LawrenceChard

Here is a professionally colour balanced and corrected Chards image: Some of the apparent colour difference may be caused by surface finish and differential reflectivity, but they are all realistic.

This Royal Mint image is revealing: Featuring a beautiful yellow 1817, and 5 modern copper discs. For some unknown reason, the RM seem to prefer using a lot of magenta in their gold sovereign images, which serves to make them look even worse than the actual coins. Compare with a very realistic Chards image, below. 😎

There was an earlier topic thread on TSF: I note I added some responses, but I have just started re-reading the old posts.

The new version does have the correction: Doug monitors me on TSF! 😎

Good to hear the consensus. I am sure there is no coating on any new sovereigns. what you are seeing is possibly just some kind of surface effect.

Just found this: (Although it should say 0.3 / 2 = 0.15mm)

In response to a question about the thickness of gold sovereigns, I posted this on TSF some time ago. It should have got added to @ChardsCoinandBullionDealer as a blog page, along with other stuff about relief heights on coins. (Another 50+ years, and I'll get there!)😎

I know it does... ... read on... This is about the only page on our website where you will find us referring to a shield back sovereign or shield back sovereigns, as opposed to simply saying shield sovereign or shield sovereigns. ... and more!😎

https://www.chards.co.uk/blog/shield-back-sovereigns/191/3225 😎

... and whoever left the silver out of 2022 gold sovereigns must be thicker in the middle (and elsewhere) than whoever made the 1817 ones! 😎

I was struggling to find a graphic example, an image we created last year: #2 is the relevant dimension, and is where most of the variation would occur.

You have got it! I just looove the pink! 😎

@GoldDiggerDave has already answered that, but as I say "from background or incuse areas into the raised relief areas". ... or... It starts out as part of the blank, and gold gets squeezed from one place to another. It is not necessary to adjust the thickness of the design. The relative thickness of various parts of the finished product is a function of the depth of relief of the die engravings. If the striking pressure was insufficient, then there would be partial filling of the relief parts, such as the weak strikes common on some George V branch mint sovereigns. If too high, extra metal would try to flow out of the collar, leaving sharp "flash" lines protruding from the raised milled edges. This can be seen on some older sovereigns. If the striking pressure was too great, it would probably result in premature die breakage, or damage to the coining presses. This pressure would be regulated by varying the amount of travel or "throw" of the dies. Does this help?

I would have accused you of copying my answer, but you hit "submit" before me!

The important factor is the weight of the blanks. When you hit the blanks with a few tonnes of pressure between hardened steel dies, the gold blanks melt or soften enough for the metal to flow from background or incuse areas into the raised relief areas, so no, you don't get any extra gold with mintmark sovereigns. (You do get extra silver though!) 😎

Populist! 😎

Copper Headines: Goldman sees copper price “breakout”, risk of “extreme scarcity episode” Copper price: Global stocks are down to three days’ consumption A Copper Crisis Threatens The Energy Transition ... 😎

I mentioned the idea to Perth Mint years ago, that a traditional St. George sovereign, but with a "P" mintmark, would be popular. The answer was that the Royal Mint would be highly resistant to any other mints using the Royal Mint's Pistrucci design. Yet since then, we have seen "I" mintmark sovereigns. My Perth Mint suggestion was a part way stage towards a full Mintmark set, as Dave suggests. Linguistically, "Shield back sovereigns" is tautological, and rather un-numismatic. "Shield reverse sovereigns" would be an improvement, but just "Shield sovereigns" is better. Where else would anyone stick a shield? Definitely "Shield obverse sovereigns" are unlikely to appear, as also are "Shield front sovereigns". (Pedantic bit over for now). If the Royal Mint made new sovereigns using original Victorian dies, would these be counterfeits? It's an interesting concept. If any mint made forgeries of its own coins, would they be genuine or forgeries? 😎

They could go down well with the LGBTQI community, but that's about all. Which reminds me that if you ever drop a gold sovereign at a coin fair, be careful about bending over to pick it up. I have, as you probably know, written to the Royal Mint about the colour and silver content. They have responded, and indicated that they would consider the suggestion, but the wording did not create the impression that an immiment change was likely. The RM Marketing machine presumably has considerable inertia and momentum, if that's not an oxymoron. They appear to have found a successful formula recently with Great Engravers, and Historic Monarchs, low mintage, large sizes, premium issues at premium prices, with low issue limits. With that success rolling along, there may be little incentive for making what might appear to be a minor change. Another point is that because a vocally active RM competitor, a small dealer in Blackpool, has been pushing the idea, the RM might be reluctant to change as this might be seen as admitting they have been getting it wrong for the last 70 years. One of my propoosals was that we would like a first year exclusive deal, where we take 500 yellow coloured proof sovereigns, and 5000 similar bullion sovereigns, paying slightly extra for the silver content and production costs. It is highly likely that the "Chard" coins would attract more demand, and command a higher secondary market premium than the copper coloured ones, and would provide a clear demonstration that our idea was sound. It would also be a good example of putting our money where our mouth is. Two-coin sets, one red and one yellow coin, would also be an attractive idea for once. If the RM were reluctant to run two different production lots of sovereigns, we could suggest that the Perth Mint make them under licence, so we would get a great colour, and solve the QC problem at the same time. Perhaps I had better not mention that to the RM!

A fake is still a fake even if it has the correct gold content. But of course, if the gold content is wrong, then it makes for an easy identification.

Well done spotting the raised pimples, which are a big clue. A closer look shows quite a few of them on both sides.

Do you honestly think that is likely to happen? 😎

So he posted back in December last year about buying it, and recently he has been spouting about exercising his right to a refund under the Distance Selling Regulations! That doesn't add up, or ring true, but that's quite consistent with everything he says. 😎

Didn't he say he had never sold a coin, and never would? ... and I thought he was a pillar and shining example of honesty, probity, etc. 😎

Why not just leave it in the other thread Lawrence - You're far too modest, Barry. Surely the way you have kicked ass at the RM deseerves wider acclaim and attention. But do keep it up, OK, will do if you say so. we do know RM Marketing read these forums.. But do they? How do you know? Got insider information? Maybe they are thinking..... with this sort of attitude to customers, That's ambiguous, and muddled. Whose "attitude to customers"? but of course, I imagine you are far far far You can say that again. Maybe you could help sort Putin out? 😎