Booky586

On 16/04/2024 at 17:40, Esjayc said:

I recently picked up this 1872 Shield (Die 90). Is this a 'double strike' on 'DEI GRATIA'? The date is affected too. 

G in GRATIA seems to be affected the worst (photo).

Seems to be a little extra material on the reverse's rim at the base. Don't know if that's a factor. Slight die crack before G.

If it's a double strike, what causes that, and why is Victoria's portrait not affected (to my eyes at least)? If it's not that, what has caused this? Sorry for my ignorance here - I am hoping and wanting to learn.

I've seen other 1872 Die 90 coins and they don't have these issues. So I'm curious and hoping I can come away from this post enlightened 🙂

(Obv/Rev photo is the seller's image from the auction)

A double strike would be seen across the full coin, all of the details would be repeated. Because it's occurred across several characters having the same offset I would think it's a die fault, probably some type of hub doubling. There's not much info on die production for Sovereigns of this period so there's a bit of speculation involved based on more modern coin production.

https://www.error-ref.com/doubled-dies/

Obverse and reverse dies wear at different rates and the obverse dies weren't numbered. It's possible that other 1872 die 90 reverse coins will have been produced with different obverse dies.

PM just sent!

Nice one, I didn't really expect you to count them all up but it's proof of a match.

1 hour ago, Esjayc said:

Last year, I was told by a coin dealer in Cambridge (who I won't name and shame here), that this coin was "nothing unusual" after they took it away into a room for a couple of minutes.

I've bought from a coin dealer in Cambridge and picked up a couple of rare coins that were listed at the price of a "normal" coin, I guess it's probably the same shop. It might be worth your while checking out his stock, you might find some bargains in there.

Here's a scan of the relevant page from "The Gold Sovereign", I hope this helps. I think your coins is no 445A, which Marsh lists as quite rare. There's a little note at the foot of the page regarding course beading/denticles, it's time you started counting 😃

The Auction coins are now available to view along with a downloadable PDF copy. I've extracted the frontispiece, a very nice introduction from Aydin Izen:

The auction link: https://coins.ha.com/c/auction-home.zx?saleNo=3115

Catalogue and download link: https://coins.ha.com/c/ecatalog.zx?saleNo=3115

11 minutes ago, Bratnia said:

Biden hates the Brits

William Biden was his great Great great grandfather, born in England. He doesn't mention it much...

Anyone worked out what's driving up the recent rise in gold and stocks?

I thought the gold price moved conversely to the western stock markets but they've all moved up similar percentages (excluding the FT all share).

38 minutes ago, Wampum said:

I found the file for the 2012 BU Set, sorry for the quality, it's a scan of a scan, the figures for the Half Sovereign are interesting   

Nice certificate, thanks for posting.

Maximum coin mintage does not always equate to actual coin mintage though, it's just sets the upper limit.

19 minutes ago, JamesH said:

So it’s an identical bullion coin with a box and paperwork?

No, the brilliant uncirculated are struck to higher standard than bullion. The video above explains the difference.

Here's a list of the mintage figures for 2012 gold commemorative coins (Proof and Brilliant uncirculated, excluding bullion) taken from the Royal Mint website

The Royal Mint issue sovereigns in 3 standards, Proof, Brilliant Uncirculated (or B.U) and bullion, don't confuse B.U. with bullion. The list above excludes bullion. I suspect the total numbers shown in  "The Gold Sovereign" have been used in error and bullion has not been included, which is likely to run to a mintage of 10's of thousands. Does anyone out there know the actual mintage of this coin in Bullion condition?

Brilliant Uncirculated sovereigns come in presentation boxes with Certificates of Authenticity. If your coin does not come on the presentation box then it's probably bullion. It would be interested to see how many people own a Brilliant Uncirculated quarter sovereign with a box and CoA.

@LawrenceChard has a very good video on fake sovereigns, about 6 minutes and 20 seconds in he discusses fakes that remind me of yours with additional markings. It's definitely worth a watch if you've not already seen it:

Yes, I'm still looking out for collectable coins. All time high might encourage sales of dormant collections and the chance of some interesting sleepers.

I'm speculating here but there may also be a lag in the premium over spot prices on coins at auction etc.

10 hours ago, AndrewSL76 said:

Just an update. The person who bought this contacted me to ask for help with grading. I examined the coin and felt it was probably just about worth sending to PCGS.

PCGS have just released the grades on that submission and this is recognised as the Roman 1 variety and it was graded as AU50. I think that is a fair result.

The original photo was a little blurry and the error wasn't too clear so a nice result for the buyer. Just had a look at the PCGS population and there are only 4 of this type. 

