Does anyone know what the full story with this piece is?
I've read a few different things in a few different places and some of the details are contradictory.
http://www.triton.vg/F09.html says that one uniface trial was struck and that two (presumably) uniface electrotypes were made.
http://www.australianstamp.com/coin-web/aust/florin/1909flor.htm suggests at least one example was struck with an uncrowned Edward VII, but the timeline says that it was a crowned effigy with an english title that was proposed and approved.
Australian Coins, Notes & Medals by Myatt and Hanley says that there are (or were) two one-sided electrotypes with the map of Australia on the reverse and a crowned Edward VII with an english title on the obverse.
All the images I've found show an uncrowned Edward VII with a latin title, which is what David Gee's forgery had.
Has anyone actually seen one of the electrotypes or the specimen in London?
It was only originally produced as a uniface piece, the double sided examples with the uncrowned bust of Edward VII were struck by Gee with a die produced from a 1902 two pound.
I am unfamiliar with the electrotypes with the crowned bust of Edward VII on the obverse.
If you don't mind me asking, where did you get your information?
Although as I think about it, it's strange that David Gee would only have stolen only one of the electrotypes, especially as the obverse electrotype would have made it painfully obvious his fake was a fake.
More research required, I think.
Have a look at the court docs from his prosecution, there's a wealth of info available including scans of a lot of his forgeries.
Thanks for the tip. I don't suppose there's an easy/online way to access these documents?
Okay, I had a look in The Guide Book of British Commonwealth Coins 1649 - 1971 3rd Edition and in the Australia section it mentions a 1909 pattern florin with "a different design on obverse and reverse than 1910 2 shillings". It doesn't give any details though.
If you're in Sydney try asking Mark Duff from Strand Coins, he'll probably have a copy in his library.
Hmm, I never really knew much about this type of stuff before so I have spent a bit of time learning.
I found this
Ok here is a picture â€" not the actual coin thing you are after but interesting.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6066/6136913394_60c36b96e5.jpg)
The electrotype on the left is hollow?
A shell is filled with lead, copper, tin or plaster.
Electrotypes which are left empty often get bent or otherwise damaged. Several are in that state in the British Museum collection. The basic problem with electrotypes is that for best detail the shell has to be thin; but, for durability the shell should be thick
The electrotype on the left is hollow?
A shell is filled with lead, copper, tin or plaster.
Electrotypes which are left empty often get bent or otherwise damaged. Several are in that state in the British Museum collection. The basic problem with electrotypes is that for best detail the shell has to be thin; but, for durability the shell should be thick
I have some forgery reports at home from the international authority that assessed some of the David gee dodgy coins for the trial. There's some good pics. I'll have a look when I get home in a few days.
Quote from: 'wwwww' pid='866' dateline='1348561146'If you're in Sydney try asking Mark Duff from Strand Coins, he'll probably have a copy in his library.
Yeah, I might do that next time I'm there.
Quote from: 'Australian coin' pid='870' dateline='1348564032'(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6066/6136913394_60c36b96e5.jpg)
So is the photo showing the same thing just from different sides?
Quote from: 'purplepennyhunter' pid='875' dateline='1348572338'I have some forgery reports at home from the international authority that assessed some of the David gee dodgy coins for the trial. There's some good pics. I'll have a look when I get home in a few days.
That'd be great, thanks.
The left is supposed to be the shell, the right one is just a coin.
It wouldn’t let me post before so I kept pressing post, now it has a double post, anyway I logged out and left it, ‘computer tantrumâ€
Anyway there was a site that explained what electrotypes were, also had a picture of one done really well and was plated.
http://www.coinbooks.org/club_nbs_esylum_v14n39.html
Here is some more pics www.coinbooks.org/club_nbs_esylum_v12n10.html
info:
When making an electrotype of a coin, one doesn’t want to deposit a layer of metal onto the coin itself, as that would damage the original. So what happens is that the coin is pressed into clay or some other soft material that will faithfully capture each detail of the coin’s design. The clay is then dusted with a conductive medium (graphite powder, for instance), and a thin layer of metal is deposited through electroplating. This results in the formation of a thin metal shell that retains the fine detail of the coin on its surface. Each side of a coin must be electrotyped separately. The two resulting shells must then be joined together and the interior of the shells filled with another metal (lead is often used). The final product, if made by a skilled electrotyper, is a copy of a coin that looks extremely accurate. By the second half of the nineteenth century, the technology of electrotyping had been developed to the point where a skilled person could make electrotypes of valuable coins without damaging them and in such a way as to faithfully replicate each nuance of the original.
