Sovereign Errors, Overdates and Varieties

[Sovhead]

3 minutes ago, Allgoldcoins said:

I am sure I can see a weak bar :

 

Looks a die crack to me it’s so faint.

[sovereignsteve]

On 15/01/2024 at 21:58, Sovhead said:

Looks a die crack to me it’s so faint.

I have to agree with Clive, definitely a faint bar. The crack seems to track down the descending side of the A and keeps away from the bar. Just IMO😀

[Sovhead]

10 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

I have to agree with Clive, definitely a faint bar. The crack seems to track down the descending side of the A and keeps away from the bar. Just IMO😀

🤦‍♂️ it’s an unbarred A there’s 3 die cracks one top and bottom of the A and one going through it, look at the A in Victoria it’s VERY prominent where are you @Orpster

[sovereignsteve]

1 hour ago, Sovhead said:

🤦‍♂️ it’s an unbarred A there’s 3 die cracks one top and bottom of the A and one going through it, look at the A in Victoria it’s VERY prominent where are you @Orpster

If I understand you correctly you are saying that because the A in Victoria has a pronounced bar and because the two As in GRACIA are noticeably less so then they must be unbarred?

If so then you don't understand how these faint/missing bars can come about.

Regarding the die crack. There seems to be just the one going from the edge of the coin through the top of the A and then out of the bottom of the descending arm. You can only see the parts outside of the A as the descending slope covers up that part.

It is almost impossible to have 3 separate die cracks so close together without them merging into one entity during the extreme pressures of the strike.

[Orpster]

9 hours ago, Sovhead said:

🤦‍♂️ it’s an unbarred A there’s 3 die cracks one top and bottom of the A and one going through it, look at the A in Victoria it’s VERY prominent where are you @Orpster

Sorry dude lol, not been keeping up with notifications

Both A's are barred, feint but I can see them under a loupe.  They are both joined at the base as well which is pretty cool

[paulmerton]

I'm not massively clued up on these older ones, so I'll just post these here for people's enjoyment and to see if anyone has anything interesting to say about them.

They're both from the RM Douro shipwreck set and the luck of the draw is that the 1874 St George and the Dragon one is fairly low mintage (less than 520,713, but I have no idea how much less as that mintage is also shared with the shield design with the same date).

Raise 6? Unsure if that's interesting!

Double stamped R?

London Mint 1874 😎

[Sovhead]

I’ve a 1900m half sovereign and I’ve seen a reference to a “type 2” of this coin anyone have any info on this?

I’m guessing there are 2 variants.

[Orpster]

For those that remember a few weeks ago when I received the 1872M medallic die error coin, I sent that off to get it re-slabbed with NGC and to try and get the error assignment on the slab

This is the coin prior to me sending it off:

 

Well I got the results today and NGC have given it the correct marsh number and the error assignment I was after, though no mention of the die clash but I was not really expecting that - https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/6769040-001/55/

 

They have even put close ups on the site, not always a given with them

 

 

[Petra]

3 hours ago, Orpster said:

For those that remember a few weeks ago when I received the 1872M medallic die error coin, I sent that off to get it re-slabbed with NGC and to try and get the error assignment on the slab

This is the coin prior to me sending it off:

 

Well I got the results today and NGC have given it the correct marsh number and the error assignment I was after, though no mention of the die clash but I was not really expecting that - https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/6769040-001/55/

 

They have even put close ups on the site, not always a given with them

 

 

Bit of a money booster!😮👍😁

[Booky586]

4 hours ago, Orpster said:

For those that remember a few weeks ago when I received the 1872M medallic die error coin, I sent that off to get it re-slabbed with NGC and to try and get the error assignment on the slab

This is the coin prior to me sending it off:

 

Well I got the results today and NGC have given it the correct marsh number and the error assignment I was after, though no mention of the die clash but I was not really expecting that - https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/6769040-001/55/

 

They have even put close ups on the site, not always a given with them

 

 

Well done getting the error attribute on the label, it should be worth the effort when you come to sell.

[Sovhead]

4 hours ago, Orpster said:

For those that remember a few weeks ago when I received the 1872M medallic die error coin, I sent that off to get it re-slabbed with NGC and to try and get the error assignment on the slab

This is the coin prior to me sending it off:

 

Well I got the results today and NGC have given it the correct marsh number and the error assignment I was after, though no mention of the die clash but I was not really expecting that - https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/6769040-001/55/

 

They have even put close ups on the site, not always a given with them

 

 

Nice mate, you know I can’t decide which slab I like better between the PCGS and the NGC think I like the PCGS slab but prefer the NGC Labelling 🤔

[Orpster]

3 minutes ago, Sovhead said:

Nice mate, you know I can’t decide which slab I like better between the PCGS and the NGC think I like the PCGS slab but prefer the NGC Labelling 🤔

The PCGS slabs are decent and with it being an Australian sov I did consider going PCGS, but decided on NGC in the end just out of personal preference 

[Sovhead]

2 minutes ago, Orpster said:

The PCGS slabs are decent and with it being an Australian sov I did consider going PCGS, but decided on NGC in the end just out of personal preference 

Yeah I get you, I just like the fact you can see the full circumference of the coin in the PCGS slabs because the lugs that hold the coin are transparent.

