There is one pictured on the cover of the latest Coin and Banknote Magazine, but is anyone else suspicious. To me it looks like a scratch that is to the left of where the nipple should be.
https://d1htnxwo4o0jhw.cloudfront.net/pcgs/cert/41776335/212595929.jpg (https://d1htnxwo4o0jhw.cloudfront.net/pcgs/cert/41776335/212595929.jpg)
I think I can see the specimen die markers.
It looks like a well-struck coin but compared to https://collections.museumsvictoria.com.au/items/55860 the nipple seems different.
Yes it is different.
I believe that there are two different versions of the nipple on the specimen.
Interesting - are there different die markers for the two?
There was a thread on the other forum that had some excellent pics.
It looks like there is a "big thick" nipple and a "pointy" nipple version.
This is for the specimens.
Die markers are otherwise exactly the same.
Also I've seen a "vestige nipple" version on a few non specimen examples.
The MC florin is a fascinating coin.
Along with Mathew Eddison i wrote a paper on the events surrounding the coin with a background to the how and why it ever existed.
CAB printed the paper in the July 2017 issue.
It is a story of determined people getting the job done and bulldozing red tape and naysayers aside.
The coins were minted in one go, seemingly outside of normal minting hours and with a London approved design but with unfinished sets of dies.
The paper we wrote has about 50 document references linked to the story of the minting and then dives into trying to categorise the "varieties".
I made the mistake of calling the coin a "commorative medal" (which it is) Klause set me right quick smart!
I also fell afoul of some people calling their medals.......oooppps.....coins, as "proofs".
I think the intention was to strike proof state coins with frosted fields and all that.
I feel that time constraints put an end to that, the minting was over and done with in several days and the Mint got back to doing paying production jobs, not favours.
Some really sharp pressings were called "specimens" and used for London specimens and posterity.
Then the minting went into using every die pair available, proof frosted, plain, whatever, just to finish the job off.
They never finished the rim die design, hence all the weird rims you see.
An endless fascinating m.....l, um, coin to investigate!
There is always speculation about the "nipple", I cannot quite remember if the original London tooling featured it but it certainly got lost in successive hub pressings at Melbourne.
Probably another tiny detail that just got lost in the panic to get the dies to work properly in the midst of actually pressing the coins out.
Need to re-read the papers and references to be sure on that point!
Fred.
Quote from: 'echidna' pid='124964' dateline='1622885206'There was a thread on the other forum that had some excellent pics.
It looks like there is a "big thick" nipple and a "pointy" nipple version.
This is for the specimens.
Die markers are otherwise exactly the same.
Also I've seen a "vestige nipple" version on a few non specimen examples.
What are the die markers to look for?
Actually looking at https://collections.museumsvictoria.com.au/items/55697 the nipple is completely different again.
Quote from: 'Mister T' pid='124966' dateline='1622952271'Quote from: 'echidna' pid='124964' dateline='1622885206'There was a thread on the other forum that had some excellent pics.
It looks like there is a "big thick" nipple and a "pointy" nipple version.
This is for the specimens.
Die markers are otherwise exactly the same.
Also I've seen a "vestige nipple" version on a few non specimen examples.
What are the die markers to look for?
Actually looking at https://collections.museumsvictoria.com.au/items/55697 the nipple is completely different again.
This seems to cover it:
https://www.drakesterling.com/pub/media/custompages/Proof_Centenary_Florin.pdf
The paper by Vincent Verhayen printed in CAB Aug 2007 is an excellent view of coin and history and a great read.
I used this as part of my research and referred to it half a dozen times in my text.
There was also a JNNA article on the MC I think by prof Walter Bloom, Buy i cannot put my finger on it.
Both authors regard the coin as a regular minting and give the impression that the coin followed the normal progression of design and manufacture.
That is, dies prepared and finalised, Proof and specimen issues carefully struck to London approval and then production of circulating coinage with finalised tooling.
This gives rise to the myth that "proof" issues exist. In fact the design and production was a mad scramble to GET THINGS DONE and a bloody miracle!
The MC was produced as a "pain in the ass" job for the factory getting in the way of normal production and was disposed of as quick as possible.
It was almost a "foreign order" minting called a "special coinage of florins" and does appear in the mint statistics as a "34/35 commemorative of 54,000".
Thats simply because the use of that much silver had to be accounted and paid for.
For a very pragmatic, realist and non commercial view I recommend a read of David Briggs research on the MC in his Silver series.
Neither myself or David have an axe to grind in viewing the coin (we dont have any to sell!) and simply report the facts as they exist in the trove of official documentation.
A great case of Premiers and Governors getting their way and getting the job done, or else.
Fred.
Quote from: 'echidna' pid='124957' dateline='1622856750'https://d1htnxwo4o0jhw.cloudfront.net/pcgs/cert/41776335/212595929.jpg (https://d1htnxwo4o0jhw.cloudfront.net/pcgs/cert/41776335/212595929.jpg)
I think I can see the specimen die markers.
The article says that specimens should have a bevelled rim with split denticles above the second N in CENTENARY - this one looks like it has a flat rim so according to the article is a proof-like I think.
Maybe the denticles are slightly split but the rim looks flat anyway.
Sorry, wrong spot.
The Verheyen articles were good but there is more to the story.
Needs more research.
It certainly has the vertical line running from the "elbow" of the raised front leg. I think that would make it the specimen die, which was returned to service for business strikes as Die A. Mine has the same line and the cracks from the rosette on the obverse.