10 hours ago, Belmont said:

I have this 1861 half sovereign in hand (NGC graded). I wonder what everyone's thought on that 8:

I found one more example like this in PCGS holder.

Well spotted, a very nice overdate with an 8 over a smaller 8.

The PCGS image has a die clash, more obvious on the reverse. I wonder if yours has the fault?

You have a good variety of different heads/monarchs already, so may be a good old Victorian shield back would fit into your collection nicely. Then Edward VII, Elizabeth II Gillick.....

21 hours ago, refero said:

as for the ansell, True that 250.000 were originally minted, but my understanding is that , because of the brittle gold used, most of them just cracked and were melted immediately after coinage. Hence the real figures are Way different.

That's interesting. Ansell makes no mention of his specially treated sovereigns just cracking and being melted down. Do you have a source for this information?

15 minutes ago, dicker said:

There will be some out there waiting to be discovered but this variation is pretty well k own and something a lot of folk look for.

Yes, I totally agree, if one surfaces I'm sure it would be snapped up quickly.

It was the quantities that surprised me, I thought a quarter of a million was a lot compared to other rarities. My time night be better spent looking for those.

👍

Following on from the discussion on rarity of Ansell sovereigns, I'm just doing some reading of "The Royal Mint" by Ansell and I came across a line that hinted at the quantity of Ansell sovereigns minted. The book states:

"... more than a quarter of a million of sovereigns were coined from unannealed blanks obtained from brittle gold... The gold alluded to as coined in 1859... contained antimony, arsenic and lead, so was predisposed to become brittle..."

The total sovereign mintage in 1859 was 1,547,603 and if over 250,000 were the Ansell variety then that is 1 in every 6 of that year.

Is there really that many of them around? I've been searching for sleepers of this coin and I've never seen one yet. I can only assume that they've already been filtered out of the population as it's such an expensive and collectable coin.

I'm not aware of any source document or standard from the 1816 period that specifies the diameter of the sovereign. "The Royal Mint" by Ansell is a good starting point and it's worth a read.

In it he states "The diameter and consequent thickness of a coin are not determined by law, but by it's suitableness for the public to whom it is to be issued; consequentially the usual mode of arriving at the diameter of a coin is too make it of such a size that it will emit the most musical sound it is capable of."

Not bad eh, doesn't matter what diameter it is, so long as it sounds nice! 🤣

Here's a screenshot with some data on coin diameters:

https://archive.org/details/royalmint01anse

These are lovely little coins. My Mum used to have earrings made with a pair of them so I have a strong attraction. With a gold content value of £97 the premiums are just to high. I wouldn't buy a sovereign for £800 and I like them better!

This coin is 13th in the list of top forged US coins so be confident that's it genuine.

https://www.ngccoin.com/resources/counterfeit-detection/top/united-states/

Your coin pictures show a very weak strike, take a look at the denticles. Here's a photo from the PCGS website for comparison.

Following on from my above post, from the royal mint website:

https://www.royalmint.com/discover/uk-coins/mintage-figures/2016-dated-uk-commemorative-coin-sales/

I've not been able to find the billion mintage figures for this year, which aren't included in the above list.

There's alot more billion half sovereigns around then a total of 472.

My guess is the figures for this year have been swapped over for "Bullion" and "Brilliant Uncirculated". I don't have the "Gold Sovereign" in front of me but think the same applies to some of the previous years (2013, 2014, 2015?) and for similar full sovereigns.

On 14/08/2022 at 15:46, Hotdog said:

What's bothering me is the diameter which comes in at an average of 22.31mm after multiple measurements

On 14/08/2022 at 15:46, Hotdog said:

Anybody out there with the same year/mint/coin/measurement?

Hi Hotdog, apologies for raising an old post so hope it's still relevant. I have an identical 1887S Sovereign which, like yours, has an oversize diameter of 22.43mm (link to photos below). I also have a Sydney half sovereign where the diameter measures at 19.7mm compared to the specification of 19.3mm, 0.4mm oversize.  Reading other comments and posts on Sydney mint sovereigns around this period it seems it's not unusual to find them larger than spec.

On 17/02/2023 at 11:53, Hotdog said:

I've read that the London 1887 Jubilee had Silver added along with Copper so as to provide a softer material to allow greater detail to be enhanced. I can't find a reference to state that Silver was added to the Australian coins, though its noticeably more yellow in shade. 

On comparison between my 1887 London and Sydney mint the London coin has the greater yellow appearance, the Sydney coin has a more normal colour, but that's just based on the 2 coins in hand. 

If it hasn't been listed properly and is offered outside of eBay you won't get any buyer protection, rightly to be wary of a scam!