Sovereign Errors, Overdates and Varieties

[sovereignsteve]

Anything in particular? Are you suggesting it may be fake ? In which case you're in the wrong thread😉

[KevjustKev]

17 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

Anything in particular? Are you suggesting it may be fake ? In which case you're in the wrong thread😉

The 9 looks bit, 'funny' to me anyway

[AdmiraldeRuyter]

Should I be concerned about the bad strike on the T?  I'm a new stacker and this is my first sovereign so apologies for the noob question.  This is a new sovereign which came straight from the Royal Mint so I assume it's about as legitimate as they come, I'm more concerned about losing the resale value on the premium due to the condition.

[TheGoldSovereign]

Anyone ever found two die numbered shield sovereigns with different dies before? The whole purpose of die numbers were to increase quality control and prevent the number of errors that occurred before they were introduced. Each number could be traced back to an engraver.

So it was quite a surprise when today I found the same die number but with two different dies, proven clearly by the fact one has an overstrike 🤔

 

[sovereignsteve]

7 hours ago, TheGoldSovereign said:

The whole purpose of die numbers were to increase quality control and prevent the number of errors that occurred before they were introduced. Each number could be traced back to an engraver.

I believe this is a theory not established fact.

However an interesting find which increases our knowledge.

[TheGoldSovereign]

12 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

I believe this is a theory not established fact.

However an interesting find which increases our knowledge.

I believe it is a fact that each die was assigned to an engraver for accountability, though I don't have any records to hand I've read it many times before.

I just had assumed that only one die would ever be made for each number, but maybe instead if an error was found they would go back to the engraver and ask them to remake it. Therefore errors on die number shields, whereby the error was found and a die remade could be considered quite that much scarcer, at least I've never seen one. 

It does seem strange because if a die was flawed and damaged I thought again they would use another die and not remake one with the same number. I thought this could be the reason some die numbers are scarcer than others. Still learning!

[GoldenPhil]

On 21/01/2020 at 15:21, AdmiraldeRuyter said:

Should I be concerned about the bad strike on the T?  I'm a new stacker and this is my first sovereign so apologies for the noob question.  This is a new sovereign which came straight from the Royal Mint so I assume it's about as legitimate as they come, I'm more concerned about losing the resale value on the premium due to the condition.

I got a sovereign today from a reputable dealer (not the mint). I thought the detailing was poor generally on the 2020 sovereign.  Do any of our more experienced members have any thoughts? 

[Prophecy]

On 08/04/2020 at 22:26, GoldenPhil said:

I got a sovereign today from a reputable dealer (not the mint). I thought the detailing was poor generally on the 2020 sovereign.  Do any of our more experienced members have any thoughts? 

The QC at The Royal Mint especially regarding bullion is pretty questionable at times. Looks like the person in charge of setting the die lost a bit of his lunch in it. ROYAL MINT - PLEASE DON'T SET THE DIE WITH A SANDWICH IN YOUR MOUTH!

[Prophecy]

I think lettuce... or maybe a piece of pickle.

[drakesterling]

Not all coins are created equal, even modern issues. This just means an absolutely perfect example is worth more (say if you graded it with PCGS or NGC and it got a high grade).

[Foster88]

On 08/04/2020 at 22:26, GoldenPhil said:

I got a sovereign today from a reputable dealer (not the mint). I thought the detailing was poor generally on the 2020 sovereign.  Do any of our more experienced members have any thoughts? 

I’m very surprised that that passed quality control. It might be a future rarity.

@AdmiraldeRuyter apologies, I quoted the wrong comment, I just noticed that this is your sovereign.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Foster88

[GoldenPhil]

I am confused lol

[sovereignsteve]

On 02/04/2020 at 10:02, TheGoldSovereign said:

I believe it is a fact that each die was assigned to an engraver for accountability, though I don't have any records to hand I've read it many times before.

I have seen it written along the lines of "it is thought" or "it is assumed" that this is the case but I've only just read that this was in fact the case. The source; George Frederick Ansell's book on the workings of the Royal Mint.

[CadmiumGreen]

16 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

I have seen it written along the lines of "it is thought" or "it is assumed" that this is the case but I've only just read that this was in fact the case. The source; George Frederick Ansell's book on the workings of the Royal Mint.

