Sovereign Errors, Overdates and Varieties

[paulmerton]

1 minute ago, Sovhead said:

What does “reverse struck thru” mean? what am I not seeing here?

I’m learning btw not trying to be a smart erse.

It means the reverse image was struck onto the blank through a foreign object.

[Sovhead]

On 16/08/2023 at 17:32, GoldDiggerDave said:

I would get it re submitted with the pedigree. 

So would I it’s a no brainer, it’s not a simple minting error it’s a stand out total wrong abb.

It would significantly increase the value of that piece.

[Sovhead]

3 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

It means the reverse image was struck onto the blank through a foreign object.

The planchet had dirt etc on it when the minting took place mate??

Edited September 29, 2023 by Sovhead

[paulmerton]

Just now, Sovhead said:

The planchet had dirt/foreign body on it when the minting took place mate??

Anything that comes between the die and the blank can result in a struck thru error. It can be grease, die caps, flecks of metal, string, anything really. Not sure what it was in that example, perhaps a piece of cloth?

[Sovhead]

Just now, paulmerton said:

Anything that comes between the die and the blank can result in a struck thru error. It can be grease, die caps, flecks of metal, string, anything really. Not sure what it was in that example, perhaps a piece of cloth?

Thanks for your replies mate very much appreciated 👍🏻👏👏

[Spyder]

1 hour ago, ZRPMs said:

I've been going through my half's. Only looked at a few so far. Not much of note There is something around the 1817 

There is a Jubilee head 1893, mintage of 186,218 but only 4.2% of this are the Jubilee head. No rarity rating but cant be too common. and an 1849 down in the book as rare. There is an 1879 but its quite worn. Not sure if its a mint mark of Sydney on the back making it Scarce or die 8 which would make it an R4. It's most likely a Sydney mint mark though.  

Looks like some sort of number 1 or part of an H

[Booky586]

Here's a 2015 Mule error - bullion obverse and frosted proof reverse. However, the obverse has some marks on it (circled in red) that I don't recognise. What's happening here? I was considering grading it but not sure now.

Any information and help appreciated!

Edited October 7, 2023 by Booky586

[modofantasma]

New to the errors/ varieties side of sovereigns.... Here's an 1859

Spoilers below...

Something under the 9?

🤔

[Booky586]

On 13/10/2023 at 22:26, modofantasma said:

Something under the 9?

Looks like a 9 over 9 but I can't explain the blob at the top of the 9 as well. May be there's a die crack in there too?

[modofantasma]

20 minutes ago, Booky586 said:

Looks like a 9 over 9 but I can't explain the blob at the top of the 9 as well. May be there's a die crack in there too?

That blob at the top is what threw me off 🧐

[Sovhead]

Why the difference?

I’ve got a Canadian 1917 Sov mintage of 58,875 it’s usual sale price is around £500-£550 but earlier tonight I seen a 1928 Melbourne Sov low mintage of 413,000 sell for £845.

Both are Geo V coins both G&D why is there such a price difference with the rarer minted coin selling for half the price of the other??

Anyone any idea?

[Foster88]

4 minutes ago, Sovhead said:

Why the difference?

I’ve got a Canadian 1917 Sov mintage of 58,875 it’s usual sale price is around £500-£550 but earlier tonight I seen a 1928 Melbourne Sov low mintage of 413,000 sell for £845.

Both are Geo V coins both G&D why is there such a price difference with the rarer minted coin selling for half the price of the other??

Anyone any idea?

The George V Canadian sovereigns were re classed by rarity in the latest Marsh book 2021.

I think I read somewhere on here that batches of them had been found in the Canadian mint meaning they were classed as less rare than previously thought.

Most of 1928 Melbourne sovereigns were likely melted during the 1930’s where many Australian and London mint sovereigns were used to pay debts and so were melted down.

According to the latest Marsh book:

1917 Canada - Rated: C2 very common.

1928 Melbourne - Rated: R2 very rare.

Hope this helps.

[Sovhead]

4 minutes ago, Foster88 said:

The George V Canadian sovereigns were re classed by rarity in the latest Marsh book 2021.

I think I read somewhere on here that batches of them had been found in the Canadian mint meaning they were classed as less rare than previously thought.

Most of 1928 Melbourne sovereigns were likely melted during the 1930’s where many Australian and London mint sovereigns were used to pay debts and so were melted down.

According to the latest Marsh book:

1917 Canada - Rated: C2 very common.

1928 Melbourne - Rated: R2 very rare.

Hope this helps.

