1934-35 Centenary Florin Proof Type 2 ?

echidna · July 24, 2016, 06:42:51 PM

Opinions please.
Does this look like a proof type 2 ?

ausproofs · July 24, 2016, 06:47:26 PM

Looks like it. What are the lines on the coin ? Die polish lines ?

echidna · July 24, 2016, 06:49:40 PM

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.

stevo1962 · July 24, 2016, 06:52:13 PM

Quote from: 'echidna' pid='93177' dateline='1469351571'

Opinions please.
Does this look like a proof type 2 ?

It does look the goods but PCGS don't recognise them any more

robbiegal · July 24, 2016, 09:59:04 PM

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

purplepennyhunter · July 29, 2016, 08:49:18 AM

The picture is not very clear. Here is one to compare.

echidna · July 29, 2016, 10:28:11 AM

Thanks PPH and everyone for the feedback.

My pic is not the best but hereit is:

Will have to get a type 1 now...

Unicorn · July 29, 2016, 04:59:58 PM

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.

So to the one horizontal to the lifted rear hoof.

serial · July 29, 2016, 05:51:07 PM

I am out ATM will post when I have a spare 20min but the coin looks good on my phone

Cockatoo Coins · August 11, 2016, 11:16:27 AM

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.

robbiegal · August 11, 2016, 11:40:30 AM

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

ausjack · August 11, 2016, 11:55:42 AM

:welcome: CC, good to see you made it here from FB :good:

markn · August 11, 2016, 11:55:54 AM

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

Welcome to the forum! Great first post.

Basil · August 11, 2016, 01:25:09 PM

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.

Cockatoo Coins · August 11, 2016, 01:58:08 PM

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.