2 For attribution

[Peckris 579]

The problem with all these production variations as opposed to actual design variations is that they are an open ended can of worms. Minute differences in the spacing of the last digit or two have a definite place in the list of varieties for the specialist who drills down to the level of identifying individual die characteristics, but for your average punter it doesn't matter a jot as they will be for the most part satisfied with a relatively obvious difference in the overall design. Wide date, narrow date, or for the flat disc collectors out there, any visible date or no date. Young portrait/older features or whatever, it all depends on how clear it is at a glance.

That's my whole point Rob. It's NOT a "minute difference". It's a bloody huge glaring "twice as big as normal" spacing. And I'm not one of your perpetual hopefuls ("Oh I'll post it at predecimal and show everyone that yet again I've got a massive rarity and soon I'll be famous"). I've STUDIED as many of those wreath reverse 1887 JH heads as I can lay my hands on, or through enlargements on eBay, and I can assure you, the spacing of that issue is pretty standard. Except for this one. I do not buy the "there are variations all over Victoria's reign" - not after the early 80s when the methods of production changed and as we all know from the bun penny (and all other) output from then on, there is a remarkable consistency compared to what went before.

Anyway, that wasn't my main point. My main point was and is - all other varieties here cause an outburst of interest, enthusiasm and back-slapping congratulations. I don't see why my poor sixpence can't elicit a fraction of that instead of the wet blanket treatment.

[Rob 3,152]

The problem with all these production variations as opposed to actual design variations is that they are an open ended can of worms. Minute differences in the spacing of the last digit or two have a definite place in the list of varieties for the specialist who drills down to the level of identifying individual die characteristics, but for your average punter it doesn't matter a jot as they will be for the most part satisfied with a relatively obvious difference in the overall design. Wide date, narrow date, or for the flat disc collectors out there, any visible date or no date. Young portrait/older features or whatever, it all depends on how clear it is at a glance.

That's my whole point Rob. It's NOT a "minute difference". It's a bloody huge glaring "twice as big as normal" spacing. And I'm not one of your perpetual hopefuls ("Oh I'll post it at predecimal and show everyone that yet again I've got a massive rarity and soon I'll be famous"). I've STUDIED as many of those wreath reverse 1887 JH heads as I can lay my hands on, or through enlargements on eBay, and I can assure you, the spacing of that issue is pretty standard. Except for this one. I do not buy the "there are variations all over Victoria's reign" - not after the early 80s when the methods of production changed and as we all know from the bun penny (and all other) output from then on, there is a remarkable consistency compared to what went before.

Anyway, that wasn't my main point. My main point was and is - all other varieties here cause an outburst of interest, enthusiasm and back-slapping congratulations. I don't see why my poor sixpence can't elicit a fraction of that instead of the wet blanket treatment.

I've been suffering that with halfpennies for years. I think the prior sentence is the preserve of the penny enthusiasts. Sad, but true.

[Rob 3,152]

Another alternative approach might be to ask the RM museum for images of Hocking ref. 1394, 1395 & 1396 which are matrix, punch & die for the issue. Chances are it won't be the same, but there is an outside chance. I was going to say is it 7 over 6, but unless the crown has been filled and recut, this would have to be rejected. Looking at the image which seems a bit Heath Robinson ish, it could be a die produced at the beginning of the issue as a trial which was good enough to use as a production tool because there must have been a lot of pressure on the mint to get the revised reverse 6ds into circulation. A day saved in making a die is a lot of extra coins made. One more thought, the border teeth look a bit thinner than the usual ones. Any mileage in checking these on other coins. They look suspiciously like the teeth on the withdrawn type which would add credence to a trial piece.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Rob

[Peckris 579]

Another alternative approach might be to ask the RM museum for images of Hocking ref. 1394, 1395 & 1396 which are matrix, punch & die for the issue. Chances are it won't be the same, but there is an outside chance. I was going to say is it 7 over 6, but unless the crown has been filled and recut, this would have to be rejected. Looking at the image which seems a bit Heath Robinson ish, it could be a die produced at the beginning of the issue as a trial which was good enough to use as a production tool because there must have been a lot of pressure on the mint to get the revised reverse 6ds into circulation. A day saved in making a die is a lot of extra coins made. One more thought, the border teeth look a bit thinner than the usual ones. Any mileage in checking these on other coins. They look suspiciously like the teeth on the withdrawn type which would add credence to a trial piece.

Yes, that's another of the differences. Also there are a few minor differences in the ribbon immediately above the date (no fold on the left, thicker strand on the right). I'm impressed by your knowledge of Hocking! I can see myself getting around to asking them in around two years time LOL.

[Rob 3,152]

Another alternative approach might be to ask the RM museum for images of Hocking ref. 1394, 1395 & 1396 which are matrix, punch & die for the issue. Chances are it won't be the same, but there is an outside chance. I was going to say is it 7 over 6, but unless the crown has been filled and recut, this would have to be rejected. Looking at the image which seems a bit Heath Robinson ish, it could be a die produced at the beginning of the issue as a trial which was good enough to use as a production tool because there must have been a lot of pressure on the mint to get the revised reverse 6ds into circulation. A day saved in making a die is a lot of extra coins made. One more thought, the border teeth look a bit thinner than the usual ones. Any mileage in checking these on other coins. They look suspiciously like the teeth on the withdrawn type which would add credence to a trial piece.

