David Gee What Did He Really Copy

Probably all your fault billenben because of the interest you've generated through all your recent posts about him ... I know it made me put in an early bid!

I posted previously that I saw it go for something over $300 about 3 months ago so it is a demand item before my posts started.
I also bid on the ebay one but let it go after $200.
The funny thing is the guy on ebay had it originally listed for $200 buy it now and I talked him into listing it as an auction.

I actually got one for $35 including postage about 4 weeks ago - just pure luck.

I have asked the publisher how much for the publishing rights, waiting to hear from them, as I feel a second edition has a market. Not a huge market but big enough to warrant a 2nd edition, especially if people are paying $300 - 400 for a copy.

Yes,but sorting fact from fiction in 2022 is extremely difficult and always was with Gee.Just talk to the Stamp Guys.

Interesting Thread,you are getting to the stage where you can author your own Book Billenben.

As far as I know David Gee used a two pound obverse die (uncrowned portrait of Edward VII) to make the fake 1909 florin - there are photos of it somewhere but I don't remember where.
That photo doesn't look like David Gee's work to me - I thought his work looked very close to the real thing.

The florin does look like it has issues on the obverse but the reverse is quite close (on all three).
On the copper florin the obverse is the same as the two silver ones but it has different ridge spacing (less ridges).

'What did he really copy' is the thread and it is true a lot of people see a forged coin and just say "Gee"; auction houses included.
Not all the Gees in the market are his best work, some seem to be from the 'work in progress' stages, weak and strong strikes, off center, different ridge numbers, some of the birds on the Kookaburras are really quite ordinary, and some of the alleged to be Gee's tests on lead are interesting.

It would come as no surprise that he did do both obverses of the florin given the jury was out as to which would be used (imperial and colonial).

Without question the best of his florins would have been made using a genuine die (the imperial obverse).

Are these florins Gee's or copies of Gee's or just another fake; seem too good to just be a fake of a Gee but also seem not good enough to be Gee's best work.
Whatever they are they have been sold as Gee's work.

The detail in this uniface electrotype (by Gee) is just stunning.

Fresh copy of Heads I Win currently on eBay.
Opening bid is $243 (plus $9.70 post) and it has a bid; i.e. it will sell.

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/2558811...9SR-6VhZGoYQ

And that bidder is not one of those who competed for the $406 copy that recently sold. Expect others to bid.

I will say there are some issues with the book in terms of information. Errors in relation to the Adelaide Assay happenings, errors in relation to the Kangaroo Office happenings and it seems the authors are somewhat geographically challenged - just to name a few things. Still a great book.

And Wikipedia and the book have different dates for when Gee arrived in 1939.

One of the issue with the proposed 1909 florin was the Poms objection to the uncrowned king on a colonial coin.
The book says the florin, if made, was to have the imperial (with latin text) obverse; the uncrowned head. The book is perhaps wrong on that.
The Royal Mint Museum site shows the crowned head was to be used. Dominion coins generally had the crowned King with English text.

Adler purchased an uncrowned head with latin text. This is why people generally think that is the only type of Gee Florin. The book only covers some of what Gee got up to.

The Adler obverse, the book says (page 81), was from a reconstructed 1902 2 pound die from the Dixon collection.
The site Numista echoes that claim.

Looking at the crowned obverse on my Gee I can see why Gee ran with the Imperial version. The compound die, Gees fake reverse made from an electrotype and a reconstructed obverse die would have looked the real deal.

I have no doubt my florin is a Gee, the reverse is very good and point for point the same as the known Gee uniface but the obverse is not great. It does not look like a quality mint issue effigy. The nose, the ear, the rob, parts of the crown; it isn't good. Even the denticles are not right. Not right compared to say a Hong Kong 50c of 1910.That is what I like about my florin, it shows Gee had a crack at the 'colony' obverse and just used a die to solve the issues when he couldn't get the crowned King good enough. In one narrative it claims Gee flogged the obverse die a few years after he grabbed the electrotype. This gives Gee time to sort out the reverse and toy with the crowned head, become unsatisfied with the obverse and go rip off the die to solve his problem.
Gee was a bit of a perfectionist. My Gee florin would not have been satisfactory. The obverse makes it far from a perfect coin.

As the Adler coin is being passed as a pattern it was open to have the no crown (wrong) obverse on the pattern.
Using a real die would have got the perfect look Gee was going for.

Pictured:
Colonial (Hong Kong) obverse; a real one.
As you can see the Gee obverse on my coins is rather rough.
A little like some of the 1964 pattern pennies Gee did. The Queens effigy on some of them look quite amateur. Even some of his pattern Kookaburra look rather poor quality.
As I say; not all Gees are his best work, but they are still Gees.

Finally the pic from The Royal Mint Museum website, crowned King with English text (Dominion style). But where did they get the picture?