"mdccclxxri" Variety Of 1881 Gothic Florin?

[Vlad1410 0]

Greetings

Haven't posted here for about a year

I have acquired recently a Gothic florin anno 1881 in more or less fine grade. But while examining obverse found that third 'x' on roman year number looks more like 'r'- a variety that is mentioned in catalogs.

Took a closer look, there is a raised bump in our problem spot which looks bright because it's rubbed and backround is significally darker.

Looks it like a die error or heavily rubbed understruck spot?

Please check attached pic.

Surprisingly I found 1881 florin with "clear" mdccclxxxi date in "The Standard Guide Grading British Coins" displayed as VF grade example of Victoria Gothic Head. For comparsion.

[Gary 7]

Not a florin expert but that looks to be a worn Die. Probably the early stages of the 'r' variety. The Die has not yet completely blocked to form the 'r'.

Would that qualify for the 'r' variety? probably not in my opinion but lets see what the others make of it

Edited February 27, 2014 by Gary

[Vlad1410 0]

2 more pictures attached

[declanwmagee 122]

That's the thing with that one, Vlad. It is a die fill, so it's progressive. You'll be able to find all stages of the fill right from not filled at all to completely invisible and everything in between.

[Vlad1410 0]

Thanks for comments, guys. If it's just about the die broking or its progressing wear, I wonder why it's considered as a variety.

Anyways, Gothic design is such sexy one, even quite worn specimens look appealing

[declanwmagee 122]

Thanks for comments, guys. If it's just about the die broking or its progressing wear, I wonder why it's considered as a variety.

Anyways, Gothic design is such sexy one, even quite worn specimens look appealing

Very good question! Some get included, some don't. It's all down to who compiles the literature. This one has been in all the books for years, so it's widely recognised as a variety, when strictly speaking, it ain't.

[Peckris 579]

Thanks for comments, guys. If it's just about the die broking or its progressing wear, I wonder why it's considered as a variety.

Anyways, Gothic design is such sexy one, even quite worn specimens look appealing

Very good question! Some get included, some don't. It's all down to who compiles the literature. This one has been in all the books for years, so it's widely recognised as a variety, when strictly speaking, it ain't.

What makes die fill NOT a variety, when a die flaw is?

[Rob 3,264]

Thanks for comments, guys. If it's just about the die broking or its progressing wear, I wonder why it's considered as a variety.

Anyways, Gothic design is such sexy one, even quite worn specimens look appealing

Very good question! Some get included, some don't. It's all down to who compiles the literature. This one has been in all the books for years, so it's widely recognised as a variety, when strictly speaking, it ain't.

What makes die fill NOT a variety, when a die flaw is?

I don't think either should be varieties in the hyped up way they are. It isn't a case of unambiguous varieties where there is a clear legend error for example, but a case of a change in die state which people initially wanted to highlight to make a case for something more valuable than it should be - because they had one or more stashed away. They serve to satisfy the individual's desire for self importance and from a collecting point of view permit an expansion of the collection. As long as there have been reference books, there have been entries which are questionable. From the die filled ESC 773A - no colon after OMN on a 1926 2/6d, to the die flaw inverted A in GEORGIVS 1722 1/2d (P802). There are an infinite number of sub-divisions of the variety whether it is the die fill progressing or in the case of Nicholson 194 http://www.colincooke.com/coinpages/nicholson_part3.html clearly shows the inverted A to be an extended flaw to the left of the V - yet people still persist in calling it an inv. A for V error. Again we have an infinitely variable error. All these errors do more to satisfy the individual, than to act as a rigorous categorisation of variety. Both categories are a function of die use and should be recognised as such. I include the silly random dots in legend in this category, such as the Irish sounding O'NE PENNY, or the 1946 flaw. They have a place in a die study, but inflated prices for general wear and tear features is unwarranted.

[declanwmagee 122]

What Rob said ....

[Gary D 76]

Thanks for comments, guys. If it's just about the die broking or its progressing wear, I wonder why it's considered as a variety.

Anyways, Gothic design is such sexy one, even quite worn specimens look appealing

Very good question! Some get included, some don't. It's all down to who compiles the literature. This one has been in all the books for years, so it's widely recognised as a variety, when strictly speaking, it ain't.

What makes die fill NOT a variety, when a die flaw is?

A die fill is where a cavity in the die becomes filled with material so that for instance a part of the legend disappears. A die flaw is where the die becomes damaged i.e. a hole giving a dot or an extended legend

[Peckris 579]

Thanks for comments, guys. If it's just about the die broking or its progressing wear, I wonder why it's considered as a variety.

Anyways, Gothic design is such sexy one, even quite worn specimens look appealing

Very good question! Some get included, some don't. It's all down to who compiles the literature. This one has been in all the books for years, so it's widely recognised as a variety, when strictly speaking, it ain't.

What makes die fill NOT a variety, when a die flaw is?

A die fill is where a cavity in the die becomes filled with material so that for instance a part of the legend disappears. A die flaw is where the die becomes damaged i.e. a hole giving a dot or an extended legend

I know what they are Gary! I just wasn't sure why one thing was classed as a variety and the other wasn't. But Rob's dealt with that in his inimitable way.