(http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc462/joseywales10/cent900_zpsgeexclrw.jpg)
Opinions please.
Does this look like a proof type 2 ?
Looks like it. What are the lines on the coin ? Die polish lines ?
Quote from: 'ausproofs' pid='93178' dateline='1469351846'Looks like it. What are the lines on the coin ? Die polish lines ?
I hope they are die polish.
Pics are seller's.
Quote from: 'echidna' pid='93177' dateline='1469351571'(http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc462/joseywales10/cent900_zpsgeexclrw.jpg)
Opinions please.
Does this look like a proof type 2 ?
It does look the goods but PCGS don't recognise them any more
Serial has a couple and did quite a bit of research on them and got help from forum members here. All in all he had a good outcome with pcgs
The picture is not very clear. Here is one to compare.
(http://www.thepurplepenny.com/files/australia-1934-35-melbourne-centenary-florin-2s-with-proof-type-ii-die-markers.jpg)
Thanks PPH and everyone for the feedback.
My pic is not the best but hereit is:
(http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc462/joseywales10/fhgfgf_zpsjq0rreb9.jpg)
Will have to get a type 1 now...
Had a quick look and the die polish lines on both PPH's and Echi's pics (the slanted Y shaped ones near the N and the three near the horse's leg) and they seem to match. Here's a pic.
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/11067/cent_p.jpg)
So to the one horizontal to the lifted rear hoof.
I am out ATM will post when I have a spare 20min but the coin looks good on my phone
Its a unique die pairing yes, but where did the idea they are proof come from? I have read some articles where particular die pairings are described as proof but trawling through the Melbourne mint records they were specifically stated to have never been produced. I own a couple from this die pairing but would never advertise them as true proofs.
as far as I know the early 'proofs' were the first specimen strikes off the new dies
so the term proof has a lot of numismatic academic discourse
:welcome: CC, good to see you made it here from FB :good:
Quote from: 'Cockatoo Coins' pid='94170' dateline='1470879987'Its a unique die pairing yes, but where did the idea they are proof come from? I have read some articles where particular die pairings are described as proof but trawling through the Melbourne mint records they were specifically stated to have never been produced. I own a couple from this die pairing but would never advertise them as true proofs.
Be careful asking questions like that, there's some well known Australian numismatists who are rather touchy on the subject :D
Welcome to the forum! Great first post.
Quote from: 'Cockatoo Coins' pid='94170' dateline='1470879987'Its a unique die pairing yes, but where did the idea they are proof come from? I have read some articles where particular die pairings are described as proof but trawling through the Melbourne mint records they were specifically stated to have never been produced. I own a couple from this die pairing but would never advertise them as true proofs.
:welcome:
Yeah,but you have to be careful with Mint records as they were well cleansed before being officially published,errors became fact and truth and criminality became buried in certain cases.
This is true, I never trust them completely. I'll see if I can dig up the article I found a while back where someone who worked with the program was asked specifically about the varieties.
I must admit I got excited when I first found modern articles on these and looking in my collection to find an example was amazing, the more I researched though the more I found the information on them was sourced from single modern sources not historical. PCGS no doubt when they reviewed the coins status earlier this year wasn't convinced either.
Quote from: 'robbiegal' pid='94173' dateline='1470881430'as far as I know the early 'proofs' were the first specimen strikes off the new dies
so the term proof has a lot of numismatic academic discourse
Hmmmm
Pretty much like calling all the Canberra Florin 3 steppers "Proofs" ay ??:)
Quote from: 'Cockatoo Coins' pid='94188' dateline='1470889688'This is true, I never trust them completely. I'll see if I can dig up the article I found a while back where someone who worked with the program was asked specifically about the varieties.
I must admit I got excited when I first found modern articles on these and looking in my collection to find an example was amazing, the more I researched though the more I found the information on them was sourced from single modern sources not historical. PCGS no doubt when they reviewed the coins status earlier this year wasn't convinced either.
There was an article in a 2009 Coin and Banknote magazine about it I think and the source a draft letter from the mint master (I think).
I am thinking that much of the information we have concerning the Pre decimal issues has a fair bit of Myth and legend mixed up in it due to the secrecy that still to this day surrounds this mystical place we call The Royal Australian Mint :angel:
Quote from: 'trout' pid='94236' dateline='1470908649'I am thinking that much of the information we have concerning the Pre decimal issues has a fair bit of Myth and legend mixed up in it due to the secrecy that still to this day surrounds this mystical place we call The Royal Australian Mint :angel:
Canberra didn't strike the pre decimals. but according to Mullett Canberra did get a number of records from Melbourne (Mullett stated that he looked at the Die Record books before they went to Canberra). Based on that I contacted Canberra a while back and they replied that they had no records. So what happened to them?
As for actual specimen coins I do know that the museum in Victoria got a bunch back in the 1970s, only problem is the written info that came with them in at least a few cases was either non existent or was destroyed by the museum and new (false) information attached. That is what I found for the 1946 florins when I inquired about their specimens so it might also apply to any/all the hundreds of specimen coins they have.
