TheGoldSovereign

**MikeSol** · August 14, 2018

Key date 1879 Young Head St.George

**sovereignsteve** · August 11, 2018

25 minutes ago, JohnA said:

Could you explain what this means and what I am looking for in the picture? Thanks

Edit: oh I see...I was looking at the date numbers for overstamping

Yes the 827 on truncation instead of w.w.

There were very few of these minted, I believe the theory is they were minted from an ingot whose number was 827. G P Dyer wrote an article on this coin, he was a Librarian at the Royal Mint, it was published in a Spinks circular in the 70/80s, I've got a copy on it's way from @CadmiumGreen who kindly sourced it for me.

A very interesting and very rare coin indeed, very few in existence and virtually none in good grade.

edit:

"This intriguing variety first came to light in 1954 when an 827 numbered truncation with die number 22 reverse turned up in the Hatton Hoard of gold found in Derbyshire. This initial coin ended up in the British Museum Collection. This variety is termed the “second” variety of the “827” Sovereign coupled with the die number 22 reverse. These are called the second variety as it is thought that this die numbered “827” Sovereign was produced and struck from a second batch of re-melted “scissel” and scrap emanating from the Rothschild brittle ingots delivered to the Mint around November to December 1863. Of the very few specimens known the Bentley specimen is one of the finest extant"

"Returning to the 827 sovereign, it is fairly well established that the 827 on the obverse truncation was associated with a specific ingot that, like the gold from which the Ansell sovereign was made, was at first thought to be unusable. Records show that refiners Rothschild’s and Brown & Wingrove conducted further processing on two 200-ounce ingots (numbered 816 and 830) for the Mint, so it is thought that the initial batch of 827 sovereigns with no die number (S.3852F) were made from a similar ingot and proved to be acceptable for circulation. The subsequent 827 sovereigns with die number 22 on the reverse (S.3853A) were evidently made from the melted scrap and “scissel” (cuttings) left over from making the initial batch. Because of this, it is probable that all of the non-die numbered 827 sovereigns were produced and the results evaluated before full rate production of die numbered sovereigns began in 1863 (S.3853). Figure E shows the 827 on truncation that distinguishes the variant."

**Gruff** · August 9, 2018

11 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

you mean you can't see the stumps of the bar on each side of the A in GRAT and the faint trace of the bar on the field, where the bar used to exist on the punch?

Yup, I've not put the coin through the ultrasonic yet or looked under scope but others you can see the stump with your eyes, this is the closest I've seen to an V for A so far.

11 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

Indeed it is, so kind of you to offer to donate one to my collection?

I paid a pretty penny for it, bonus was the unbarred A variation

mr1030 · August 9, 2018

If the 1841 wasn't rare enough, how about an 1863 - 827 on truncation? ? ?

**Gruff** · August 9, 2018

10 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

yes, a typical damaged punch

although they do look to be different letters, which is interesting.

This is one of the clearer unbarred As i've seen actually, can't see any bar there at all like on the 1842s and others

Is 1841 one of your missing dates?

**augur** · August 9, 2018

1841 - Unbarred As ?

**Xander** · August 8, 2018

20 x Australia sovereigns

**augur** · July 18, 2018

?? A real rare treat today! ??

1874 London Mint - Die 33

For those who don't know this is an incredible rarity, and I think the condition is just lovely considering it's rarity. You'll have to do your own research if interested more in the background as I don't want to copy and paste a chunk here

**Gruff** · July 18, 2018

14 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

mintage of 167k so there will have been several dies (pairs) used. Also the Ansell gold was supposed to be less malleable than usual so I would guess the dies wouldn't last as long as for normal years.

I'm not sure how many coins would usually be struck per die pair but I'm sure I've read somewhere that the mint were disappointed that dies sent to Australia were only lasting for 8k coins.

So could be one of 5000 original coins from that die, considering the mintage and how many are floating around the open market I would suspect quite few exist. All very interesting!

**CadmiumGreen** · July 17, 2018

On 07/07/2018 at 23:46, CadmiumGreen said:

Interesting markings on my 1859 Sovereign Ansell variety...looks like five distinct lines running at about 350 degrees in Victoria’s ear. I know the distinctive feature of the Ansell was an extra line in the ribbon band used to tie back her hair, but this is another distinction that I haven’t seen documented. Anyone have any thoughts or know of such documented characteristic of the 1859 Ansell Sovereign?

