Can we get some better close-ups of the c/m? And maybe under a couple of angles of light? Measurements would also help. I can see the tell-tale break touching the first tail of the 'R' (a good sign), but I also see some characteristics of the good fakes that appeared 40-50 years ago, but these may also be the lighting / angle. It is worth noting that fakes of these have been known as early as the late 19th century, and that some have ended up in major TPG holders / sold through major auction houses.
Yes, thanks for that. I am at work and will try to get weights when I get home as well as better pictures. (Have to fix my scale a bit as well - LOL).
@7Jags I would be inclined to say that it is a genuine piece, as this mark shares several key diagnostics with Pridmore and the British Museum specimen 1905,0705.1 (I have personally handled this example, and believe it to be correct, not to mention that it was donated by Graham, who consistently seemed to know what he was doing). Particularly encouraging are the 'attached R,' the slight indent to the top right of the c/m, as well as peaks of the crown. This being said, I also believe that the c/m has undergone some tooling at some point in its life, likely to 'improve' a weak example. It is not at all uncommon to find such 'improvements' on pieces that were handled by European (especially British) dealers in the late 19th-early 20th centuries. The above are both just opinions based on your photos - without seeing it in person, I can't offer a proper professional opinion. From what I see, it is a nice coin!
Thanks very much. I think it was an "afterthought" auction purchase at very little money out. See PM.
