Today I Received.....

[TheGoldSovereign]

2 minutes ago, JunkBond said:

Well if I was posting that I would not have said Lucky Dip, that's specific monarch territory.

Don't quite agree, they only recently split out young heads into their own listing, and it's still mixed years.

[TheGoldSovereign]

Quick photo method using loupe!

1871 Sydney large BP. Only posting it because I only have one other of these so clearly more rare! Definitely don't agree with Marsh ratings on a lot of coins.

Edited February 28, 2018 by sg86

[999magnum]

[JohnA]

1943 Sixpence.

I am going to collect these. I have all the QE II and I have others like 1887 both types in MS cond. I have all the George VI on order

 

 

[sovereignsteve]

7 hours ago, sg86 said:

1871 Sydney large BP. Only posting it because I only have one other of these so clearly more rare! Definitely don't agree with Marsh ratings on a lot of coins

If you looked at where you obtained your bulk coins and their likely source, maybe you'll get an idea why you're seeing a different sample from the trade concensus? Otherwise, random chance is a fickle thing

[Silvergun]

A 1913 half sovereign , purchased from Ebay

[JohnA]

@Silvergun nice details

[Silvergun]

21 minutes ago, JohnAnsink said:

@Silvergun nice details

Thanks

[AgD]

In the post today a lovely 1893-s Victoria jubilee head full sovereign from @MikeSol ?

[Alun]

The last in my Le Grand Mint Evolution 1 series and the first in series 2..

Amazing Quaility these [emoji106]

[mongo28]

A 1913 half sovereign , purchased from ebay

 

 

Beautiful condition! Send it off to NGC through [mention=378]numistacker[/mention]

[westminstrel]

15 hours ago, Silvergun said:

A 1913 half sovereign , purchased from Ebay

That is an absolute beauty.

[TheGoldSovereign]

On 28/02/2018 at 22:41, sovereignsteve said:

If you looked at where you obtained your bulk coins and their likely source, maybe you'll get an idea why you're seeing a different sample from the trade concensus? Otherwise, random chance is a fickle thing

My coins are from at least 6 different sources as of today, so I think this is a reasonable representation. A lot of coins are inline with Marsh, but some clearly not (and it's well documented that he just used mintage figures for a lot of his ratings and didn't do much sampling really)

 

edit: and those 6 source have 10s of sources of their own, which I didn't think about

Edited March 2, 2018 by sg86

[augur]

On 01/03/2018 at 08:45, Silvergun said:

A 1913 half sovereign , purchased from Ebay

9 hours ago, westminstrel said:

That is an absolute beauty.

There are a lot of stunning half sovereigns on the market with little premium. Blown up on the screen they have amazing detail and little to no wear.

 

[westminstrel]

25 minutes ago, augur said:

There are a lot of stunning half sovereigns on the market with little premium. Blown up on the screen they have amazing detail and little to no wear.

 

Somehow I’ve found it hard to find good pics of Half Sovereigns for sale online. Perhaps I’m looking in the wrong places, but then there’s mighty few sellers in Australia anyway. 

[Goldmick]

Just got these from a forum member well happy thanks nice coins 

[sovereignsteve]

3 hours ago, sg86 said:

My coins are from at least 6 different sources as of today, so I think this is a reasonable representation. A lot of coins are inline with Marsh, but some clearly not (and it's well documented that he just used mintage figures for a lot of his ratings and didn't do much sampling really)

 

edit: and those 6 source have 10s of sources of their own, which I didn't think about

Reasonable thnking but you are only going to get statistically representative results with large populations. as soon as you are dealing with small numbers ie rarer coins, you are going to see major discrepencies.

[Silvergun]

3  Emu bullion coins from Arshi

[TheGoldSovereign]

2 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

Reasonable thnking but you are only going to get statistically representative results with large populations. as soon as you are dealing with small numbers ie rarer coins, you are going to see major discrepencies.

So you don't agree that if Marsh rates two coins as "S", you have 60 of one and 1 of another then something isn't a little off? (buying for many different sources etc)

As I say he came to a lot of his ratings due to mintage figures, there are many other variables which as i know you know, mean those coins may or may not longer exist in such quantities. Also the varieties he lists are often one rarity higher than the "Default", which i believe he just did because really wasn't sure.

I think it's therefore fair to say not all of his ratings are accurate.

