Nowhereman

No... I can assure you that even Jesus wouldn't have been quick enough. 

That's what I get for stepping away from my PC for 10 mins and going out into stupid nature

That's why you get adult diapers. To be able to hoover faster than James

1884S Queen Victoria Young Head Sovereign - not a bad looker with plenty of detail and lustrous in hand.. comes in a capsule.
£435 + post (SD @ 6.85)
Payment via BT
UK only.

Just searched because I was interested. Plat nobles are listed as CGT-liable here: https://www.chards.co.uk/category/buy-coins/a/noble/isle-of-man/pobjoy/cgt-liable
I suppose that makes sense given that they're not denominated in GBP.

Item: 2018 Oriental Border 1oz Gold Coin PCGS MS69
Price: £1865 Delivered
Postage: RMSD by 1pm (next week dispatch)
Payment: Bank Transfer. No Returns. 

Here I have for sale a Pair of Lovely 22 carat gold leaf pattern coloured ladies bangles. The weight of the pair is 33 grams and the asking price is £1850. The bangles are stamped as 916 and test for 22 carat gold. Unfortunately, I am not too sure of the size but I can certainly provide the diameter of the bangles if that helps. If someone is able to let me know how I can measure the size I'd be grateful.
Please see the pictures provided below for details.
Postage is on top and at cost. Payment is by bank transfer.
Thanks all for looking.
* Kindly contact me to check the stock as sometimes I list on other sites and some items might have already sold.
** Postage is by Royalmail. Also, only special delivery is insured for bullion though I am happy to send by recorded too if you are happy to accept the risk. Postage is at cost.

Hi,
Not sure if my pricing is right and stand to be corrected.
Prices do not include postage but happy to look at a deal if purchasing multiples.  
Payment by bank transfer.  
Thank you for looking.
HALF £1080 for all 5 inc. RMSD (if my pricing is right!)
2002 Loose/air-tite capsule - £225.
2005 Loose/air-tite capsule - £225. Has toning.
2007 Loose/air-tite capsule - £225.
2011 Boxed - £210.
2021 Loose/air-tite capsule - £210.
QUARTER £435 for all 4 inc. RMSD (if my pricing is right!)
2009 Boxed - £120.
2011 Boxed - £115.
2021 Loose/air-tite capsule - £110.
2022 Loose/air-tite capsule - £110.

 
2002 HALF


 
2005 HALF


2007 HALF


2011 HALF


2021 HALF


 
2009 QUARTER


2011 QUARTER


2021 QUARTER


2022 QUARTER

 

Hi all
Please see attached pictures. All excellent condition.
1/4oz coin - £470 + pp.
1/4oz bar - £420 + pp.
1/2oz Britannia - open to offers.
Willing to post before payment due to my lack of history.

FYI that 1/4oz bar is under spot price. 

Just saw your avatar and name, I'm going to guess you like the orange sovs. 🤣
I'm just trying to do a bit of a focus group to see if my petty winge has legs. I will figure out how to start a petition later if there is any momentum in a genuine desire for a return to yellow gold Sovereigns.

Hello stackers,  collectors and fans of PM's.  Gold Sovereigns  have always  bothered me, I first bought one to commemorate the birth of my first daughter back in 2008 and was so disappointed in the colour. I did the same for my second daughter and it was the same shiny penny colour that I loved as a kid at Christmas but was very un-gold like. 
So when I started stacking and collecting gold I favoured the 24K 9999 varieties as they satisfied that primal desire that true gold inspires and avoided Sovereigns like the plague. 
I did however recently buy a 2022 jubilee sovereign because I liked the design and then a 1958 and 63 Gillick sovereign because they just looked like gold. When compared side by side the difference in the 22K alloy is so pronounced (Apologies for the photo quality)
 Apparently the alloy was changed from a silver mix to a copper mix back in 2000 and my 3  questions for discussion are : Who prefers the old colour to the new colour?
Can the mint be petitioned to revert to the old mix?
Have I missed something? (I have only done a surface level Google search so quite probably).

After the first Australian sovereigns were minted there were concerns that they were not up to the standard of the London coins due to their lighter colour. After an assay check it was discovered that there was less copper in the mix, more silver, but actually a little more gold than the London ones.
 

I'm a newbie and only just getting my head around collecting pm bullion. 
Have no idea of the background but from a purely "how does it make you feel" point of view the older sovs win hands down. 
I have a date run of silver Brits so far as love collecting stuff. Will be on the lookout for 1963,6 sovs next to commemorate dobs. 
Hi all by the way.

It's not that simple though. An 1872 sovereign is certainly more coppery than an 1852, and within the same year you may find different colours from different mint branches. An example is the 1918. Indian 1918 are darker than Canadian 1918, the latter bright yellow and former very similar to the reddish Gillicks and Machins. There must have been a transition in 1860s but after that there were different alloys used.
I attach comparisons between
1)1852 and 1871 both London mint. 1871 on the right is more reddish than 1852 on the left.
2)1890 on the left and 1887 on the right, again both London, and I swapped position to exclude bias from lighting, and you can see 1890 is more coppery.
3)1917C, 1918I, 1919C in that order. Noting how the Indian sovereign is much more coppery than the Canadian ones.
 