I think that the "Intrigue" that surrounds many of our pre decimal coins is one of the things that make them Soooo interesting.
It is so hard to get hard cold facts, So numismatists have to try and deduct what has occurred using reasoning and whatever truths they can garner using whatever means available to them.
The trouble is that different numismatists have differing opinions as a result of their studies of various coins.
Even recently with the incused millennium 50c Nothing is written in stone and everything we consider as fact regarding this particular coin is in reality just conjecture and based on a probable scenario using educated guess work with the scant information that has been available from RAM.
Nothing Booring about this Hobby Guys :yahoo:
So true trout
Quote from: 'trout' pid='94247' dateline='1470915269'It is so hard to get hard cold facts, So numismatists have to try and deduct what has occurred using reasoning and whatever truths they can garner using whatever means available to them.
I'm not convinced there is a lack of factual information but it can be difficult to access it. I have read on Wikipedia, "This article needs citation". I often think exactly the same thing with pre-dec numismatic stuff I read online.
Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='94246' dateline='1470913825'Canberra didn't strike the pre decimals. but according to Mullett Canberra did get a number of records from Melbourne (Mullett stated that he looked at the Die Record books before they went to Canberra). Based on that I contacted Canberra a while back and they replied that they had no records. So what happened to them?
Surely Mullett was consulting the records when he wrote his stuff in the 1990s? Possibly they were transferred to somewhere that can better look after them
Quote from: 'Mister T' pid='94407' dateline='1471040121'Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='94246' dateline='1470913825'Canberra didn't strike the pre decimals. but according to Mullett Canberra did get a number of records from Melbourne (Mullett stated that he looked at the Die Record books before they went to Canberra). Based on that I contacted Canberra a while back and they replied that they had no records. So what happened to them?
Surely Mullett was consulting the records when he wrote his stuff in the 1990s? Possibly they were transferred to somewhere that can better look after them
Mullett wrote that they went to Canberra, so assuming that he is correct then either Canberra has them and is being untruthful or Canberra sent them elsewhere and they couldn't tell me where. I think Mullett wrote his notes it back in the 1970s after Melbourne closed. The Melbourne specimen coins went to Melbourne museum. I've looked online at various archives but cannot locate them. My biggest fear is that Henderson and his partner Gee took them back in the 70s.
Hm, it seems like the research was done in the 1970s, but why wait 15+ years before publishing multiple books and articles?
I think one of his books says the records were on permanent loan to the mint from the Victorian Public Records Office - possibly that's where they were returned to?
I was going to suggest that maybe David Gee stole them but I'm not sure what he would stand to gain from doing that.
Quote from: 'Mister T' pid='94498' dateline='1471087975'Hm, it seems like the research was done in the 1970s, but why wait 15+ years before publishing multiple books and articles?
I think one of his books says the records were on permanent loan to the mint from the Victorian Public Records Office - possibly that's where they were returned to?
I was going to suggest that maybe David Gee stole them but I'm not sure what he would stand to gain from doing that.
I have been online with the Public Records Office Victoria and cannot find the die account record books. As Mullett read them then they must exist.
As for Henderson and Gee.... the opportunity to create new die pairs becomes possible unless the records show it is impossible (in theory Henderson had access to Geo V and Geo VI dies as the Indian mints may have returned them in the mid 1960s when Canberra demanded the return of the dies, then Gee could have done his magic and struck mules from die pairs that the account books would prove did not exist simultaneously in Melbourne).
Possibly yes. Possibly ask the mint if they admit to ever having the records?
Other than that, who has since written something and referred to the records? Maybe John Sharples knows where they are.
And does the VPRO still think they're on permanent loan to the mint?
send me a pm with the specifics but clear and simple (for moi) Neal
and I might know someone who I can ask
Quote from: 'robbiegal' pid='94584' dateline='1471177501'send me a pm with the specifics but clear and simple (for moi) Neal
and I might know someone who I can ask
Will do in a couple of days (at work ATM)
no probs
Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='94602' dateline='1471199088'Will do in a couple of days (at work ATM)
Had any luck tracking the records down? I was reading an article by Jon Saxton in the August 2003 Australasian Coin and Banknote magazine and it suggests that he viewed the Melbourne Mint records at the Royal Australian Mint at least as late as 2000 (it's a little vague as to when exactly but it definitely says that's where the records were).
Quote from: 'Mister T' pid='101838' dateline='1479981543'Quote from: 'nealeffendi' pid='94602' dateline='1471199088'Will do in a couple of days (at work ATM)
Had any luck tracking the records down? I was reading an article by Jon Saxton in the August 2003 Australasian Coin and Banknote magazine and it suggests that he viewed the Melbourne Mint records at the Royal Australian Mint at least as late as 2000 (it's a little vague as to when exactly but it definitely says that's where the records were).
Have not had a chance (the fun of long shifts killing the freedom to spend time in research:-/).