Edited March 2, 2018 by sg86

[JunkBond]

Got this today from Atkinsons, not struck central and slightly too thick, weight 3.98g, rang them up and they said send it back.

Your thoughts appreciated.

 

[sovereignsteve]

29 minutes ago, sg86 said:

So you don't agree that if Marsh rates two coins as "S", you have 60 of one and 1 of another then something isn't a little off? (buying for many different sources etc)

As I say he came to a lot of his ratings due to mintage figures, there are many other variables which as i know you know, mean those coins may or may not longer exist in such quantities. Also the varieties he lists are often one rarity higher than the "Default", which i believe he just did because really he had no idea.

I think it's therefore fair to say not all of his ratings are even close to reality.

Are you referring to the original books or the latest, updated version? I would expect the latest version to be fairly close to reality, having been updated by someone prominently in the trade for years. Or at least a good estimation and to reflect current best knowledge.
I think you are doing Marsh somewhat of a disservice; to suggest he effectively plucked some of these figures out of the air is unfair. I was under the impression that Marsh compiled his original ratings using mintages, his experience and that of friends and people in the business. In fact he revised a lot of the availability figures from version to version in the light of further experience.
Also, don't forget that he talks about the availabilty of these varieties in grades of VF and above. Once you add in lower grades, the numbers can rise substantially.

I would agree though, that 60 is looking a bit ridiculous

You are in the fortunate position to be able to assess the Marsh ratings in the light of your not inconsiderable numbers of coins. However, these have been compiled over a relatively short period of time and should be taken as an addition to the general consensus and not a replacement. Nobody knows all the facts and it may well be that your holding could alter the consensus of knowledge about certain coins. However you need to recognise that your holding is still small compared to all the collectable coins held throughout the world.

 

[TheGoldSovereign]

20 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

Are you referring to the original books or the latest, updated version? I would expect the latest version to be fairly close to reality, having been updated by someone prominently in the trade for years. Or at least a good estimation and to reflect current best knowledge.
I think you are doing Marsh somewhat of a disservice; to suggest he effectively plucked some of these figures out of the air is unfair. I was under the impression that Marsh compiled his original ratings using mintages, his experience and that of friends and people in the business. In fact he revised a lot of the availability figures from version to version in the light of further experience.
Also, don't forget that he talks about the availabilty of these varieties in grades of VF and above. Once you add in lower grades, the numbers can rise substantially.

I would agree though, that 60 is looking a bit ridiculous

You are in the fortunate position to be able to assess the Marsh ratings in the light of your not inconsiderable numbers of coins. However, these have been compiled over a relatively short period of time and should be taken as an addition to the general consensus and not a replacement. Nobody knows all the facts and it may well be that your holding could alter the consensus of knowledge about certain coins. However you need to recognise that your holding is still small compared to all the collectable coins held throughout the world.

 

My comments weren't intending to do Marsh a disservice at all, his research like many others is world renowned and rightly so!

Of course he started with mintage and updated as he gained experience, I'm merely saying that he didn't have had time to see everything, and this is where I'm saying some figures are likely not inline with reality. The latest revision by Steve Hill again has many many mistakes, I've been communicating with him frequently and he also shares some of my views regarding the varieties and ratings, some of these will be in the next revision.

I'm really not saying I'm about to redo everybody's work for the past 80 years, I'm simply hoping to add to it. This point about some of the ratings is just one thing! 

edit: I did re-read my post and it is overly harsh in the wording, I often write and don't read over before hitting the send button

Edited March 2, 2018 by sg86

[Roy]

Can you explain more JB?

@JunkBond

[JunkBond]

@Roy

As soon as I saw the coin it was obvious that it is not struck centrally on the planchet, now being a bit wet behind the ears still I am not sure if this indicates a forgery but I believe it does.

I weighed the coin and it was spot on but its definitely slightly thicker that my other halves, I rang Atkinsons and explained the above and they said return the coin for us to look at.

Just wanted to confirm with the assembled brains trust that is TSF that I am on the right track here.

[ilovesilverireallydo]

1 hour ago, JunkBond said:

Got this today from Atkinsons, not struck central and slightly too thick, weight 3.98g, rang them up and they said send it back.

Your thoughts appreciated.

 

Jewellers copy? Worth having it gunned if you live local to a jewellers or scrap dealer. 

The "Regina" looks way too close to the edge - unless its the angle of the photo?