Was this a 1909 florin in this lot
http://www.noble.com.au/auctions/lot/?id=285590
Thanks to purplepenny for providing a bit more information.
That information backs up the timeline here (http://www.australianstamp.com/coin-web/aust/florin/1909flor.htm). It also says that the Royal Mint has a matrix, punch and die for the reverse and an electrotype prepared from these tools (so the electrotype is presumably just of the reverse), which is consistent with what's written here (http://triton.vg/F09.html).
However, the information from The Guide Book of British Commonwealth Coins 1649 - 1971 seems to have been published before November 1972 when the fake 1909 florin came to light, and Myatt and Hanley definitely mention an obverse electrotype too.
It could be that a uniface pattern was prepared and the obverse electrotype which is/was at the Powerhouse Museum was prepared separately from an existing Edward VII die. I don't know where the information for The Guide Book of British Commonwealth Coins 1649 - 1971 came from, but the Australian section appears to have been prepared by Australians, so it's not a stretch to say they got some of their information from a local museum.
Quote from: 'Australian coin' pid='878' dateline='1348575480'Was this a 1909 florin in this lot
http://www.noble.com.au/auctions/lot/?id=285590
That's turned up in my searches a couple of times. I guess it's just a fake (purplepenny's information says that fake uniface examples exist too).
Have you seen this product
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/The-1909-1910-Australian-Florin-centenary-collection-/251140529643?pt=AU_Coins2&hash=item3a79245deb
Not with the two real-sized florins.
I wonder what the 1909 obverse is.
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/1909-1910-Australian-Florin-Centenery-Collection-Silver-Proofs-LIMITED-EDITION-/120990916361?pt=AU_Coins2&hash=item1c2b9edf09
Cook Island? Wonder which mint made them?
PM has an old page, but no price
http://www.perthmint.com.au/historical-coin-collection-coins.aspx
Anyone happen to have a copy of the September 1964 issue of Australian Coin Review handy? Apparently there is an article about some Australian pattern pieces including the 1909 florin.
Also some info in May 1984 -one of the ACR's in the pile with your name on it.
Thanks for the heads-up.
The Sep 1964 article (sorry it's my only copy -pretty holy at that!) is titled "Yes! they do exist" and pictures (along with others) presumably 2 coins, an obverse 1909 pattern florin uniface and reverse uniface. It discusses that catalogues can be wrong and seeing is believing but doesn't actually mention anything about this piece. It does say though that "the coins shown here do in fact exist". No author named.
Thanks for checking it out. What is on the obverse?
Edward VII
Crowned or uncrowned? And are the titles English or Latin?
Crowned effigy. Legends read "EDWARD II KING & EMPEROR"
Ah, thanks very much. That's what I was looking for.
I guess Mr Gee should have done his homework then.
It seems I missed a V in Edward VII. That will be the fifth time I've got the mag back out today!!
Whoops. I didn't even notice.
Thanks again though.
Did you read ACR Apr 1976 Vol 10 No. 12 page 1 "Top-Price Australian Coin Worthless -claim goes to court" By Terry Ingram.
More on the David Gee 1909 florin sold to Adler.
I think I missed that one. Thanks again, I'll take a look.
Late update - the Royal Mint have posted a nice colour image of the reverse: https://twitter.com/RoyalMintMuseum/status/968455856709881857
That image shows the coin is better looking than I had supposed having only seen photographs.
