1887 Proof Five Pound without the designer's initials (No BP) - PCGS PR62CAM

Great Britain, 1887 Proof Five Pound without the designer's initials (No BP) -

It’s easy to imagine why there are so many different varieties on Australian and English sovereigns. Dies were repunched and re-engraved, dies from previous years were reused, master dies and hubs were repaired or altered, and proof dies were used in the minting of currency issue coins. The result is a wide range of varieties and types for a single currency issue (ie, tail lengths on Young Head sovereigns). What you don’t often see, however, is varieties on proof coins. The reason is obvious: Proofs were struck from a small number of dies and far more care was taken in their manufacture; consequently, the odds of varieties or minute differences between coins occurring are diminished. The coin photographed above is a rare example of a proof variety, an 1887 proof five pound without Benedetto Pistrucci’s initials on the reverse. It doesn’t sound like a lot, but it’s a big deal. Research indicates that out of all the 1887 proof five pounds to come to the market in the last ten years (literally hundreds of coins), only three specimens were of the rare “No BP” variety. Each coin was described as “very rare”, “extremely rare”, and “rare variety”. I will add my own set of adjectives to the list and say that the “No BP” 1887 proof five pound is extremely difficult in any grade, and turns up on the market, say, once every two or three years, at most. Why the variety exists at all is a mystery. Were the original proof dies damaged and a new pair of dies, with or without the BP initials, called into service? Was a small run of "No BP" coins struck, only for the die to be repunched with initials after discovery of the omission? Is this a vanilla case of a filled die (although this is unlikely on a proof striking)? The coin photographed above is the first “No BP” variety attributed by PCGS (although there appears to be at least one other in a PCGS holder that remains unattributed), and is one of the nicer 1887 proofs I’ve seen on the market for some time. Very rare this nice and a potentially something to put aside for the long term, in my view.