Richym99

If you are looking for a 62, you might have to go outside the forum. They rarely come up on here and are the toughest of the gillicks to find at a sensible price.

Don't forget many 1925's were actually post war issue using the 25 dies.

Today I received an email off Louise at CoTR with the results of grading submissions. I really needed a lift having been unwell for a couple of weeks. This did the trick. 1930 sa mint sovereign ------AU58 2018 India sovereign -------MS70 DPL 2019 India sovereign -------MS70 DPL 2000 proof sovereign --------PF70 UCAM 2007 proof sovereign -----PF70 UCAM 2006 proof sovereign ----PF69 UCAM 2001 proof sovereign ---PF70 UCAM 2003 proof sovereign ----PF70 UCAM

That's where due diligence comes in. At the very least the bar code should be checked against image of the coin on the NGC/PCGS website. If that doesn't correspond, it should be reported.

Nobody forces anyone to buy slabbed coins. There are plenty of outlets selling raw coins as well. As you say, however, Caveat Emptor. You only have to look at the number of threads in these very forums started by individuals who have bought or thinking of buying coins that they are having doubts about authenticity. Then you have the other side, where someone will post a photo of a coin and ask for an opinion on it's grade, only to be told it is not possible to reliably judge from a photo. But isn't that what you do when you buy a raw coin online. You look at a photo and make a judgement whether it is worth what you are being asked to pay for it. At least with slabbed coins, you are buying something which is 99.9% guaranteed genuine and is of known quality, which you can then compare for value to similar quality coins.

NGC only grade the coins on an anonymous basis, so to suggest they can ruin a collector is a liitle OTT. They do not assign a value to any particular grade. Ultimately, the only person responible for the final sale price is the person who submitted the bid. If they over bid then it is they who have to accept the responsibility.

In fairness, MS66 is the highest that a 1957 has been graded, and there are only 6. That commands a high premium in itself

Good for buyers, not so much if you are a seller. 75 out of 200 lots in the CoR went unsold.

Looking at the results from yesterdays three auctions, there is a striking difference between the results of the two Coin Cabinet auctions, and the CoR auction which was sandwiched in between.

Second purchase arrived this morning. Again, posted through the letterbox, no duty to pay.

The first six coins I sent to NGC for grading, four were modern (EIi sovereigns and two older (a Vic and a GV) I marked all six for conservation as well as grading. The conserved the four modern sovs, but declined and didn't charge for conserving the two oldest.

Just following you lead really Foster. They are a nicely compact set of ten, which makes collecting them attainable, albeit a little expensive for the Melbournes, but comparable to collecting shields.

Took me a few minutes to figure why you were selling a 1957 after buying one. 😀 Nice upgrade Rich

I have just paid £422 for a 1930P, albeit MS grade. The grade makes all the difference to the value. Of the "small head" George V sovs issued between 1929 and 1931 inc (and 32 in South Africa), the Perth mint coins are either regarded as scarce or rare, whilst the Melbourne coins are even rarer. All the SA dates are common. Sydhey and London did not issue sovereigns in those years. Even if you don't want to swing to the expense of a copy of Marsh, I would suggest at least going onto playbooks and buying a downloadable copy of Spink's Coins of England (Which covers everything from Roman times to 1971 for all denominations) together with the Decimal version, covering 1971 to the modern day. You will soon get your money back.

That would work if you are stacking Brits, Krugs or any number of other modern coins that rarely change in mintage or design from year to year. Much of their value is solely in the precious metals. Sovereigns are very different. Unless you know the difference in value between, for example, a 1931 Melbourne mint and a 1931 South Africa mint, you could be throwing away thousands when you sell. As far as intrinsic value is concerned, they are both worth £301, but a good quality Melbourne can fetch upwards of £750 while the SA, identical in every way except for the letters SA may get yoh £400.

I will stand corrected, but most outlets for buying coins in bulk, such as bullion dealers, porn brokers etc will expect to buy at two or three percent below spot. They will then go through them and resell the better examples at a premium. That is where places like this come in. People will snap up reasonable quality sovereigns for £320 day in day out providing they don't have obvious defects like knocks and scratches. Better look after them and sell 30 on here for £9,600 than not look after them and take £8,760 for them and watch someone else cash in.

I suppose it depends on how much value you assign to the them. If you consider that, as bullon coins, they are only worth their intrinsic value, then it will matter not what condition they are in. You can put them in a carrier bag and they won't lose their value. After all, you will be selling them as scrap value for melting down. If, however, you think that some might be worth a little more than the intrinsic value, it is worth separating them out and properly storing them. Just because you are a stacker, not a collector, presumably still means that you want to get the best possible sale price when it does come to liquidating your assets. Personally, if I had a stash of possibly gVF-EF quality sovereigns, I would be doing everything to maintain that and avoid metal to metal contact.

Ouch. Speedy recovery to you. Suggested reading too are meals that can be prepared for somebody like yourself with a wired jaw. There are a few out there.

Another two beautiful sovereigns dropped through the letterbox this morning. The 2017 Delhi sovereign, which is magnificent. I have promised to keep the source anonymous and will always do so. I do love the modern Delhi sovereigns because they are still using the original gold composition of "yellow" gold, not the rose gold the RM is usings these days. Much more attractive on the eye even when viewed through the tamperproof packaging. The second is a 1931P picked up from a French company via MA Shops. Another off for grading sometime next week.

I cannot say that it will be the same for every company out there, but the CDMA seemed to have it nailed.

Received the first of two coins I purchased from CDMA. I had an email from Royal Mail on Thursday to indicate they had received notification of an inbound package and that it's value suggested there woukd be duty to pay. The package was delivered this morning with another SD. It is in ungraded condition, which supports the previous suggestion that grades are indicative. (In this case MS62) Paperwork was made out to correctly indicate 0% vat payable, and no charge has been raised by the Royal Mail. All in all, very satisfied, and the coin will be off for grading next week.

Four one star reviews from totally random individuals with next to no activity. Not one said anything to justify the rating, including one who had written three other reviews which totally justified the ratings. None of the accounts (all with very foreign names) display any other interest in coins. Sounds more like some hacked google accounts being used to cause mischief.

Thanks Richard. Hopefully, having the entire set with the 1918 as well, all graded, will add significantly to my pension pot.

Received only a few minutes ago from @drakesterlingwho kindly sourced one for me. Until two weeks ago, I had no idea there was a 2020 version, as no images existed on the net. I wonder how many exist outside of the Indian subcontinent.

My fear is that any sort of intricate reverse design will be ruined if it they use the rose gold that they have done for every sovereign since 2017. Together with the changes to the minting process, we are likely to see a repeat of the 2012 abomination.