Pity about the balance of the image with the awkward date positioning.
He could have lopped off Tasmania and squared the continent up thus leaving a nice spot for the date central.
Just imagine the screaming!
The image of Australia is very literal and sprinkled with islands and somehow I like it.
Fred.
Is that a great whopping finger print on the bottom half it?
If it is, not much care taken back then.
The thought did pass my mind that it may be David Gee's fingerprint, but NO I should NOT start off myths!!!!!!!!!
I just deleted the next para I just wrote that you wont see, as I don't like litigation......................
Suffice to say I wonder if the image is one of the original master types or a "later pressing"?
Not knowing much about the type I would not know the difference.
Anybody know?
Fred.
It's an image from the Royal Mint Museum so I assume David Gee never got his hands on this one (I don't recall all the details but I don't think he visited England) and I would also assume this is a genuine electrotype (no edge milling evident; also I don't remember if there was more than one electrotype produced).
Quote from: 'Nevol' pid='114318' dateline='1519942151'Is that a great whopping finger print on the bottom half it?
If it is, not much care taken back then.
That isn't a fingerprint but a representation of waves in the Great Southern Bight, :to_pick_ones_nose_eat: Amazing the number of proof coins and other rarities in museum collections with similar stupid custodians not taking care and mistreating the items.
And a picture of the obverse: https://twitter.com/RoyalMintMuseum/status/970642859341774848
Very nice.
Nice pictures MT.
I did a quick re-read of the best independent reference about the 1909 Florin.
Reference "Heads I win" (Watson,Thomas,Bennet).
Pages 71-86 chapter 'the die king'
Pages 108-110 re the London mint.
The indications from the London Mint is there were 2 electrotypes made, one for the RAM Canberra, one for the Museum Applied Arts and Sciences. (David Gee applied for a 3rd electrotype representing himself as a Museum, but was refused!)
How the actual Gee double sided coin (or coins) was made is covered in the 'die king' chapter.
Suffice to say ignorance and greed by so called experts in the coin business and downright criminal activities by high up people in the government, as outlined in the book and subsequent jury trials allowed all this to happen.
By my counting there were:
3 x electrotypes, 1 at the RAM, 1 at the museum and 1 created by Gee since he could not obtain one from the London Mint.
1 x uniface striking from a ?die? at the London mint.
At least 1 striking by Gee, the Adler coin, with concocted reverse and obverse dies.
Possibly more strikings but unknown, as in the prosecution it was only necessary to discuss the Adler coin.
So somewhere in the world there should still exist the 3 electrotypes, the one uniface trial strike and the Adler coin.
I presumed MrT's images from the London Mint is of the 1 electrotype but hang on this should be uniface?
So i'm a bit unsure as to what item that really is.
Fred.
Surely the Royal Mint would have hung onto one for themselves? Were the electrotypes for the RAM and the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences copied from an original?
I think the book says that no coins were struck so their images must be of an electrotype.
Looking at the images the surface has a slight roughness which makes me think it's not a die-struck coin (if it was surely it would be of higher quality).
Had a quick look at the book again, page 75 mentions the two electrotypes made, one for the Aussie RAM and one for the Arts museum so the intention was that Australia only got electrotypes to look at and for posterity. The design was scrapped and ordinary florins with the reverse COA minted for 1910. There is no information on what order the electrotypes were made in just the fact that they existed. Also the "DIES" and a UNIFACE trial piece were lodged in the British museum and that should have been that with the 1909 'map of Australia' .
That's pretty much what everybody has said in this thread.
Then Mr Gee got into the act and by magic swapped his cruder concocted electrotype with the good electrotype from the Arts Museum. That means that for a time the Gee electrotype was in the Museum collection and the Museum electrotype was in Gee's pocket. That gave him a good enough model to produce a coin. How he did it was explained well enough for the purposes of the trial in the book but left a can of worms open when you think about it. He certainly produced the Adler coin that was handled by so many experts and declared genuine.
