fact that it was also intended to replace the very popular Half Crown.

A similar thing happend with the proposition to do away with the Sixpence, there was much Public outcry due to its popularity and it remained with us until 1980.

The 50p Coin was also very unpopular with certain members of the Public when it was introduced. Some even called for it to be withdrawn.

I guess that even though the years pass us by, some things never change. lol

[Peckris 579]

People don't like change as that twerp in the Yorkshire Post proved, but it was stir crazy not to go through with decimalisation in the 1850s. The re-introduction of the half crown was a mistake as we then had two denominations far too close to each other. But I guess we learnt to live with it and the anti-change brigade were presumably happy as Larry. In the meantime much school time was wasted teaching kids a bizarre and over-complicated system which really should have drifted off into the sunset 100 or more years before it finally did.

I think that it certainly would have made more sense if Britain had gone Decimimal when it was first proposed. It makes a lot more sense and certainly is easier to count and work out money using a Decimal System.

I think as you say, it comes down to fear of change and 'The Unknown.' I imagine that many people then, as they are still today, would have been 'Set in their ways' and the proposition of change would have horrified them. Much as it did for many people when Britain finally did go Decimal in 1971.

I can also imagine that the Florin would have been an unpopular coin when it was first introduced due to the fact that it was also intended to replace the very popular Half Crown.

A similar thing happend with the proposition to do away with the Sixpence, there was much Public outcry due to its popularity and it remained with us until 1980.

The 50p Coin was also very unpopular with certain members of the Public when it was introduced. Some even called for it to be withdrawn.

I guess that even though the years pass us by, some things never change. lol

And yet ... such conservatism in the face of the utter radical changes the coinage has seen :

- the introduction of milled coinage

- the Great Recoinage of William III and the withdrawal of all hammered

- the introduction of tokens due to the small change crisis

- the mechanisation of Boulton

- the Recoinage of 1816

- the change to bronze

- the new 50% silver alloy

- the removal of silver altogether

- the sporadic appearance (and sometimes disappearance) of denoms - BoE dollars, 1s 6d tokens, florins, double florins, etc..

To fight against sensible decimalisation after all those changes, seems downright perverse.

[Accumulator 52]

"To fight against sensible decimalisation after all those changes, seems downright perverse"

Actually, apart from the fact that we have 10 digits (fingers and toes), decimalisation, or base 10 is a dreadful system. Other than 1 and itself, 10 only produces a whole number result when divided by 2 and 5. 12 on the other hand can be divided by 2,3,4 and 6. How often do quantities have to be divided into thirds or quarters? Base ten produces the horrible result of a recurring number when divided by 3, a problem which our decimal numbering system never really overcomes except with the somewhat abstruse concept of infinity.

[Peter 615]

"To fight against sensible decimalisation after all those changes, seems downright perverse"

Actually, apart from the fact that we have 10 digits (fingers and toes), decimalisation, or base 10 is a dreadful system. Other than 1 and itself, 10 only produces a whole number result when divided by 2 and 5. 12 on the other hand can be divided by 2,3,4 and 6. How often do quantities have to be divided into thirds or quarters? Base ten produces the horrible result of a recurring number when divided by 3, a problem which our decimal numbering system never really overcomes except with the somewhat abstruse concept of infinity.

Unless you are from Norfolk

Nice observation on the florin.....my grandfather always gave me pre 47 florins which I spent at the sweet shop..DOH

My other grandfather had a huge collection of pre 47 silver of which was never found.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

With hindsight, the biggest mistake we made was switching away from the gold standard. Up until then, if you didn't have it, you couldn't spend it and would either have to do without or attend to the economic problem causing the shortage.

Afterwards, you could behave like a drunk on a night out with someone else's credit card.

And we did/are..

[Red Riley 2]

"To fight against sensible decimalisation after all those changes, seems downright perverse"

Actually, apart from the fact that we have 10 digits (fingers and toes), decimalisation, or base 10 is a dreadful system. Other than 1 and itself, 10 only produces a whole number result when divided by 2 and 5. 12 on the other hand can be divided by 2,3,4 and 6. How often do quantities have to be divided into thirds or quarters? Base ten produces the horrible result of a recurring number when divided by 3, a problem which our decimal numbering system never really overcomes except with the somewhat abstruse concept of infinity.

I think that's only relevant if you're a mathematician. Since the introduction of the zero from the Indian sub-continent slowly from the 12th century, a base of 10 made far more sense. Everyone else has looked at the problem and come up with base 100 as being the best solution. If we had decided otherwise it would have been a case of 'everyone being out of step except my son John' would it not?

[Red Riley 2]

With hindsight, the biggest mistake we made was switching away from the gold standard. Up until then, if you didn't have it, you couldn't spend it and would either have to do without or attend to the economic problem causing the shortage.

On the other hand going back onto the gold standard brought this country to the brink of ruin in 1925.

[Accumulator 52]

"To fight against sensible decimalisation after all those changes, seems downright perverse"

Actually, apart from the fact that we have 10 digits (fingers and toes), decimalisation, or base 10 is a dreadful system. Other than 1 and itself, 10 only produces a whole number result when divided by 2 and 5. 12 on the other hand can be divided by 2,3,4 and 6. How often do quantities have to be divided into thirds or quarters? Base ten produces the horrible result of a recurring number when divided by 3, a problem which our decimal numbering system never really overcomes except with the somewhat abstruse concept of infinity.

I think that's only relevant if you're a mathematician. Since the introduction of the zero from the Indian sub-continent slowly from the 12th century, a base of 10 made far more sense. Everyone else has looked at the problem and come up with base 100 as being the best solution. If we had decided otherwise it would have been a case of 'everyone being out of step except my son John' would it not?

I'm not sure that anyone has ever suggested base 100? You would need 100 different symbols just to count! Base 16 (hexadecimal with symbols '0' to 'F') is the norm in the world of computing but this is an just a handy way of reducing the length of numbers in the base 2 binary system and is otherwise not workable. Mathmeticians generally feel base 12 would have been the best choice, simply because in day to day use, halving, dividing by three and quartering are the most common operations. Dividing by 10 is not in the least bit common, except in the invented world of base 10. In base 12, dividing by 12 would be the equivalent and just as simple operation.