Britannia47

Sovereign Alloys - My favourite topic! Earlier Sovereigns certainly had more silver in them, especially 'Australia' sovs. Photo shows 2 x 1870 sovs. minted with 'yellow gold' (Silver & Copper) with a lovely matte finish. That's how I like them! However Steve Hill describes the 1868 sov as being 'yellow gold' with 8.33% silver. The 2005 Commemorative (150yrs) proof below is one I had tested, and it also showed 8.33% silver and therefore zero copper. I always believed that to be 'green gold' - It does seem to have the slightest 'green' hue to it. Anyway its a pretty unique colour. Just for info.....

'White horse of Hanover' appears on the shield cf 2020 QB. Not sure about the rest.

Of course there are knowledgeable people at the RM, including Clancy and Dyer. But there is also a lot of expertise outside the RM bubble which never seems to be tapped into. I am reminded of 'Mock the Week' and a hypothetical 'Things you would never hear from the Royal Mint'- eg What is your opinion of our latest sovereign and how can we make it better Mr Chard?! As it happens I have Clancy's Book, and Dyers, early editions of Marsh, Duveen/Stride 1962 Gold Sovereign and others, including the whole 2009 sovereign series by Clive King in Coin News, so perhaps I should get a job at the RM!.

CollectorNo1. 'What do you mean not proper sovreigns? They are advertised as 22ct, 1/4 sovereign surely if that's not the case they are breaking advertising codes of practice?' Just a couple of points. The 1/4 sovreigns (sic) never existed, although patterns were made in 1853, but never went into production or circulation. As for the Gibraltar 1/4 sovereign this is another example of a Marketing company ie The London Mint Office targeting a British Overseas Territory, as is often done with T.D.C. and so on. A joint project was formed with Angela Pistrucci - a Canadian citizen to market Gibraltar sovs. I understand A.P. was not too happy with the way her designs were interpreted. Also, the RM does not have sole rights over the 'Sovereign' name. Anyone can make a coin called a sovereign. The RM lost that battle in court several years ago. Anyway, a well known phrase containing the word 'bargepole' springs to mind!

Wrong dates! Sorry, 1829 & 1832

Not really the point, but I agree, Merlen's shield designs are great! Here are my 2 shield full sovs. 1929 & 1932.... more elaborate perhaps than Wyons later shield?

Back to the 2022 Sovereign. It's going to be popular whatever the design - another variety for collectors, and an investment for stackers/flippers? But has the RM lost its way with the sovereign? What happens in 2023 - will it be back to the boring pink, over shiny issue. It seems the RM has been focussing on the QBs and Brits for its marketing strategy (and income!) The 1989 500th Ann. was unbeatable - no even matched by the 2017 200th IMO (wrong colour, wrong alloy, and using a failed design with missing WWP initials. 2021 is the 200th anniv. of the G&D with sword in hand, not 2017! I wonder if anyone at the RM actually knows about the history of the Sovereign?.......

Why so cynical? I thought I was the only one who held extremist views on the TSF! What's the difference between the green fields of Llantrisant and the poppy fields of Afghanistan? Answer 'Nothing!' Both feed an addiction like drug dealers. Waiting for the next offering from the RM is the same as waiting for your next 'fix' surely. Will I have to join The Numismatic Crack-head Club? Probably 🤑!

Apparently the gold was 'reworked' through experimentation and became extremely tough (not brittle) possibly by the addition of the iron. Iron was present in the first Modern Sovereign 1817 but has not been added since. Job done!

According to Marsh this brittle gold contained 'antimony, arsenic and lead in very minute quantities.' How rare is the 1859 Ansell? Well Marsh in 1980 had it at R5 originally, but is now shown as R4.

What heresy! Most serious sovereign collectors would give an arm & a leg for a George III, as ugly as he looks. Numismatically, its a very popular coin but can be a bit expensive. Yes, early sovereigns do look more yellow. Apologies to Benedetto Pistrucci perhaps?

Just my 'Aussie' gold.......

Exactly, Its in the small print! Granny will need her glasses! Queenie with a laurel in her hair? - Who does she thinks she is, Queen Victoria?

The issue here is not the price of gold. It's about Marketing companies taking advantage of the public through their advertising. There have been many joint projects in the past, such as The Pobjoy Mint & Isle of Man,(Sovereigns and Bullion), East India company and St Helena, London Mint Office/Angela Pistrucci Sovereigns (Gibraltar) and so on. Some are better than others. It may be unfair to criticise these co-operative ventures, with the RM being the largest Marketing company of them all.... nothing untoward there except their hyper inflated prices for buy back sovereigns perhaps. Anyway, back to the Laurel coin, I'm not sure when a profit could be made even at £39. But good-luck to anyone who buys it. I'm off to play with my 100 gm Metalor gold bar - or 200 of the above coins!