Yes, that's another of the differences. Also there are a few minor differences in the ribbon immediately above the date (no fold on the left, thicker strand on the right). I'm impressed by your knowledge of Hocking! I can see myself getting around to asking them in around two years time LOL.

I didn't know the references off the top of my head, just that Hocking contains the list of items in the RM museum as of 100 years ago. The big leap forward was learning to read about 50 years ago.

[Peter 615]

Another alternative approach might be to ask the RM museum for images of Hocking ref. 1394, 1395 & 1396 which are matrix, punch & die for the issue. Chances are it won't be the same, but there is an outside chance. I was going to say is it 7 over 6, but unless the crown has been filled and recut, this would have to be rejected. Looking at the image which seems a bit Heath Robinson ish, it could be a die produced at the beginning of the issue as a trial which was good enough to use as a production tool because there must have been a lot of pressure on the mint to get the revised reverse 6ds into circulation. A day saved in making a die is a lot of extra coins made. One more thought, the border teeth look a bit thinner than the usual ones. Any mileage in checking these on other coins. They look suspiciously like the teeth on the withdrawn type which would add credence to a trial piece.

Yes, that's another of the differences. Also there are a few minor differences in the ribbon immediately above the date (no fold on the left, thicker strand on the right). I'm impressed by your knowledge of Hocking! I can see myself getting around to asking them in around two years time LOL.

I didn't know the references off the top of my head, just that Hocking contains the list of items in the RM museum as of 100 years ago. The big leap forward was learning to read about 50 years ago.

Late learner Rob?

[Nick 329]

Does anybody have a good image of an attested B4 florin?

I haven't found a good image, but did find this one ESC 847

[azda 979]

Does anybody have a good image of an attested B4 florin?

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

Edited July 27, 2011 by azda

[Rob 3,152]

Does anybody have a good image of an attested B4 florin?

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

No, that's one of the things we are looking for. The description is ESC 847var, S3894. The var makes the statement that it best fits ESC 847 but isn't quite the same. 847 has stop after date, that one doesn't, so is what we are looking for if it is genuinely no WW as opposed to a filled die, but the image isn't good enough. It still doesn't overcome the problem of a high grade version of Azda's die though.

S3894 is type B4, so it is listed in ESC but only with stop after date.

[Nick 329]

Well straight away its wrong, ESC 847 is dot after date and they're quoting S3894........So unfortunately..............Also S3894 is UNLISTED in ESC

I should have counted the arcs/trefoils before I posted the link. It's only got 42 and is therefore ESC 848 and type B5.

[Rob 3,152]

Well straight away its wrong, ESC 847 is dot after date and they're quoting S3894........So unfortunately..............Also S3894 is UNLISTED in ESC

I should have counted the arcs/trefoils before I posted the link. It's only got 42 and is therefore ESC 848 and type B5.

Uh....correct. I hadn't checked them either. Cancel the above, it isn't exactly what we want, but the general principle still applies.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

It's an interesting subject, the attribution of a new variety. I had a Charles I unite once and it had a slightly different legend. There are quite a few different ones, but despite searching Scneider and North, I couldn't find one like mine. I sent a scan to the British Museum and they confirmed that I did indeed seem to have found a new combination. I then asked Baldwins if this was important - no, it wasn't.

I think getting a new variety established depends a lot on who you are, it's not a scientific process. Look at London Coins current push to have date widths in the old head penny series established as varieties, whilst Michael Gouby couldn't care less.

It's all quite imprecise and unsatisfactory in my opinion.

[Peter 615]

It's an interesting subject, the attribution of a new variety. I had a Charles I unite once and it had a slightly different legend. There are quite a few different ones, but despite searching Scneider and North, I couldn't find one like mine. I sent a scan to the British Museum and they confirmed that I did indeed seem to have found a new combination. I then asked Baldwins if this was important - no, it wasn't.

I think getting a new variety established depends a lot on who you are, it's not a scientific process. Look at London Coins current push to have date widths in the old head penny series established as varieties, whilst Michael Gouby couldn't care less.

It's all quite imprecise and unsatisfactory in my opinion.

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?

[azda 979]

It's an interesting subject, the attribution of a new variety. I had a Charles I unite once and it had a slightly different legend. There are quite a few different ones, but despite searching Scneider and North, I couldn't find one like mine. I sent a scan to the British Museum and they confirmed that I did indeed seem to have found a new combination. I then asked Baldwins if this was important - no, it wasn't.

I think getting a new variety established depends a lot on who you are, it's not a scientific process. Look at London Coins current push to have date widths in the old head penny series established as varieties, whilst Michael Gouby couldn't care less.

It's all quite imprecise and unsatisfactory in my opinion.

