Xander

My mother used to call the half-crown a half- Dollar. That's when you used to get 4 Dollars to the £1.

12 hours ago, sg86 said:

The problem with some of the recorded coins is there aren't any examples around so this may well be what Marsh recorded as an A/V but it's an awful correction if so! 

 

There is an example of one in M Marsh The Gold Sovereign.  

There is a 1853 Shield back recorded with an inverted A for V in Victoria. It looks like your coin is a fudged A. 

3 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

I didn't think anyone actually got the insert even though it was advertised as having one.

Any chance of you accidently scanning it and....................sharing in some way?😎

I would take the prices inside with a large pinch of salt.

45 minutes ago, Zhorro said:

With the advent of the 1887 Jubilee Head sovereign, the Royal Mint in London took the decision to use a more ‘yellow’ gold in order to make the intricate design stand out.  I have not seen this mentioned by Marsh but Hattons of London’s website describes the situation as follows:

          “With the introduction of a new [Jubilee] portrait the Royal Mint was uncertain how the gold coinage would look, especially as the new portrait had a much finer level of detail.

          To ensure a high standard of production they decided to soften the gold by adding 1.25% silver to the alloy which was usually 91.7% gold and the remainder copper (for

          strength). By replacing 1.25% of the copper with silver, the natural golden colour was enhanced and the coins of 1887 looked more ‘yellow’. 

          This was only ever carried out in one year – 1887. Tests with the usual alloy proved acceptable, so in the following year the silver was not added to the alloy, making the 1887

           coins a one-year-only alloy.”

But did this apply to the Branches in Australia?  Below is a comparison of the London 1887 sovereign with the Melbourne one.  It seems that it was only the Royal Mint in London that used the ‘yellow’ gold in 1887? 

Looks like the Sydney Mint was using Silver in the 1/2  and full Sovs for a while. I wonder why they stopped.

18 minutes ago, sg86 said:

There you go then, I can't say if it's a good find myself as haven't sorted any of the half sovereigns I have, but if Steve Hill / M.Marsh and others have recorded it then you have something

I wish I had more half sovereigns to do my own research into them, but they are just too rare and pricey in high grade for me to even start right now, considering the amount of work I still have to do on the full sovereign run also.

 

I just find Sovereigns, half and full are so interesting, these differences are something I would never have noticed if it weren't for the Sovereign book. Keep those 👀 pealed.

23 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

The nose pointings are standard for the years. There are a few variants for these years and in my experience you need to refer to both Marsh and Spink to elucidate them.

I'm sure we've had this conversation on here at some point.😊

Here is a page from the M Marsh revised edition, The Gold Sovereign. 

This is what piqued my interest, not sure if you have come across it. Looks interesting.

10 hours ago, shortstack68 said:

also, the half sovereign wouldn't be in the sovereign book 😁

M Marsh Book. The Gold Sovereign has the 1/2 Sov recorded in it.

10 hours ago, sg86 said:

You need to give people a clue as to what you think may be different, and I would also say pictures could do with being a lot clearer if possible!

Your right enough, photos are a bit rubbish. I have put two up this time. The 1870, die 1 cross lines on the reverse have no dot and the head on the obverse is pointing between the T and the O, does this make it a variant. The 1871 die 71 is unrecorded by Marsh. This one also has no dot on the cross lines, the head on the obverse though is pointing way down toward the bottom of the T...  not sure what that's about. Not sure if this is also a variant.

Not sure if this 1/2 Sovereign is one of the variants M Marsh describes in his book, The Gold Sovereign.

39 minutes ago, Elements said:

If it’s real and the 8 is just an error, the 6pence die error coins are pretty valuable.

Marsh grades them R5. Here's hoping

15 minutes ago, Kritika said:

Both sides

 

Looks like the one in the photo. Look at the hair, it's the same.

22 minutes ago, shortstack68 said:

If it was the OBV, as it was the OBV that was struck from a 6d die. Spink 3832. The 1836 would need a better close-up of the date

Here is a Slightly better picture, adding the Obverse. If you look through this one seems to have a horizontal bar through the garnish bar.

29 minutes ago, Kritika said:

Its hard to tell I would ideally need to see a clearer image of a sixpence overstrikes to compare it properly.

My main concern  is, will detract from the value of the coin, i.e.. is it just worth its billion weight etc.

You can also narrow it down with the band that holds the lower garnishing around the shield together, some coins have a plain centre area, others have a central incuse line added across the centre the bar. I don't think it would detract from the value. 

Could this be it? An overstrike from a sixpence die. 

On 20/12/2018 at 17:31, shark said:

hi all just got a 1872 shield sovereign.it has a mark on it that looks like it was a mint error.there is also a  line going through the lettering.

i have looked through a few books and searched the net but cant fined answers .will it add or subtract to the value of the coin?what do you guys think.

Could it be from being mounted?

Hello, welcome to the silver forum.

Any suggestions what is going on with the 2 in date.

1 hour ago, ilovesilverireallydo said:

He made me an offer I couldn’t refuse...

...and you lived to tell the tale.😎

18 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

stops

Spot on! 😄