All were cracked out from NGC holders so most likely genuine. All have been restored to remove bias from oxidation, too. This should show some variation of colour for sovereigns minted i)with the same design at a long period ii)within a short period of time iii)at different brancg mints.
The colour difference is very obvious to the naked eyes but quite difficult to capture using phone camera, but I hope it's visible.
 
I think the Gillicks are when the sovereigns began appearing in consistently reddish tone. All pre-1837 are pristine yellow. All alloys between William IIII and QEII (exclusive) seem to be going back and forth.

The colour change is due to the use of copper, previously silver was used, which is why these ones were the more traditional ‘gold’ colour

Sorry to resurrect this topic - but I thought it was better than starting a new one.
The concensus seems to be clearly agains the red gold (in line with my own opinion).
As a deeply cynical Brit, I have been wondering if the RM are deliberately trying to drive people away from the sovereign. Presumably to the quarter Britannia on which they charge an eye-watering larger premium (=profit).
Could that explain their intransigence in the face of public opprobrium?

In the case of the Sovereign it's mainly tradition. It's been 22 carat for 200+ years so they keep doing it. There is still the advantage of having a stronger metal though. Pure gold and silver damage easily, so your nice new 24 carat Britannia can arrive with scratches, nicks to the edges etc. By using 22 carat there's a lower chance of that happening.
Some people also buy on the basis that these coins may make some kind of return to being used as currency in the future, so 22 carat would be helpful in that scenario too.

I haven't read thus thread in it'd entirety, but have read many similar in the past. So just to add my tuppence worth - the only old sovereign I've ever owned was a 1902 half, and I must say I don't really see what all the fuss is about regarding colour - it looked OK, but nothing special to my eye.
I have a 2015 bullion sov (my first ever good coin) and I quite like the colour although the strike seems pretty soft, which I believe is the normal.
However I have the recent proof sovs and I must say I think they look stunning, and the matte finish on the SotD is terrific, my favourite of all the sovs I own, which to be fair is only 8!
That said, I do intend to get a Gillick or two, just because they look nice!

This picture is taken from a recent RM advert:

It shows how the sovereign has changed in colour over time.  I do prefer the colour of the older sovereigns.  This picture probably makes the current sovereign look more rose coloured than it actually is, so they don't do themselves any favours.

Love that they threw an Edward VIII in there! He had the most handsome coin portrait of any monarch and most people never got to see it at the time. George VI looks good too. I hate the Edward VII portrait though; always looks like he had a huge head and so many examples have all his hair worn off. 

As @Ignorant states, it must be the finish I guess that plays tricks on your eyes. I’m not sure if that’s the entire explanation tbh but I can’t understand what else could be at play. I’m also unsure if that’s a fair assessment to compare the least frostiest area of the Indian (cheek) to the most frostiest area of the sovereign (portrait) 
When I bought the half sov, it struck me as a particularly pink looking coin. More so than other newish proofs I could compare it to.
the quarter eagle being an older coin can have quite a variety of shades. I think this one is particularly light and the sovereign is particularly dark.
Is it entirely the finish? Or is it that there is a slight range of variation to the hues and these coins are at opposite ends of that range? All I know is the sov most definitely appears pinker in the same light condition as the quarter eagle.

 

I’ve enhanced @Nowheremans original photo to make the same point. If it’s a question of different alloys used by Sovereigns and how it affects the colour, then it’s worth trawling thro’ this thread to learn more. 

A few general points first. There doesn’t seem to be a definitive record by the RM of precisely what alloys have been used in the past. But today we can assume that ‘Red Gold’ is being used for all to see. ie 8.33% copper. I believe this is unlikely to change - to keep Sovereigns as a separate traditional entity from its other products such as the 1/4oz 9999.
However, in 1997 the  RM substituted the normal ‘Double Sovereign’ with the new £2 bi-metal in the 3 coin Sovereign set and admitting for the first time that the outer rim was made of ‘Red’ gold and the inner from ‘Yellow gold’ so it seems the RM are aware of the difference!….
In 1868 and 1869 the RM experimented with ‘yellow’ and ‘red’ gold in their sovereigns and it seems from there on in, a little silver was used in the alloy. The Aussies had beaten them to it, because their sovereigns were more yellow looking than their copper counterparts in London. Apparently silver was added to the alloy because it was already there, mined with the gold and used instead of copper.
As for other gold, such as the Krugerrand, this has 8.33% copper, whilst the ‘Eagle’ has 3% silver & 5.3% copper.
Early Britannias also tried out different alloys with the addition of silver ie  ‘yellow gold’ before changing to 9999.
So there we are, if you don’t like the colour of our current Sovereigns buy the 1/4oz like I I do!😀
 

AS PER TITLE.....
ALL 5 FOR £100.00 PLUS POST
OR
£22.00 EACH PLUS POST
BT or PP F&F
Cheers for looking

My bad I thought they were 22ct in 2008…..I best stick to Brits😂😂