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

Edited July 28, 2011 by azda

[Colin G. 147]

Peter,

That is one of the reasons why my list is constantly being updated, I am currently going through a process of harshly sifting through them AGAIN, but this has involved a complete rethink/recatalogue. A task I had a feeling I would have to do, but was dreading. It has however been very worthwhile, I just keep realising how difficult this task really is

Hats off to those who have been here before....(Peck must have been loopy to take on what he did)....it just makes you realise the size of what they undertook!!!

[Nick 329]

Well straight away its wrong, ESC 847 is dot after date and they're quoting S3894........So unfortunately..............Also S3894 is UNLISTED in ESC

I should have counted the arcs/trefoils before I posted the link. It's only got 42 and is therefore ESC 848 and type B5.

Uh....correct. I hadn't checked them either. Cancel the above, it isn't exactly what we want, but the general principle still applies.

I have found a reference to what may be a type B4 florin. DNW auction 8 Oct 1999, lot 1072 "Florin, 1877, stop after date, no WW, die 6 (ESC 847-R3; S 3893). Almost as struck, very rare". However, it doesn't mention the number of trefoils, so it may not be 48.

Unfortunately, there is only a small picture of the reverse on their website and I don't have any DNW auction catalogues that early.

[Rob 3,152]

Well straight away its wrong, ESC 847 is dot after date and they're quoting S3894........So unfortunately..............Also S3894 is UNLISTED in ESC

I should have counted the arcs/trefoils before I posted the link. It's only got 42 and is therefore ESC 848 and type B5.

Uh....correct. I hadn't checked them either. Cancel the above, it isn't exactly what we want, but the general principle still applies.

I have found a reference to what may be a type B4 florin. DNW auction 8 Oct 1999, lot 1072 "Florin, 1877, stop after date, no WW, die 6 (ESC 847-R3; S 3893). Almost as struck, very rare". However, it doesn't mention the number of trefoils, so it may not be 48.

Unfortunately, there is only a small picture of the reverse on their website and I don't have any DNW auction catalogues that early.

9th, not 8th October. A grotty picture, so make of it what you will. Looks like 42.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Rob

[Rob 3,152]

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

I would say it has been listed as such since 1949 when Rayner first compiled ESC. The B1,2 etc goes up to B9. B4 must have been there from the beginning as you wouldn't leave a gap in anticipation of a bust waiting to be dicovered the date was already covered elsewhere. It has been listed as extremely rare since at least 1987. The only copy I have prior to that is 1970 which gives prices of Fine £10, VF £30 and EF £75.

[Rob 3,152]

It's an interesting subject, the attribution of a new variety. I had a Charles I unite once and it had a slightly different legend. There are quite a few different ones, but despite searching Scneider and North, I couldn't find one like mine. I sent a scan to the British Museum and they confirmed that I did indeed seem to have found a new combination. I then asked Baldwins if this was important - no, it wasn't.

I think getting a new variety established depends a lot on who you are, it's not a scientific process. Look at London Coins current push to have date widths in the old head penny series established as varieties, whilst Michael Gouby couldn't care less.

It's all quite imprecise and unsatisfactory in my opinion.

Rayner had a very close relationship with Harry Manville, and I have heard several opinions from different sources that he had a significant say in the variety and rarity attributions. The problem as ever is one of sufficient research material because you can't acquire statistically significant numbers of every silver coin from 1649 to the present day for both financial and practical reasons. Herein lies a sensible reason for a degree of trepidation when trying to compile an accurate reference volume.

[Nick 329]

9th, not 8th October. A grotty picture, so make of it what you will. Looks like 42.

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.

[Rob 3,152]

9th, not 8th October. A grotty picture, so make of it what you will. Looks like 42.

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.

Not at all. Numismatics is littered with mistaken attributions, incorrect listings and the like. Look at the number of incorrect slabs out there. e.g. Hus got his 1844 third farthing from me. It was slabbed as a half. I will happily buy 1844 thirds slabbed as halves for the price of the latter all day long. Freeman acquired his unique F689A from Spink because they had it down in the Circular as a P2002. It's a totally different design, and when graded by NGC they attributed it as a P1983 which is still wrong, because the leaves on the reverse go in the opposite direction. I acquired my 1675/3/2 1/2d for a bargain price because it was listed in a London Coins sale catalogue as MS64 despite the label reading MS65. As it happens, it was the highest graded 1673 halfpenny at NGC, but it still didn't mean they got the date right which was obviously 5/3 without even resorting to a magnifying device.

The reality is that virtually every sale catalogue has a list of notices correcting mistakes. Some sales are worse than others.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Rob

[azda 979]

9th, not 8th October. A grotty picture, so make of it what you will. Looks like 42.

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

[Peter 615]

9th, not 8th October. A grotty picture, so make of it what you will. Looks like 42.

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

You may be right.Our partners could of chosen womanising boozers with a penchant for the better things in life...oops hang on there.

[just.me 23]

Here is an 1877 Florin which is die number 59 which is attributed to 3+B, 48 arcs, no stop after date and with WW, a Davies 762, ESC 846 or Coincraft 255. I dont use Spink so don't know the reference. The WW is weak but visible.

The picture came from an archived London coins auction.

[just.me 23]

Here are another with the same attributions, but die number 15. The WW is far better struck on this example.