I would expect the Gee electrotype would be in the trial exhibits in a cupboard somewhere and the Museum electrotype back in the collection.
Thinking about the images in this thread, they would be just what MrT says, photos of the British Museum electrotype displaying both sides. Only the 1 coin trial piece struck from the dies was uniface, a common practice.
Fred.
Yeah I had a quick skim through Heads I Win and now I'm not so sure.
So the British Museum has a uniface strike of what must be the reverse. This would have been supplied by the Royal Mint.
Two electrotypes were sent to Australia and were made from the uniface strike - not exactly sure what they look like.
The book suggests that no coins were struck and I've read that elsewhere but the book doesn't seem to detail what the Royal Mint themselves actually had - judging from the photos the Royal Mint Museum posted a single example or two uniface examples may have actually been struck.
Also, more confusingly in general, in one of the 1964 Australian Coin Reviews similar images were posted (reverse and crowned obverse - source unstated and unknown) and yet in the early 1970s everyone had forgotten and believed that an uncrowned portrait was used.
The IAG auction has some David Gee counterfeits.
Auction Cat (https://issuu.com/iagauctions/docs/iag_s87_cat) Page 67
Hm, lot 638 seems surprisingly low quality.
Also, unrelated but there's a polymer test note in there (lot 403) that I hadn't seen before - GW 11 539 260 with Charles Darwin.
And, the Royal Mint Museum have said in that thread that it is a pattern coin.
So the statement that none were struck is incorrect.
Quote from: 'fred lever' pid='114368' dateline='1520374889'Nice pictures MT.
I did a quick re-read of the best independent reference about the 1909 Florin.
Reference "Heads I win" (Watson,Thomas,Bennet).
Pages 71-86 chapter 'the die king'
Pages 108-110 re the London mint.
The indications from the London Mint is there were 2 electrotypes made, one for the RAM Canberra, one for the Museum Applied Arts and Sciences. (David Gee applied for a 3rd electrotype representing himself as a Museum, but was refused!)
How the actual Gee double sided coin (or coins) was made is covered in the 'die king' chapter.
Suffice to say ignorance and greed by so called experts in the coin business and downright criminal activities by high up people in the government, as outlined in the book and subsequent jury trials allowed all this to happen.
By my counting there were:
3 x electrotypes, 1 at the RAM, 1 at the museum and 1 created by Gee since he could not obtain one from the London Mint.
1 x uniface striking from a ?die? at the London mint.
At least 1 striking by Gee, the Adler coin, with concocted reverse and obverse dies.
Possibly more strikings but unknown, as in the prosecution it was only necessary to discuss the Adler coin.
So somewhere in the world there should still exist the 3 electrotypes, the one uniface trial strike and the Adler coin.
I presumed MrT's images from the London Mint is of the 1 electrotype but hang on this should be uniface?
So i'm a bit unsure as to what item that really is.
Fred.
The Book, which does contain errors, is not a catalogue or an encyclopedia, claims on page 74 that
Gee had two of them. On one the map of Australia was merely an outline; on the other mountains were shown in relief. I own that copper florin listed in the IAG catalogue, picked it up as part of a 3 coin 1909 florin set. Two silver (one of them piedfort) and the copper. The copper is not a great copy and according to the following site Gee reworked his original die as it wasn't very good. The copper seems to be from that unacceptable die. The obverse is rather ordinary as well. The two silvers have the same ordinary obverse (crowned King) but the reverse is a point for point match with the alleged Gee uniface which can be found here https://www.coincommunity.com/go/link.asp?target=http://cpmarchives.classiccmp.org/cpm/mirrors/www.triton.vg/F09.html
(https://www.coincommunity.com/go/link.asp?target=http://cpmarchives.classiccmp.org/cpm/mirrors/www.triton.vg/F09.html)
The book talks about two examples both with uncrowned King but the florins i picked up seem to be early Gee efforts. Not of the quality of his Adler coin.
[attachment=4062]
Not all Gee's are his best work.
:welcome:
To the Oz. Forum,i follow your Threads on CC with interest.