[GoldDiggerDave]

10 minutes ago, Sovhead said:

Yeah I get you, I just like the fact you can see the full circumference of the coin in the PCGS slabs because the lugs that hold the coin are transparent.

I wish there was an option to select NGC Airview slabs, I’ve had a few ancient coins with the slab and I do liken them.  Possibly an option for the future.
 

 

[Sovhead]

4 minutes ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

I wish there was an option to select NGC Airview slabs, I’ve had a few ancient coins with the slab and I do liken them.  Possibly an option for the future.
 

 

Yeah I really like them mate they’re really good 👍🏻 

At this moment you can’t choose that for sovs etc?

Edited January 26 by Sovhead

[Petra]

39 minutes ago, Orpster said:

The PCGS slabs are decent and with it being an Australian sov I did consider going PCGS, but decided on NGC in the end just out of personal preference 

Oh…. and great pictures 🤔😮😮

[GoldDiggerDave]

8 hours ago, Sovhead said:

Yeah I really like them mate they’re really good 👍🏻 

At this moment you can’t choose that for sovs etc?

Yes that’s right, it’s something that I will keep asking about as i’d have no issue with paying a bit more for these.

[drakesterling]

PCGS also acknowledge that particular variety, but it is a special request under the mint error submission, so can be a little expensive to do:

https://www.drakesterling.com/news/post/pcgs-graded-sovereign-from-1872-m-with-medallic-die-alignment

[Britannia47]

12 hours ago, Orpster said:

The PCGS slabs are decent and with it being an Australian sov I did consider going PCGS, but decided on NGC in the end just out of personal preference 

Also, I like the fact that NGC has taken the vertical alignment from the shield. Usually there are far too many ‘wonky’ shields slabbed by NGC. Cf  PCGS. above. This means the head in this case is slightly tilted back, but that’s acceptable IMO, and just about perfect. It certainly looks tidier than other slabbed Young head shields I’ve seen….. Superb collectors item - Well done!

[paulmerton]

19 hours ago, Orpster said:

Well I got the results today and NGC have given it the correct marsh number and the error assignment I was after, though no mention of the die clash but I was not really expecting that

Shouldn't it say MINT ERROR on the grade if it's an error?

[Orpster]

2 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

Shouldn't it say MINT ERROR on the grade if it's an error?

Sorry what I meant to say was it did not get the mint error (die clash) but did get the assignment (marsh 46B) which sits under pedigree on the NGC site

[paulmerton]

2 minutes ago, Orpster said:

Sorry what I meant to say was it did not get the mint error (die clash) but did get the assignment (marsh 46B) which sits under pedigree on the NGC site

Ahh! That's a real shame about the die clash not being noted. I would have challenged them on that one, and it might be worth doing so even now? I know someone who had to try three times to get them to grade an obvious error coin as an error but they did it in the end.

[Orpster]

12 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

Ahh! That's a real shame about the die clash not being noted. I would have challenged them on that one, and it might be worth doing so even now? I know someone who had to try three times to get them to grade an obvious error coin as an error but they did it in the end.

I am content with it as is so I don't think I will bother, but yes I know a couple of people who have had to continually send back coins to get them assigned correctly

[jultorsk]

On 26/01/2024 at 09:17, Orpster said:

For those that remember a few weeks ago when I received the 1872M medallic die error coin, I sent that off to get it re-slabbed with NGC and to try and get the error assignment on the slab

This is the coin prior to me sending it off:

 

Well I got the results today and NGC have given it the correct marsh number and the error assignment I was after, though no mention of the die clash but I was not really expecting that - https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/6769040-001/55/

 

They have even put close ups on the site, not always a given with them

 

 

That's an awesome coin, love it. I just don't understand why NGC maps the medallic Marsh-59B under the standard (Marsh-59) type in their census. Clearly it is an important enough difference, and should have it's own row in census - right? I understand that Spink does not have a separate reference for the medallic, but they don't for 1872/1-M (Marsh-59A) either and that has gotten it's own row at NGC. 

The above obscures the rarity of certified populations; e.g., Marsh rarity is R4 to the overdate and "only" R3 to medallic - imho there's more 1872/1-M's kicking around than the medallics.

[Orpster]

8 minutes ago, jultorsk said:

Marsh rarity is R4 to the overdate and "only" R3 to medallic - imho there's more 1872/1-M's kicking around than the medallics.

I completely agree and we are not the only people who believe this.  The known examples of the medallic die alignment are in single figures

You may find this article on Drake Sterling interesting - https://www.drakesterling.com/news/post/pcgs-graded-sovereign-from-1872-m-with-medallic-die-alignment?fbclid=IwAR3BD9bA8yJz00HFRElrQaMxd4pf8yOl5M7OmUn-FtklJarLEhEQ79M15i4

There is also mention of them in the Bentley collection catalogue.  I have a hard copy of this and you can see the same die clash as well!