SeverinDigsSovereigns

It's very weird because his portrait is very realistic but the crown a copy-and-paste vector graphic. In real life this could look like a plastic toy crown rather like a real one. Nevertheless I probably still will buy the coins

£1631/ozt... Seems £1600 is the new platform. I would rather gold dropped below £1000. I don't expect gold to make me rich, but sitting on a pile of gold makes me feel as if I were.

I was thinking of the post-1817 sovereigns. Not sure if they did collectible sets back in the Tudor days... "General public", in other words peasants who had never saw a piece of gold in their entire lives. SHHHH you're giving them ideas

I think the difficulty might be that we're decimalised. It's difficult for the general public to appreciate crowns, half-crowns and florins, etc. Also I personally don't like the idea of a crowned portrait, as there was no precedence of a male monarch wearing it on sovereigns, and I am a traditionalist. Alas still can't resist to buy.

It's actually the Tudor crown in British heraldry. If you look at some coat of arms there usually are crowns or coronets above the escutcheons. Our late Queen used St. Edwards crown on her coat of arms, and there will be some modification on all the coas this year onwards. The only difference is the shape of the arc. You could find pictures here https://www.trimtag.com/return-of-the-tudor-crown/ The actual Tudor crown was vandalised by the traitor Cromwell, and the St. Edwards crown has been used since. The Imperial state crown was created much later and I don't think it has a heraldic interpretation.

I normally look at St. George's head, the rein on the horse & wing and chest of dragon. If you could see his face it's probably quite good (maybe MS61-62). For Edward VII the trick is the thin bit of hair on his head. But I haven't come across too many sovereigns and many of them new shiny ones, and I may be wrong. By the way the rim looks disproportionately worn. But I guess it's the surfaces that graders are looking at. Sovereigns are heavily counterfeited so never a bad idea to have an expert look at it.

But the petition crown had many flaws. The finning on the edge could be horrible... Let us pray.

How beautiful! I should hope to have a few in hand, but gold/oz is crazy at the moment.

Thanks! I think this settles it well.

I'm not sure if this qualifies as a variety. On some matt proof 1902 £5 there are raised lumps on the King's head and below "GR" of "GRA:", and an arc between them. I reckon this is due to some knock on the dies, and this feature is replicated on some coins of the type. I attached below a PF64 from PCGS website, circling those marks in green, my coin but taken by the dealer whom I bought from, and one currently listed on SVCollectors. P.S. please contact me if there is any copyright issue, and I shall delete the post.

Personally I don't mind the rosy new sovereigns. Krugs are quite rosy, and I like them. It's the shiny finish of IRB and subsequent issues that make them look strange. If bullion sovereigns return the satin finish of Machin and older sovereigns perhaps they might become much more desirable. This is not to say they are undesirable as they are now—gold is always desirable and I crave for it. But I get that they're trying to sell more Britannias and if you have two product lines for the same purpose there might be direct competition. I don't know how the yanks manage both eagles and buffalos, maybe there's just a bigger market.

Partially I think PF70 means NGC has done all quality checks and authentication, and slabbed coins can be bought nearly care-free (not that there are no counterfeit slabs though). This means slabbed coins are always more desirable than loose ones. And there are a lot of perfectionists. On the other hand, I must agree that it's the coins we're buying not a piece of plastic. If it's possible to thoroughly examine a coin in person before purchasing slabs would not be as necessary. On a balanced account I think numeric grading provide an objective description of condition, as opposed to the more subjective FDC/UNC/AU/EF, etc.. And the fact that NGC is 3rd party helps. However, labels such as "first releases" or "first 100 struck" are completely worthless and perhaps do not help improve the soundness of any seller demanding any higher premium based SOLELY on those. The above statement only applies to numismatic pieces, old or new. Having bullion coins graded and slabbed is something I do not understand at all.

Thinking of the old coronation long/short sets it's worth remembering that crowns were made in silver. Today almost all £5 commemorative "crowns" are made in 22ct gold, meaning they could do i) a long set with gold £5 sov. and silver crown ii) set of £5,2,1,half and now quarter sov.+ GOLD crown/half crown, etc. iii) Gold/silver/cupronickel currency sets like the annual sets(in fact I think therehave been proclamations in some other threads) iv) all of above. Oops... I might have been giving them some ideas.

Personally I like the idea of a city series. Unfortunatelly the designs are a failure (my personal opinion) in that they are far too realistic and wanting much artistic value, and they fail to display the numerous other iconic views of the cities. If they manage some combination of lanmarks, or caricatures thereof, circling the centre hence more coin-like (conferatur QB completer), I guess it could be much more successiful. But again, this is my fairly personal opinion, and I am quite new to coin collecting so wouldn't say it carries much weight...

A 1902 circulation issue £5. Though same mintage as the matt proof I feel as if there are far fewer around, or I could be mistaken. I wish I could doba £5 date run, but no... some £5 are very difficult to find and even harder to pay for.