That is correct! 

[sovereignsteve]

I enjoyed reading this book even though he seemed to be rather pedantic on many matters. There is plenty of interesting information on treating the metal to produce blanks but not enough on the production of dies. This seems to have been the realm of the engravers which doesn't appear to have interested him so much. He rather dismisses all the stages of die production which would have been quite interesting to those of us who find overdates and die errors rather fascinating.

[vicamy]

I just received this 1937 double sovereign today and would like some advice please on its authenticity and potential value. As far as I can find information online, only PROOF were produced that year, but this coin doesn’t look like a proof to me. It looks like heavily circulated. I have tested on sigma and it shows it is gold. Thank you.

 

 

[Zhorro]

3 minutes ago, vicamy said:

I just received this 1937 double sovereign today and would like some advice please on its authenticity and potential value. As far as I can find information online, only PROOF were produced that year, but this coin doesn’t look like a proof to me. It looks like heavily circulated. I have tested on sigma and it shows it is gold. Thank you.

I suppose it could have been in a piece of jewellery - hence the condition.

I think the proofs had plain edges, but I am not sure whether yours looks to have a milled edge (i.e ridges going all around the edge).  Maybe you could show a picture of the edge of the coin?

[vicamy]

Thanks @Zhorro. It is plain edge. Please see photo below.

 

 

[sovereignsteve]

On 27/05/2020 at 15:00, vicamy said:

just received this 1937 double sovereign today and would like some advice please on its authenticity and potential value. As far as I can find information online, only PROOF were produced that year, but this coin doesn’t look like a proof to me. It looks like heavily circulated. I have tested on sigma and it shows it is gold. Thank you.

Yes only 5500 proof sets issued in 1937

Those marks around the rim could be from a circular mount. Being heavily used in a mount is probably the only way it could be genuine.

There's nothing that hits you in the face as being wrong in the design other than there appears to be no sign of the obverse engraver's initials and the date looks a little "wrong" to my eyes.

Probably moot as it's in such a bad state it's essentially bullion.

[vicamy]

Thanks @sovereignsteve 

[JamesMason59]

Hi,

Please excuse my other post as I didn't realise that there was a dedicated thread for this kind of thing.

I thought I might check with some of the experts on here. I'm interested in buying an 1872 shield back half sovereign. One I've found on ebay (my first time buying gold off it so I want to be careful) has the die number 38. From my own research it seems like this die number doesn't exist although the source I'm using , Marsh , is from 1982. The number 58 also doesn't exist in case it's simply a mistake in reading the number. Can anyone tell me otherwise and is it possible that this die number could exist or could it be a fake.

The ebay page: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1872-Victoria-22ct-Gold-Shield-Back-Half-Sovereign-Die-38/274355896036?_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20160908105057%26meid%3D60908d7834d54f329cf1add37317cced%26pid%3D100675%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D15%26mehot%3Dnone%26sd%3D274355896036%26itm%3D274355896036%26pmt%3D0%26noa%3D1%26pg%3D2380057&_trksid=p2380057.c100675.m4236&_trkparms=pageci%3A08732a77-b716-11ea-a563-74dbd1800909|parentrq%3Aecd99f9a1720a16e8e9f495fffeb8826|iid%3A1

Thanks.

[Hotdog]

The zeros in the year 2001 do not look vertical to the axis of the coin, almost appear to be in Italic

[Booky586]

I have a 1880M George and Dragon with over stamps. On the date I think I see an 8 over an 8, but could be an 8 over a 3. Any ideas? And on the obverse it looks like a G over a G. Is it common to see errors on George and dragon Victorian coins or is this unusual?

Edited August 1, 2020 by Booky586
Typo correction

[Foster88]

Can anyone with a little more knowledge than me give their opinion on which of these 1862 sheild back sovereigns is the better of the two?

I believe both are of the wide date variety.

A

B

Edited August 12, 2020 by Foster88

[Xander]

1 hour ago, Foster88 said:

Can anyone with a little more knowledge than me give their opinion on which of these 1862 sheild back sovereigns is the better of the two?

I believe both are of the wide date variety.

A

B

B looks the  better coin.