As discussed a little in PM, looks like tooling marks. Found something similar on another YH so maybe someone with die creation knowledge can chime in.

**augur** · July 17, 2018

My first 1838, all my photos going forward in this format are untouched, unprocessed, no attempt made to hide coin surface blemishes as it's for archival/website purposes. I'm actually fed up with all these eBay listings making coins look MS when they are bullion!

**Gruff** · July 17, 2018

4 minutes ago, JunkBond said:

I would be interested to know how many sets of dies were used during the Ansell mintage. Is this known?

Also interested in this fact!

**Gruff** · July 17, 2018

1 minute ago, JunkBond said:

Possibly but then it would mean the provenance has been lost. Ex Spink Coin Auction, 28th September 2005, lot 1448.

Is this likely?

As i say in my edit, it's not the same coin. Either way they've not mentioned the overstamp and always do in their listings when its so clear, everyone makes mistakes when looking at so many coins

**Gruff** · July 17, 2018

7 minutes ago, JunkBond said:

Sovereign Rarities clearly shows this error. @sg86Unless you bought this coin of course.

Nice find, I didn't source the coin from them, it would likely have been 3x the price i paid. If it's not the same coin then good to know i can record this as there may be 1-2 more out there.

On the other hand it could be the same coin moved on, in which case unique? who knows but I wonder if they missed it if there was no mention of this overstamp?

If anyone has a Spink catalog from 2005 let us know if it was mentioned there

edit: Definitely not the same coin, mine doesn't have the doubling in Victoria, and imho mine is a nicer grade

**Xander** · July 17, 2018

So, turns out the Ansell I posted a few days ago has a very clear error! Means I have to find another now without an error ?

No doubt this is an extreme rarity

JunkBond · July 14, 2018

1859 Ansell. Wear/flattening of the hair but the fields and coin overall really clean, very happy as price was fair.

SilverTanner · June 27, 2018

Not posted pics for a while but had to snap a few phone pics of this 1842.

I've a lot of this date but this is league above the rest, these pictures do not do the coin justice whatsoever so will retake some when I'm able with a better camera

When I came across this the lustre was so great I thought it was a high grade 1880s Sydney, low and behold an 1842, and very rare in this grade in my little experience

**augur** · June 9, 2018

12 minutes ago, augur said:

Mine is limited to just "EI GRATIA"

it does look like a smaller 1 was overstruck with the regular size.

Yea the doubling can be the whole legend, slight or very offset, or just limited to a few letters.

June 9, 2018

4 minutes ago, augur said:

Is this double contour common? I seem to have it on my presumed fake shieldback?

In my experience die doubling is extremely common in shields yes, I actually find it quite annoying when people list them as "errors", because they aren't at all in my opinion at least as they are so very common

I'm sure you are aware but if not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubled_die

What do you think about this 1? the first picture maybe highlights quite how extreme it is the best, my DSLR would capture it better but that's for another day

June 9, 2018

Any opinions on this strange "1" ? I can only think it's possibly a half sovereign 1, doesn't look just like a burr because it's raised at the same point?

Again apologies for the poor pictures, still trying to get a good microscope that has fine control at higher magnification

Oldun · June 8, 2018

5 hours ago, Oldun said:

Got the long set but keeping it long for now.....really superb coin. Well done.

Just to clarify I don't grade coins, and I didn't buy the long set (bought the 3 coin premium and didn't even know they were releasing this). I bought the 5sov BU, and thought that was it, when I realised this was around I had no choice but to buy it ?

Extremely happy with it though, no doubt it'll be highly sought after for years to come.

**Gildeon** · June 7, 2018

This may well be the nicest coin I own, had to get it to match my BU version.

These will be so sort after imho with a mintage of only 750, had to grab this PF70. This is only available in the 5 coin "long set", which were 3300 RRP and have sold for 5300 on ebay already, only a few for sale atm at 6-8k.

**engire** · June 5, 2018

Nice 1851, definitely something under that 5 as well

Agpanda · June 2, 2018

Very nice 1843, there is just something about the smaller head pattern that I love

JohnA · May 31, 2018

3 hours ago, JohnAnsink said:

Nice one...is that the first year of Edward VII ?

sure is !

Sign In

Forums

Premium Membership

Dealer Directory

Wiki

Videos

Prize Draws

Posts posted by TheGoldSovereign

Navigation

Help & Support

Latest

Buy & Sell

Premium Membership

Cookies & terms of service

Premium Membership 