TheGoldSovereign

1 minute ago, MikeSol said:

Luckily yes. Not such a great buy at it's current premium.

I also note their listing is all over the place, completely wrong year range, and misleading photo showing 1850 when they are only st. george. Don't buy them thinking they are shields

I don't come across axis misalignment that often at all, I'm not sure if I even have another. But this one is huge!

I know typically slight alignment issues aren't considered an error but this one may warrant it?

20 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

Are you referring to the original books or the latest, updated version? I would expect the latest version to be fairly close to reality, having been updated by someone prominently in the trade for years. Or at least a good estimation and to reflect current best knowledge.
I think you are doing Marsh somewhat of a disservice; to suggest he effectively plucked some of these figures out of the air is unfair. I was under the impression that Marsh compiled his original ratings using mintages, his experience and that of friends and people in the business. In fact he revised a lot of the availability figures from version to version in the light of further experience.
Also, don't forget that he talks about the availabilty of these varieties in grades of VF and above. Once you add in lower grades, the numbers can rise substantially.

I would agree though, that 60 is looking a bit ridiculous

You are in the fortunate position to be able to assess the Marsh ratings in the light of your not inconsiderable numbers of coins. However, these have been compiled over a relatively short period of time and should be taken as an addition to the general consensus and not a replacement. Nobody knows all the facts and it may well be that your holding could alter the consensus of knowledge about certain coins. However you need to recognise that your holding is still small compared to all the collectable coins held throughout the world.

 

My comments weren't intending to do Marsh a disservice at all, his research like many others is world renowned and rightly so!

Of course he started with mintage and updated as he gained experience, I'm merely saying that he didn't have had time to see everything, and this is where I'm saying some figures are likely not inline with reality. The latest revision by Steve Hill again has many many mistakes, I've been communicating with him frequently and he also shares some of my views regarding the varieties and ratings, some of these will be in the next revision.

I'm really not saying I'm about to redo everybody's work for the past 80 years, I'm simply hoping to add to it. This point about some of the ratings is just one thing! 

edit: I did re-read my post and it is overly harsh in the wording, I often write and don't read over before hitting the send button

2 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

Reasonable thnking but you are only going to get statistically representative results with large populations. as soon as you are dealing with small numbers ie rarer coins, you are going to see major discrepencies.

So you don't agree that if Marsh rates two coins as "S", you have 60 of one and 1 of another then something isn't a little off? (buying for many different sources etc)

As I say he came to a lot of his ratings due to mintage figures, there are many other variables which as i know you know, mean those coins may or may not longer exist in such quantities. Also the varieties he lists are often one rarity higher than the "Default", which i believe he just did because really wasn't sure.

I think it's therefore fair to say not all of his ratings are accurate.

I have both versions of these, will put up a pic in a minute for easy comparison, not that it's needed but still useful

They are definitely harder to get in good condition, I've got 3 and all aren't anywhere near the long tail. (On reflection it's actually pretty decent, at least way better grade than the PCGS above)

Personally I've never graded anything, I don't need somebody else to tell me what i have

On 28/02/2018 at 22:41, sovereignsteve said:

If you looked at where you obtained your bulk coins and their likely source, maybe you'll get an idea why you're seeing a different sample from the trade concensus? Otherwise, random chance is a fickle thing

My coins are from at least 6 different sources as of today, so I think this is a reasonable representation. A lot of coins are inline with Marsh, but some clearly not (and it's well documented that he just used mintage figures for a lot of his ratings and didn't do much sampling really)

edit: and those 6 source have 10s of sources of their own, which I didn't think about

2 minutes ago, JunkBond said:

Well if I was posting that I would not have said Lucky Dip, that's specific monarch territory.

Don't quite agree, they only recently split out young heads into their own listing, and it's still mixed years.

19 minutes ago, JunkBond said:

Because I thought Young Heads were always listed as such and not obtainable via "lucky dip" at HGM

Yes but it's still a "lucky dip", just a young head lucky dip

I'm 99% sure he didn't mean he bought sovereign "best value" and got a young head, they aren't that stupid! or are they @Numistacker?

On 26/02/2018 at 14:09, Sovereign said:

Lucky indeed  

On 26/02/2018 at 13:47, JunkBond said:

Got to be pleased with that lucky dip @Numistacker 

why?

On 20/02/2018 at 23:52, sovereignsteve said:

so you're going for an example of each die number regardless of year or a set of all die numbers for all years?????

