Does this look right ?

[ausjack]

yeah well I don't feel so bad if APCGS can grade a fake :blush2:

[accumulator]

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.

[Basil]

Well,one of them is a fake,...

[ausjack]

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:

[trout]

Well,one of them is a fake,...

Maybe my coin is the dodgy one :dash1:

[robbiegal]

well if it's not a fake
it looks gawd awful

but the opinions are gathering a strong argument for the fake camp

[trout]

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.

[robbiegal]

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

[ausjack]

found this interesting
http://www.drakesterling.com/CustomPageFiles-2/Proof_Centenary_Florin.pdf

[trout]

found this interesting
http://www.drakesterling.com/CustomPageFiles-2/Proof_Centenary_Florin.pdf

That is a good piece of information Mate :good:

[accumulator]

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.

[robbiegal]

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

[emu666]

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.

either way there is no way in the world I would buy this coin.

We are probably all in agreement.

[accumulator]

The proofs have lightly frosted high points and are extremely rare. I've only ever seen one of them and that was last century.

Would you like to see one ?

[emu666]

Yes would love to.