If you could only take one coin from your collection...

[Nick 329]

"Victoria Proof Sixpence error 1839, Young Head, S-3912/3908 type, reeded edge, medal-rotation die alignment, "Mint Error PR65 Muled w/KM-757 Obverse" NGC, amber-gold iridescent toning over a silvery gray base. First one we have encountered, dated 1839 on reverse but struck from an obverse die used for the 3rd Head style (of 1880-87) with really crisply engraved hair. Very rare."

This description of an error doesn't take into consideration the later production of 1839 proof sets. This coin has to parallel the 1839 set halfpenny where they are known as a straight 1839 and recut 1841 & 1843 dies. The use of a third head die would suggest that the 1839 sets may have been produced up to the introduction of the 1887, and interestingly therefore may have both preceded and succeeded the 1853 sets. I don't think it is an error.

I would agree that the 39 sets were in production up until the 1887 sets and even after 1887 would they still have been available via the mint?

It is conceivable that the dies could have been used up until the death of Victoria as the sets were "made to order" for want of a better term and the Una £5 would probably have been as desirable then as it is now.

Which explains the number of varieties of the Una £5, whereby a new die would be engraved as there were no corresponding currency dies to recut. Have we just reinvented the wheel or does anyone have documentary evidence from Mint Records etc to back this up?

The Royal Mint Annual Reports contain summary tables of the numbers of each denomination struck in each of the previous 10 years. Using the reports from 1870 until the end of Victoria's reign show that the only years between 1861 and 1901 when gold £5 or £2 coins were struck were 1887 and 1893.

Unless, of course, these later 1839 strikings were considered trials or one-offs and don't appear in the official reports.

[jaggy 528]

So, to summarise ..... just because that 1839 proof says 1839 does not mean it was actually minted in 1839?

[Rob 3,152]

So, to summarise ..... just because that 1839 proof says 1839 does not mean it was actually minted in 1839?

Correct. This is a thread where I acquired an 1839/41 proof halfpenny. 39 over 43 is also known. Both must post-date 1839 by definition. Clearly a third head sixpence would potentially be much later than a recut 1841 or 1843 halfpenny, but there is no indication as to when the latter was recut - i.e it could have been 1880 or later.

[Bernie 203]

At the risk of boring all those that have seen it before, I wouldn't struggle to choose:

Your coin is an absolute GEM. You would definately have made the right choice.