Just had a look at this coin, it doesn't look right to me.
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Australia-Melbourne-Centenary-Florin-1934-35-Silver-Coin-RARE-aUNC-Lustrous-/291163297112?pt=AU_Coins2&hash=item43caaf5558
Quote from: 'trout' pid='51702' dateline='1402204309'Just had a look at this coin, it doesn't look right to me.
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Australia-Melbourne-Centenary-Florin-1934-35-Silver-Coin-RARE-aUNC-Lustrous-/291163297112?pt=AU_Coins2&hash=item43caaf5558
Looks OK to me
Looks like it might have been polished
I don't see the die markers but the pic is ordinary
Must be the pic., he looks like he is skin and bone.!! :dodgy:
The coin just looks "odd" , in front of the Kings ear and the hair look like they have been "Tooled"
The reverse looks crude especially the rider's torso and face.
Comparison pics
Obverse
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10019/34_35_florin3~0.jpg)
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10019/ebay1.jpg)
Reverse
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10019/34_35_florin2~0.jpg)
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10019/ebay.jpg)
Quote from: 'Robster' pid='51707' dateline='1402206107'Must be the pic., he looks like he is skin and bone.!! :dodgy:
Skin and bone, he must work with me :blush: OK back to topic. Everything about the coin looks super defined when compared to the other one trout put up. May be just a very early strike, the wreath looks pretty well struck, the Kings whiskers are super prominent, and the rider just needs a good feed and a week in hospital. :angel: I do remember reading about fakes where the horses hooves are embedded into the bar, but these are certainly on top. That's it for me, not much help.
look at the rib cage & the right arm.
Don't look right to me.
Quote from: 'interest' pid='51734' dateline='1402217927'look at the rib cage & the right arm.
Don't look right to me.
Thank the gods someone agrees with me, the entire coin looks wrong.
Technically its all there but nothing like what was produced at the Mint.
The grainy and chiselled nature of this coin hit ALL my warning buttons as soon as I saw it.
I am NOT a great fan of this design but I am bloody sure that Kruger Grey wouldn't let something as crude as this escape the mint :ok:
uglyy
The obverse looks like the flat rimmed proof die, but that rib cage on the reverse is funny lookin.
Quote from: 'accumulator' pid='51737' dateline='1402219650'The obverse looks like the flat rimmed proof die, but that rib cage on the reverse is funny lookin.
do the dots on the leopard skin look weird to you or is it just me?
lol, everything is skeletonized, no they do not look right to me.
NO input from Eric , Walter, Andrew, Mark or Emu as of yet, Maybe they are just sitting on the fence and seeing if we "Plebs" can work this out for ourselves :angel:
NO worries I am certain that we can work it out amongst ourselves without the "Hierarchy" getting involved :diablo::)
Check the centre diamond on the King's crown.It looks to
be a different shape.Most likely a fake and I wouldn't take
a chance on it
It looks like one from the batch of fakes a couple of years ago but with a different rider,telltale is the rod thing on the shoulder of the Kings robes,on the genuine ones it touches the rim,on that coin and other fakes its just short. Sorry for bad explanation but i don't have my notes with me.
thought tip of nose should be sharper, but hand over horse looks good, fakes usually just blend in with the horses body with no defined fingers, cant really tell if back of cloak goes all the way to rim which it should, wreath of back of head looks sus, still ugly.
to me its a dud ..
the rider is emaciated (!) over defined
the long ding mark that starts at rim thru 'r' ,flame, arm, horses mane and shoulder -- where is the missing metal , no flat spots ?? as if it was missing from die
only in the hand i might , just might be able tell from toning etc if its a dud..
'jnr pleb'
Quote from: 'Basil' pid='51747' dateline='1402223292'It looks like one from the batch of fakes a couple of years ago but with a different rider,telltale is the rod thing on the shoulder of the Kings robes,on the genuine ones it touches the rim,on that coin and other fakes its just short. Sorry for bad explanation but i don't have my notes with me.
NONE of the Kings robes make it to the rim on those fakes, well pointed out and remembered well done Mate :good:
It is fantastic to see you mob putting your thinking caps on and sussing this out.
At the end of the day it may be worthy of adding to ACF's "Wikki" to help other collectors to be aware of the fakes with this particular coin :good:
looks ok to me , the use of lighting and the resizing/angle of the photo has distorted the photo , there is 2 deep cuts on the chest which makes the rider look like he has a rib cage lol, i was just wondering if it was a impaired proof or specimen the cut is right where the nipple might be i gave up looking
Quotelooks ok to me , the use of lighting and the resizing/angle of the photo has distorted the photo ,
Are you serious Belly?
The reason that the reeding stopped at the Kings robe on a genuine coin was because they stopped at the edge of the coin to enhance the design.