It does indeed mate thanks for your reply 👍🏻

[jultorsk]

2 minutes ago, Foster88 said:

The George V Canadian sovereigns were re classed by rarity in the latest Marsh book 2021.

I think I read somewhere on here that batches of them had been found in the Canadian mint meaning they were classed as less rare than previously thought.

Most of 1928 Melbourne sovereigns were likely melted during the 1930’s where many Australian and London mint sovereigns were used to pay debts and so were melted down.

According to the latest Marsh book:

1917 Canada - Rated: C2 very common.

1928 Melbourne - Rated: R2 very rare.

Hope this helps.

Allegedly there have been no new Canadian sov batches found at the mint or their central bank, though. The reclassification was indeed contested and AFAIK still under debate.

 

[Sovhead]

5 minutes ago, jultorsk said:

Allegedly there have been no new Canadian sov batches found at the mint or their central bank, though. The reclassification was indeed contested and AFAIK still under debate.

 

It’s strange, surely at a mint they’d keep very strict documentation about how many were minted you don’t just mark down 58,875 and years later go “oh look there’s 3 sacks full of them over here” ….

What is AFAIK mate?

As far as I know the penny just dropped there 🤣🤣🤣

Edited October 29, 2023 by Sovhead
Typo

[Foster88]

6 minutes ago, jultorsk said:

Allegedly there have been no new Canadian sov batches found at the mint or their central bank, though. The reclassification was indeed contested and AFAIK still under debate.

 

Thanks, I stand corrected It must have been the speculation that more could have been found that I remembered.

[Foster88]

10 minutes ago, Sovhead said:

It does indeed mate thanks for your reply 👍🏻

One thing to remember is that mintages, whilst helpful, do provide an idea of possible rarity but many sovereigns even with a mintage of 1 million plus can be rarer than a mintage under 500,000. Many have been melted down.

[Sovhead]

3 minutes ago, Foster88 said:

One thing to remember is that mintages, whilst helpful, do provide an idea of possible rarity but many sovereigns even with a mintage of 1 million plus can be rarer than a mintage under 500,000. Many have been melted down.

I already knew a bit about that mate I remember reading about one of the Geo v Sovs minted in the millions and common knowledge but very very few left I can’t remember the year 👍🏻

An Indian one maybe?

Edited October 29, 2023 by Sovhead
Typo

[Foster88]

2 minutes ago, Sovhead said:

I already knew a bit about that mate I remember reading about one of the Geo v Sovs minted in the millions and common knowledge but very very few left I can’t remember the year 👍🏻

An Indian one maybe?

No it wouldn’t be an Indian mint, they were only minted for one year, 1918 and do come up for sale now and again.

Most likely the 1917 London mint sovereigns you mean.

[Sovhead]

2 minutes ago, Foster88 said:

No it wouldn’t be an Indian mint, they were only minted for one year, 1918 and do come up for sale now and again.

Most likely the 1917 London mint sovereigns you mean.

It is, how stupid of me I already effin own the only Indian 1918 and I only bought it last week 🤣🤣

[modofantasma]

1 minute ago, Sovhead said:

It is, how stupid of me I already effin own the only Indian 1918 and I only bought it last week 🤣🤣

Lots to learn mate. And the more you know the more you realise you don't know 👍🏼

[Sovhead]

Just now, modofantasma said:

Lots to learn mate. And the more you know the more you realise you don't know 👍🏼

Yep, I’ve asked a load of q’s on here but I’ve gotten all the answers a very knowledgeable group mate 👍🏻

[jultorsk]

2 hours ago, Foster88 said:

Thanks, I stand corrected It must have been the speculation that more could have been found that I remembered.

No worries at all, I just thought to mention it as I was equally baffled by the old vs. new rarities at Marsh editions and remembered the confusion/debate about the matter. 

[Sovhead]

5 minutes ago, jultorsk said:

No worries at all, I just thought to mention it as I was equally baffled by the old vs. new rarities at Marsh editions and remembered the confusion/debate about the matter. 

Have Marsh jumped the gun with no actual proof there were more?

[jultorsk]

14 minutes ago, Sovhead said:

Have Marsh jumped the gun with no actual proof there were more?

Michael Marsh sadly died already many years ago, the newer editions now debated are based on his work and revised by Steve Hill and other co-contributors under Token Publishing, who bought the rights from Mr. Marsh's widow. The entire thread above is worth reading, and regrettably Steve Hill's response to the direct inquiry regarding the matter is not exactly clearing the issue.