All die numbers for all years! 

Maybe not 1874!

6 hours ago, SilverTanner said:

Brave man! I managed to last several years without adding extra die numbers - this control has now failed and I am trying to get as many high grade slabbed versions as possible, I am addicted. I have more than 600 sixpence die numbers left to upgrade, there are many more sovereign die numbers than sixpences!

As a first target you just have to beat the Bentley collection and go down in history

I'm confident with a lot of time and effort I'll get the die numbers, but the problem will definitely be grade these days. It's not the same as the 80s or 90s, neither is the price!

4 minutes ago, JohnAnsink said:

Those are beautiful @sg86

Where do you guys get the $$ to collect so many sovereigns?

The really beautiful sovs will be in my trays, I'm only putting a single die number into the trays and the rest into these flips, obviously the best grade goes into the main run!

This coin is a stunner, I have this photo as my phone's lockscreen currently! 

As I'm sure with others, hiding the addiction from spouses and always being skint is key for me

Need an opinion on these two, the first is a botched G in GRATIA, maybe a rotated G but opinions welcomed. The second is something under the 6 in date, no idea, could be a die flaw? I won't record if it's not a clear error.

1861 is a very sloppy year, 100s of tiny differences and i'm not recording the tiny ones, only clear errors.

Turning into a bit of a picture thread but I think anyone coming across this thread with a question, the pictures can only help

Today we have an 1853, A for V in VICTORIA, however I think it's also been corrected with a V over the A after

New errors as far as I can tell:

1) 1852 "I" over lower "I" in "DEI". - I love this overdate, the correction is just so lazy, bad day at the office! Also what makes this interesting is I have 2 separate variations of the same error, but with the I's at slightly different angles!

2) 1852 "M" over tilted "M" in "BRITANNIARUM". - Never seen one of these before in any date (yet)

3) 1852 "I" over tilted "I" in "DEI". - This isn't just doubling

1)

2)

3)

18 hours ago, Sovsaver said:

If half sovs can be included, may I ask the gathered to help me decide which Marsh number the attached belong with? I wouldn't look in Spink, it doesn't seem to feature there.

I had a thread a while back and Sovereignsteve gave some useful direction, which I appreciated, but I'm still a bit mixed up.

I'll not say any more, it would be better to let you decide, I have my opinion and would like to test it.

I realise it doesn't completely fit the OP bill, but as I find contradictory material in the text I thought it might help clear it up.

I wish I personally had more half sovereigns to compare and database but unfortunately I don't, so can only go by Marsh and others.

What exactly is your query though, as I see it, it's Marsh 455, Type 1B?

From the pictures it looks like it may be a 8/7 in date, and I'm not sure if it's common for the shield to encroach on the die number like that, again I've not seen enough pieces and the ones I do have are in storage.

9 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

Out of interest (and probable jealousy), just how many sovereigns do you have?

I do have a few but like most here I'm a cataloguer and therefore cycle them, I have more currently that normal just due to the shear task of databasing them all is taking an age!

I plan on putting this database online at some point, I think it will be very useful to have a reference for all varieties with pictures. Of course this in reality is a lifetime hobby, and just getting to the stage of having 5% accessible in this way will probably take me another 2 years.

I would like to have stuff community submitted also, just need to find the time alongside everything else to get the development done, but hobbies always take the back seat

edit: after getting the Bentley collection book I see i need to also catalogue the die numbers, which almost made me cry! It's like 700 sovereigns and it's impossible to present them in my current system. Likely i'll present the lowest die or best quality coin, and then tube the rest (but photograph). 

On 09/02/2018 at 21:11, SovTracker said:

Here's an 1882 M with no trace that i can see of a B.P.

Yes, without checking database I definitely have 1881, 1882 branch mints, so I know they exist. I've just not found one for 1880 and I probably have 60-70 of this date.

On 05/02/2018 at 10:47, xthomasx said:

Would someone think this is a no-B.P. version?

It is a 1882 M, Melbourne, sovereign on auction this weekend, eF+ in the catalogue.

@xthomasx yes the BP is clear even from a photo

@SovTracker I posted this topic when initially looking at 1880s, there is definitely no BP varieties in the following years but I am yet to find a no BP with no trace of it in 1880s. I would welcome a clear photo if you have one!

1 minute ago, sovereignsteve said:

So the scattergun approach seems to work!

I think even if you buy "filtered" coins that there will always be human error in things being missed, let's hope it continues!