Britannia47

Sorry, I was wrong about the sovereign - should've looked closer at the small print on the card! From 2013-2017 Pamp produced identical sovereigns mounted on post-box red cards. Silly me......

This Indian (MMTC-Pamp)) minted Sovereign is generally considered to be brilliant-uncirculated rather than bullion. At the last coin fair the Royal Mint were selling these for £400, so hang out for more than spot + 1%.. Its very collectable. Or you may consider having it graded by NGC.

This is typical fodder for Marketing companies, including London Mint Office, who target the British Island Territory of Tristan da Cunha (TDC) which has a population of about 250 in the South Atlantic, and sell very small coins at a high cost. Presumably they get a cut for every coin sold. I won't buy them on principle. Sounds like a Pobjoy product but just guessing...

Tried to buy one this morning (showing 95% reserved) awaiting stock. Wouldn't take my money! After a call to RM - Yes you guessed it! 'All Sold' (£480) All previous Proof 'Beasties' are also sold out. Must be very popular now....especially in limited editions. On RM Bullion site available @ £241. Ah well, back to 1/4oz Brits!

Reversing the texture of a silver proof coin doesn't make it a proof, more likely a BU version as are most BU silver coins with a mirrored relief and a frosted/patterned field. Normally the coin is struck several times to sharply define the frosted relief on a proof coin, so what is the point in multi striking a coin with a mirrored relief? I believe 'reverse proof' is misleading terminology, although I have seen it on an NGC label to describe this coin. I can see the attraction of a positive / negative effect in a 2 coin set, but to me the 'reverse proof' has not had that careful striking of the proof - in fact I think its pretty awful. Get the RM to state that I am wrong and I will buy one!

Bought this set about 20 yrs ago for £440.Found this old 5 coin box and the rest is history...

Hi, I've looked at 2 of my 1869 London Mint Sovereigns and they are appear to be of regular 'yellow gold' appearance. I have never seen that sort of red toning on a shield-back before. In my opinion it seems to be a one off and is possibly the toning of the silver not the copper. Who knows what history has dealt that coin over the past 150 years. About that time they were trying out different alloys, as you said, either 8.3% silver or 8.3% copper, or more generally a balance of the two metals but only using a very small amount of silver. Later in Victoria's reign and onwards it was mostly all copper, as it is today. I recently had my 'Australia' 2005 proof sovereign tested, and it came back with 8.3% silver, as were the 2 original years of 1855 & 1856. 'Yellow Gold' to me is more attractive than the R.Ms offerings. Anyway, an interesting subject..... Cheers.

Here’s my handling collection! Fondling your assets gives you that gold fix we all need. Not everything has to be locked into plastic. The gold 3.2oz cast bar does it for me, with the ‘buffalo’ in support - with 2 great sides to the coin. Just feel those sharp edges.... Phew!

Hi, Thought I,d add photos to the discussion. The original design is superb by Nathan, based on the de Saulles 1902 Florin. Nice variety of other designs though...

Shown below are the original sovereigns on the left with modern representations on the right. The 1870 'Australia' minted in Sydney contains a typical mix of gold and copper with a reddish hue. However the 2005 Commemorative Proof minted in Perth appears completely different and appears to have a greenish hue. I contacted the Perth mint to find out what the alloy was. In short they didn't know. Undeterred I visited 'Bairds' this morning in Hatton Garden to have it analysed. As suspected it came back 91.7% gold and 8.3% silver - thus the difference in colour. Does anyone else have this coin ? - it comes with a red book. Everyone will be more familiar with the next pair. Again why the difference in colour? On the left is my 1817 sovereign and the 2017 on the right. I found out that the coin contained 91.2% gold, 4% copper, 4.5% silver and 0.2% iron. All these alloys are added to make them more durable in circulation, but don't ask me about the iron. I don't know. Today the Royal Mint uses only copper in its alloy. I wonder if any gold coin today needs to be 22ct. If the Britannia has been successful in converting to 9999 gold as well as the 'Beasties' then why not the sovereign? In 2020 the last of the Queens beasts will have been issued, and that seems to be an ideal time to start minting 9999 Sovereigns. Perhaps the specs. for the 1/4 oz could be used. I believe this could be a world beater and sell like hot cakes. After all the 'Sovereign' is already a world brand. MMTC-Pamp I'm sure would renew their contract, on the basis of its selling potential not just in India where 24 carat gold is preferred but throughout Asia. Perhaps I will pass this idea past the new CEO at the Royal Mint - Anne Jessop. She could be sitting on a gold mine - excuse the pun! That's all for now folks.

What are you guys talking about? Am I living on a different planet!

Sorry, wrong thread!!

The actual mintage was 3,737,065 which sounds a lot, but how many off those are still around? However it’s true that the 1832 is more available (Marsh 17) for the 2nd bust as shown. My 1832 Sov. Is a 17A (1st bust) which is also embedded in those mintage figures and much rarer - about 1 in 10 ( Marsh rated R6) There’s an article in Dec 18 Coin News by Clive King which clarifies all this. Cheers

Interested in 2017 proof 1/2 Sov for £260? Visit Bank of England Museum shop. I bought 2 and passed them on to Forum members. Need to visit in person though. 1/4 Sov also available.

Both coins look genuine to me. I’ve checked all my Ed7s from all the different mints, except the 1908C which is R6! Steve is quite right. It must be a trick of the light on the photos. Try using an eye glass to check there are only 3 points on the 1. I can’t imagine Atkinson’s overlooking a rare variety. Good luck anyway.