Are these 2 coins proof?

[azda 979]

Got a bit of silver and These 2 coins seem proof, just wanting to make sure one way or the other. 1st is a Haöfcrown 1887, the REV is mirror like but not quite captured with the camera and the large rims normally associated with proofs

[azda 979]

The 2nd is a double florin 1887. Again, it Displays proof like Features, but both may be early strikes. The double Florin has a Little wear

[Peckris 579]

My own assessment would be they are not proofs, but early strikes. Mirror-like finishes are very common on 19thC coins, especially Victoria, and my gut feeling is those two lack the characteristics of proofs in terms of fine detail.

Having said that, they are neither of them shabby

[DaveG38 405]

I'm not an expert, but I'd say not, simply because the edges look too rough all round on both coins. In my experience the proof strikes have a very sharp edge, which is unmistakeable when you see the genuine proofs.

[Nick 329]

I would say not proof too. As DaveG says, the edges don't look sharp enough. Also, the halfcrown is a type 1 obverse thus making a proof very unlikely.

[azda 979]

Thanks gents, kinda though more of early strikes than proofs, always good to get opinions though. Another in the bündle, nicht schlecht. LXI edge

[VickySilver 830]

Not proof.These come with proof like strikes very frequently.

[DaveG38 405]

This one is claimed to be a proof halfcrown, and although cleaned, according to the seller, does seem to show the very sharp edges characteristic of proofs.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-1887-SILVER-PROOF-HALF-CROWN-NICE-COIN-L-K-/261246731602?pt=Coins_BritishProofs_RL&hash=item3cd384c552

[azda 979]

This one is claimed to be a proof halfcrown, and although cleaned, according to the seller, does seem to show the very sharp edges characteristic of proofs.

http://www.ebay.co.u...=item3cd384c552

Terrible OBV Picture, but for a reason i would think

[Peter 615]

None of them would be kicked out of my tray.

[VickySilver 830]

I second Azda on the obverse picture - I think it is hiding some unfortunate details on the obverse - rub??, etc...

The edge on this bit looks a lot better than our other choices and think I could go for slightly mishandled proof.

The others are thumbs down on edge characteristics.

[Peckris 579]

I second Azda on the obverse picture - I think it is hiding some unfortunate details on the obverse - rub??, etc...

The edge on this bit looks a lot better than our other choices and think I could go for slightly mishandled proof.

The others are thumbs down on edge characteristics.

Yes, the rim/edge look much more prooflike on that example, though I much prefer the tone on Dave's non-proofs.

[Paulus 1,975]

The 2nd is a double florin 1887. Again, it Displays proof like Features, but both may be early strikes. The double Florin has a Little wear

How I have missed your dinner plates Dave! I hope that's not a stonking great fingerprint at 10 o'clock on the rev?

[shagreen 24]

Hello, Its great the file attachments work again and I have attached some pics of the roman I double florin reverse proofs - just a small part given the file size limits. The pics represent 2 different proof dies with the first revealing a narrower smoother rim than the second which is wider and acid etched. The second more colourfully toned picture is of a later proof production version. You can see the rims are very even and regular with no sign of post strike damage due to commercial handling in the mint production and distribution process. The lettering is also much clearer due to the higher press pressure and the use of polished blanks. The cameo effect on the effigy is not as pronounced on the early 1887 proof issues. The coins you have are unfortunately not miss handled proofs just nice quality business strikes

[shagreen 24]

I have attached a couple of pics representing different proof strikes for the crown and early and a late version - hopefully it makes a bit more sense when you can see the whole coin albeit at low resolution. The cameo effect is much more pronounced and the rims also wider in the second pic

[VickySilver 830]

Hi Shagreen,

Not quite sure if I am following you on the last post. My opinion would be that the second specimen is an earlier strike as the cameo effect is still demonstrated. My understanding is that it is lost with subsequent strikes as the acid etched device is gradually micro worn ..

[shagreen 24]

HI Vicki Silver,

Yes the matte surface on incuse areas of proof dies are impacted by filling and wear during repeat striking - its an important factor in reducing cameo but one must wonder if the small number of coins struck in this 1887 series would be sufficient to make a major visual difference , but these coins were struck from different dies. ( Die markers such as raised lines and "irregular blobs seen at 10X magnification) particularly within the denticles but also in other parts near lettering etc.

As a further complication the same Proof dies were taken out of storage, cleaned up (brushed and lapped) and used to strike further sets as seen by variation in die rotation.

Its a fascinating area of study for me and much is still to be learned

[azda 979]

The 2nd is a double florin 1887. Again, it Displays proof like Features, but both may be early strikes. The double Florin has a Little wear

How I have missed your dinner plates Dave! I hope that's not a stonking great fingerprint at 10 o'clock on the rev?

Could Possibly be Paul, then again, i'm not complaining for what i paid for them

[VickySilver 830]

Rick Tomaska has written some about proof dies in the American series of Franklin halves but also with regards to Morgan dollars and says essentially that the "cameo effect" may be lost with as few as 10 strikes of the die. He has said very little changed from the late 19th Century.

Another fellow with some firsthand knowledge is Daniel Carr, who managed to purchase a slightly older Denver Mint press and now uses it to strike medals, overstrikes, etc. in matte, ordinary currency and proof format. He is quite a nice fellow IMO and may be able to share some information, at least as it applies to somewhat later technology - although I would imagine much may apply to later 19th C. technology.

I am not as excited by specific technology or microvarieties but do find in interesting that old dies would be pulled up and reused - the 1839s were an extreme example. I also wonder how accurate minting statistics, even with proofs might actually be. Where, for example did they come up with the figures for 1887 and 1893? Let alone, off years of record proofs!

[Nick 329]

Rick Tomaska has written some about proof dies in the American series of Franklin halves but also with regards to Morgan dollars and says essentially that the "cameo effect" may be lost with as few as 10 strikes of the die. He has said very little changed from the late 19th Century.

Another fellow with some firsthand knowledge is Daniel Carr, who managed to purchase a slightly older Denver Mint press and now uses it to strike medals, overstrikes, etc. in matte, ordinary currency and proof format. He is quite a nice fellow IMO and may be able to share some information, at least as it applies to somewhat later technology - although I would imagine much may apply to later 19th C. technology.

I am not as excited by specific technology or microvarieties but do find in interesting that old dies would be pulled up and reused - the 1839s were an extreme example. I also wonder how accurate minting statistics, even with proofs might actually be. Where, for example did they come up with the figures for 1887 and 1893? Let alone, off years of record proofs!

I've no idea about the accuracy of the figures, but 1887 and 1893 come from the era of the Royal Mint Annual Report, which contain sections written by the head of each department. The reports from the die department contain the number of pieces coined and the number of dies used (obverse and reverse). As an example: in the production of just 54,864 gold £5 pieces in 1887, a whopping 429 obverse and 248 reverse dies were consumed. That's just under 128 coins per obverse die - probably less than a minute of run-time for the press.

[Coinery 1,153]

Staggering stats!

[VickySilver 830]

Yes, I have seen the annual reports, but if we use the example of the 1839 proofs being struck in later years it seems we have no accounting. Was such done with the later 1887 and 1893s? Not sure if I have seen the answer to that.

Interesting bit about die consumption on the gold as well..

[Nick 329]

Yes, I have seen the annual reports, but if we use the example of the 1839 proofs being struck in later years it seems we have no accounting. Was such done with the later 1887 and 1893s? Not sure if I have seen the answer to that.

Interesting bit about die consumption on the gold as well..

Not sure. I suspect not, but have no evidence one way or the other.