Britannia47

Steve Hills(Marsh) price guide values it at £2000 based on auction prices and a minimum grade of EF. "Coins in lower grades are worth considerably less" That's a ball park figure for a coin that is unlikely to be found in Uncirculated condition. I have compared it with my own 1924 sovereign and the wear seems very similar particularly on the reverse. I would grade mine as good VF, perhaps nearly EF, but certainly not Uncirculated! That said, I think £1300 is a good price to pay in my opinion. Only NGC/PCGS will give you a more accurate grade. Good-luck with whatever you decide.

The 1969 Sovereign (Marsh 53) has a common rating of over 6 million. Clearly you feel that the overstrikes might have enhanced its value. Certainly GVF is a reasonable condition on its own. However, why not check the die number first? You might be luckier enough to have die number 34 and have the 'yellow gold' variety (R3). Good-luck.

Just to confirm that 71/75 Shelton St ' Garden Studios' sells virtual office space and is only the registered address of Josephine Coins. So its - "not tonight Josephine, keep your coins, for I am fighting Wellington tomorrow!"

https://www.josephine-coins.co.uk/ Previous name of company was The Commonwealth Mint Ltd (March 2017) Directors are Casey 'Josephine' Morris age 36, and Michael Colin Morris age 60 from Wickford ESSEX. Casey apparently owns the company but Companies House in August 2019 showed her as no longer a person with significant control, whatever that means. See 'About us' on the website for background info. Appears to be more involved with horse business than coins. However the website has a variety of gold sovereigns on display at reasonable prices IMO, but some coins need price updating. It a

You might consider whether this bracelet is part of the fake gold scam of early 2019 whereby Indian workshops in Handsworth (Birmingham) were making 14ct gold bracelets and hallmarking them as 22ct gold. Apparently scores of these bracelets were made and sold. Get it tested if in doubt.

'Charles Green & Son'. Looks plated to me suggesting considerable wear and may be earlier than '62 or '87. Font N looks like 1937 Good-luck.

'Benham' normally do First day covers (Stamps) They are not coin specialists. There is no connection between the Edward VII 1910 Sovereign and the Queens 50th Wedding Anniversary. I would expect the whole issue to simply be bullion sovereigns of varying dates. Hope you didn't pay too much for it. I say rip it out!

Can't see how Steve Hill came to the conclusion that " No coins dated 1895 were minted,".... in the 2017 revised edition ( Marsh 155) when clearly many do exist. Earlier versions of Marsh - Editions one and two, both show the mintage as 4,165,869 with a C rating. To confirm the coins' non-existence Marsh 155 is omitted from the Price Guide (Sept. 2017) This revised edition of Marsh by Steve Hill is an excellent and comprehensive 'bible' for the Sovereign collector but will inevitably contain errors. Numerous extra varieties have been discovered since Michael Marsh' s last edition so it mu

The 'Welcome Stranger' was the largest alluvial gold nugget ever found in Oz, in the state of Victoria in 1869. It has appeared on several gold 1oz coins over the years. It weighed about 72 kilos, and was found by 2 guys from Cornwall, Unfortunately they had to break it up into 3 to get it on the Bank scales! I managed to literally pick up a replica at the Perth Mint in 2008. My God was it heavy! I have a 1987 Welcome Stranger 1oz nugget to remind me of that visit. The Perth Mint is well worth a visit - watch a 'gold pour' - quite amazing.

This flyer arrived in a magazine yesterday from our friends at Harrington & Byrne. There is a plethora of 80th Battle of Britain anniversary gold coins being issued at the moment; this one from the Solomon Islands. It has the exact specification as the 'Tuvalu' coin .5g (1/62 of a toz) and 11mm in diameter for £39! Whatever the design on this or the James Bond coin I wouldn't buy it. Its the smallest coin I have ever seen and would need a magnifying glass! I M O I believe H&B are targeting the gullible public, and maybe Silver Forum members! My smallest coin is a 1/20th oz gold P

Apologies for missing the point of your question. You are right, it is shown in the latest 'Marsh' revised by Steve Hill as 53A 'Die number 34 struck from "yellow gold" with a rating of R3. My earlier Marsh books only shows one variety as C. I am not sure what that means in terms of the exact alloy used. I suggest you email Steve Hill at Sovereign rarities and ask for clarification. He has been helpful to me in the past. Perhaps the percentage of silver was increased in the alloy to make it appear more yellow - who knows? but just for one die number? I'm baffled.

Could well be! Anyone else have theories? Perhaps Lawrence Chard could help out...

Didn't expect this thread to reappear after 17 months! I agree with Dicker - there is no evidence that a London mint mark determines the colour variant. There is no agreed reason why some sovereigns are different in colour over time than others. There could be impurities in the alloy either silver or copper. Certainly early Australian sovereigns had silver in the mix, because it could not be separated from the gold until the chlorine gas process had been discovered. This was about 1870. London mint tended to use all copper I believe. Regardless of the alloy used have you noticed that all sove

https://www.chards.co.uk/blog/coin-toning/232 If you search ' cleaning/red spots' you may find useful info. Also try Chards above. It may be to do with the alloy used. The first Brits (1987) used copper in the 22ct mix. Later they seemed to be experimenting with mixtures of copper and silver (1997 & 2007) judging by the difference in colour, before using 9999. Anyway here's mine which also has the faintest of red spots, but too faint to see on the photo. I have never tried to remove them but I understand that NGC can.

Yesterday, I weighed 15 Shield-back sovereigns ranging from 1843 to 1881 using a 'Tanita' calibrated scale. I used a 2002 shield sovereign as a control which weighed in at exactly 7.98. Bearing in mind the legal limit of 7.937 I found that 2 sovereigns at 7.92 (1855 and 1862) were under weight! Both I would describe as in 'Fine' condition. There was noticeable wear in the hair above the ear as to be expected. So technically these coins would have been returned to the Bank, melted and re-coined, or refused by a shop keeper in Victorian times, once checked on a brass sovereign scale. 2 other sov