The makers of the fakes tend NOT to realise this at the moment and it is a significant marker of a fake coin :ok:
This coin is different to the earlier "Copies" because the riders details are different once again, Notice where the rider "Joins" the horse , the right arm is disjointed and the left arm has a flat bicep.
lighting and resizing WONT change the design characteristics of a coin IMHO
No star on the badge which makes it obvious
Quote from: 'stevo1962' pid='51775' dateline='1402232122'No star on the badge which makes it obvious
Well done mate , I was waiting for that :good:
The more you look at it the more laughable it becomes that is one bad copy.
Just look at his ear, there is a star kind of thing around his neck, man
I think it's funny.
Hope nobody bids on that.
Quote from: 'trout' pid='51774' dateline='1402231709'Quotelooks ok to me , the use of lighting and the resizing/angle of the photo has distorted the photo ,
Are you serious Belly?
The reason that the reeding stopped at the Kings robe on a genuine coin was because they stopped at the edge of the coin to enhance the design.
The makers of the fakes tend NOT to realise this at the moment and it is a significant marker of a fake coin :ok:
This coin is different to the earlier "Copies" because the riders details are different once again, Notice where the rider "Joins" the horse , the right arm is disjointed and the left arm has a flat bicep.
lighting and resizing WONT change the design characteristics of a coin IMHO
yes i am serious trout it looks fine to me
markers for genuine 34/35
the flame touches the nose of rider
the curled ribbon behind riders head is there
the script/legend looks flat and square
there's heaps of detail on the rider's wreath
the spacing between the letters in melbourne is right
the rider has a nice detailed hand
the nose is nice and sharp on the George
the right hand side of robe does meet the rim hard to see because of toning but it does and has a split .
going by the sellers description the weight of coin is right 11.314g
diameter is nilly right 28 mm should be 28.5 but close enough.
the ear looks ok and the star looks like it is missing ,tho if you angle any coins details do go missing when you do photo.
:rolleyes:
Quoteyes i am serious trout it looks fine to me
markers for genuine 34/35
the flame touches the nose of rider
the curled ribbon behind riders head is there
the script/legend looks flat and square
there's heaps of detail on the rider's wreath
the spacing between the letters in melbourne is right
the rider has a nice detailed hand
the nose is nice and sharp on the George
the right hand side of robe does meet the rim hard to see because of toning but it does and has a split .
going by the sellers description the weight of coin is right 11.314g
diameter is nilly right 28 mm should be 28.5 but close enough.
I agree that everything is where it should be but it isn't the same quality as a genuine coin.
Have a look at where the riders body meets the horse and the way the "Ear" has been carved at the front of it.
It makes me think that a genuine coin was used as a mold to make a die then reworked to produce this coin.
The entire coin has a "Chiselled " look about it and not the beautifully carved design produced by the Mint.
The design on the Kings robe looks all wrong and the back of the robe is truncated and doesn't reach the rim as it should.
Have a look at the rider's arms and torso, they are almost cartoon like.
At a glance the coin looks OK , but on careful inspection there are far too many differences to make this coin "Kosher"
It looks authentic to me too, something's been done to it though. It's been harshly polished and it looks like it's been treated with heat as well, possible due to jewelry use.
Well if Belly and Walter are both saying yay I know where I am but it does look funny and I don't know how to tell fakes yet sorry
even the professionals don't always spot them AJ
so don't worry
Have another look at the end of the horses tail. It is not feathered as it should be.
me thinks a fake and should be well left alone but then again I am an amateur at these things.
yeah well I don't feel so bad if APCGS can grade a fake :blush2:
There is quite a few large gouges on the reverse that makes it look really different,also through where the star would be on the obverse which all but obliterated the star.
I still say the obverse is from a proof die,fake or not.
Well,one of them is a fake,...
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10136/Ashampoo_Snap_2014_06_09_13h35m29s_002__34_35_arrors.jpg)
the one on the left is a long detical type right :) But thanks heaps for the nice clear pic's Basil and the arrows really highlight the points of reference alright :good:
QuoteWell,one of them is a fake,...
Maybe my coin is the dodgy one :dash1:
well if it's not a fake
it looks gawd awful
but the opinions are gathering a strong argument for the fake camp
Quote from: 'robbiegal' pid='51861' dateline='1402300945'well if it's not a fake
it looks gawd awful
but the opinions are gathering a strong argument for the fake camp
Walters assessment has merit.
I could have been mounted and "Tooled" by a jeweller but I doubt that a jeweller would be this rough and destroy the coin in this fashion.
