These pictures also do not do justice and appear to show much friction/contacts to the fields, which is not the case. I will try to post more and hopefully better pictures by tomorrow. What do readers think? BTW, in my humble opinion GB 19th Century "proof" or "specimen" designations are what in Biology termed pigeon-holing terms when if fact there was not always scrupulous full attention in all phases to their production. We therefore see coins that are at times very difficult to designate and have seen many exceptions. There are then again IMO specimens that are somewhere in the middle and not clearly proof, specimen, or currency. This is compounded by coins such as the Maundy which can be struck in anything from very basic circulation-appearing strikes through satin through specimen/prooflike through what appear to be full-fledged proofs. Also jumping on the heap are very prooflike circulation strikes that are so well struck with even knife edges and major cameo, and these as early in the Victorian series as 1839. IMO, and supported by no less than the likes of Steve Hill the major TPGs do not always get designations right, so Caveat Emptor.