It looks like EVERY part of the design (Not the lettering) has been tooled in some manner :ok:
either way there is no way in the world I would buy this coin.
usually once they have been mounted the value depreciates by about 5,000% of non-mounted value
and jeweller's copies re quite common for the older coins esp the sovvies
found this interesting
http://www.drakesterling.com/CustomPageFiles-2/Proof_Centenary_Florin.pdf
Quote from: 'ausjack' pid='51880' dateline='1402305702'found this interesting
http://www.drakesterling.com/CustomPageFiles-2/Proof_Centenary_Florin.pdf
That is a good piece of information Mate :good:
Right T O , after studying that link & the coin in question, i'm changing my thoughts about it being a proof obverse ( although the proof type 1 & the specimen dies have a lot of the same characteristics ) & i'm with Belly, i now believe it is a impaired specimen.
& Trout your coin is definitely not a fake, it's just a business strike & it has'nt got all the gouges & so on.
ok
mystery solved
done .. good
It has been very interesting & a great link there AJ
my long week-end ends tonight ... back to work tomorrow
boring
Quote from: 'accumulator' pid='51884' dateline='1402309782'Right T O , after studying that link & the coin in question, i'm changing my thoughts about it being a proof obverse ( although the proof type 1 & the specimen dies have a lot of the same characteristics ) & i'm with Belly, i now believe it is a impaired specimen.
& Trout your coin is definitely not a fake, it's just a business strike & it has'nt got all the gouges & so on.
The proofs have lightly frosted high points and are extremely rare. I've only ever seen one of them and that was last century.
It's been an interesting discussion. I'd prefer to see the coin in discussion in hand. My suspicion is that it has been tooled but it may very well be a fake as well as the area around the exergue on the reverse looks uneven and Centenaries are well known for their flat fields.
Quote from: 'trout' pid='51871' dateline='1402302331'either way there is no way in the world I would buy this coin.
We are probably all in agreement.
QuoteThe proofs have lightly frosted high points and are extremely rare. I've only ever seen one of them and that was last century.
QuoteWould you like to see one ?
Yes would love to.
There's something wrong here,i don't have my notes with me so in the dark but i think one of the known fakes had the L in Melb. slightly misaligned and a straight back instead of a slight curve(or vv).Others here will know more but its hard to believe their just different dies or strikes but happy to be corrected.I haven't owned a 34/35 for 20 years as its a coin,like the 1923 half,that i was always told to avoid buying.
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10136/34_35_Reverse_arrow.jpg)
Quote from: 'emu666' pid='52035' dateline='1402436694'Yes would love to.
Type 1 with the 3 incused lathe lines above Centenary.
(http://i389.photobucket.com/albums/oo339/appeangel07_photos/29-9-08/new%20coin%20album/029_zps02b8a273.jpg)
(http://i389.photobucket.com/albums/oo339/appeangel07_photos/29-9-08/new%20coin%20album/030_zpsb0d97b09.jpg)
or Type 2 with the 2 incused lathe lines above Centenary.
(http://i389.photobucket.com/albums/oo339/appeangel07_photos/29-9-08/new%20coin%20album/041_zpsc32e55a1.jpg)
(http://i389.photobucket.com/albums/oo339/appeangel07_photos/29-9-08/new%20coin%20album/045_zps303c1ceb.jpg)
Those are nice coins but they are not what I was referring to.
The proofs have frosted high points which are quite obvious. I've only ever seen the one. From what I recall I was told there were about a dozen or so minted.
Proofs die or Specimen Peter ?
Quote from: 'accumulator' pid='52076' dateline='1402457196'Proofs die or Specimen Peter ?
Proofs.
I have serious concerns regarding the existence of "specimens".
The Type I & II "proof" coins were struck by the Melbourne mint and sold by H.G. Williams. He didn't consider them proof strikes and nor did the Melbourne mint. While they had proof-like qualities, they went through the bagging process so neither are proof nor specimen strikes. Further orders were rejected by H.G. Williams due to their inferior quality indicating that some may have been sold through the public programs or melted.
A specimen strike was struck by the Royal mint London and another from the same dies at Melbourne, both these examples were retained by the Melbourne mint. Some business strikes share die markers with this specimen, these are often called specimens but not a single example has any provenance proving them to be specimen strikes. It is more likely that the die was used for business strikes too.
The proof strikes were struck as proof of record strikes by the Melbourne mint. I doubt there are more than 5 or 6 in private hands.
So how many of these flat rimmed coins are out there ?, i've been watching ebay for them for close to 10 years & i've only seen 4,3 of which are now in my collection,the other one was very circulated so i did'nt bother with it.
If I recall correctly H.G. Williams purchased 50 of them from the Melbourne mint so that's the minimum quantity. As noted earlier it's likely that the mint produced more.
Um, er, "lathe lines". What and were please?