Sovereign Errors, Overdates and Varieties

[Spyder]

2 minutes ago, Orpster said:

Thats the original and revised, original had them as scarce/rare then when revised Steve Hill dropped most years to common.  I think they are the only ones classified as C3/C2 (extremely and very common) in the whole book!

Thanks for that, just noticed it in my version.  Never really took no notice at the time as I only managed to buy a 1911c for about £380 in the last year and all other years have been well north of £450

[Orpster]

2 minutes ago, Spyder said:

Thanks for that, just noticed it in my version.  Never really took no notice at the time as I only managed to buy a 1911c for about £380 in the last year and all other years have been well north of £450

Yea I only have one myself, a 1917C.

I would like more but the auction prices these have been going for the last year or so make my wallet cry

[Sovhead]

9 minutes ago, Orpster said:

Yea I only have one myself, a 1917C.

I would like more but the auction prices these have been going for the last year or so make my wallet cry

I got VERY lucky.

i got an 11 for £330 a 1917 for £300 and an 18 for 440

edit 350, 300, 430

Edited January 31 by Sovhead

[GoldDiggerDave]

25 minutes ago, Spyder said:

@GoldDiggerDave, Where did that page come from, is there a new Marsh Sovereign book just released?

No just the difference in the last two copies, there are a few changes 

[Spyder]

27 minutes ago, Sovhead said:

I got VERY lucky.

i got an 11 for £330 a 1917 for £300 and an 18 for 440

edit 350, 300, 430

You done well, especially if bought within the last 12 months

[Sovhead]

46 minutes ago, Spyder said:

You done well, especially if bought within the last 12 months

November 2021

[sovereignsteve]

 

[sovereignsteve]

18 hours ago, Allgoldcoins said:

I have to agree, their grading of shields is awful, they tend to be more concerned with fields than the actual detail. I have seen some graded as MS63 with no lions faces left!

I've had ones that I would say are EF/gEF come back as AU55 and re-graded at PCGS at 60/61

[Spyder]

40 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

I've had ones that I would say are EF/gEF come back as AU55 and re-graded at PCGS at 60/61

Regarding grading, would anyone say that this coin should have graded XF45

[Britannia47]

Difficult to tell on the reverse alone. Must be a lot of wear on her hair as a guide?  Can you show the obverse?

[jultorsk]

10 minutes ago, Britannia47 said:

Difficult to tell on the reverse alone. Must be a lot of wear on her hair as a guide?  Can you show the obverse?

Agree, seems the grading is at least 80% determined on the wear on Vicky's hair - no weight given on the lion's nostrils.  

[Spyder]

Here is the other side and the 1839 is also graded XF45 from the RM website.  Look at the 1863 from Chards again graded XF45 and a lot more wear to both sides.

https://www.chards.co.uk/1863-victoria-gold-sovereign-roman-i-ng-xf45/16898

This is where I think coins should be graded both sides

[lxy70713]

1 hour ago, sovereignsteve said:

I've had ones that I would say are EF/gEF come back as AU55 and re-graded at PCGS at 60/61

NGC are uselss. I was wondering if there is open channel for submitter to contest the grade with them

[GoldDiggerDave]

22 minutes ago, Spyder said:

Here is the other side and the 1839 is also graded XF45 from the RM website.  Look at the 1863 from Chards again graded XF45 and a lot more wear to both sides.

https://www.chards.co.uk/1863-victoria-gold-sovereign-roman-i-ng-xf45/16898

This is where I think coins should be graded both sides

The 1871 is VF imo for what’s it’s worth, obverse is not EF, reverse is not EF. 
 

I use the British descriptive to get a general grade then it’s other factors like cleaner fields, un dinged rim, strike  etc that may sway me a bit more to add a bit of a grade. 

problem is trying to second guess how someone else sees it.  

[sovereignsteve]

3 hours ago, Spyder said:

Regarding grading, would anyone say that this coin should have graded XF45

No that is harsh IMHO.

The reverse is gVF for the detail but there are dings/marks and the field is marked.

The obverse is a little worse obviously but still falls in the VF range on wear but the field is pretty bad.

On detail wear this coin is a AU55 IMO but previously said, NGC put a lot of emphasis on the field.

 

[sovereignsteve]

3 hours ago, Spyder said:

This is where I think coins should be graded both sides

As far as I am aware they do this already

[GoldDiggerDave]

1 minute ago, sovereignsteve said:

As far as I am aware they do this already

No just one overall grade……Jesus can you imagine the OCD getting a MS65/MS64 split grade.

I know especially at auction it’s normal to list a coin gEF/aUNC for example. one thing with this some solely use aEF (about)  should  be almost, where others use solely  NEF (nearly) for describing approaching EF and etc. 

 

Who’s “about” is more accurate than the others “nearly”?   And NEF is way over used to describe a slightly better than VF coin.

Most dealers don’t use the British descriptive as listed it’s become an amalgamation of British, traditional US and the sheldon scale…….and you wonder why no one can agree on anything 🤣

 

 

[Spyder]

1 hour ago, sovereignsteve said:

As far as I am aware they do this already

When I said both sides, I meant both sides get their own grade as pointed out by Dave after

[sovereignsteve]

4 hours ago, Spyder said:

When I said both sides, I meant both sides get their own grade as pointed out by Dave after

Ah I misunderstood! doh

 

[bazbigfoot]

hi i am totally new to sovereign collecting but ive just got book by marsh and he lists and rates errors on coins i have an 1860 full sovereign with what looks like an r under d in fid and another under f in def and its not listed in book why ? and is it worth more or less than perfect coin ? baffled

[bazbigfoot]

also do you clean coins or leave as they are any advice would be appreciated thanks

[Orpster]

11 minutes ago, bazbigfoot said:

also do you clean coins or leave as they are any advice would be appreciated thanks

Never ever ever clean a coin, just never

[Orpster]

24 minutes ago, bazbigfoot said:

hi i am totally new to sovereign collecting but ive just got book by marsh and he lists and rates errors on coins i have an 1860 full sovereign with what looks like an r under d in fid and another under f in def and its not listed in book why ? and is it worth more or less than perfect coin ? baffled

There are lots and lots of little irregularities and errors on sovereigns, especially in the 1850's and early 1860's.  They are still finding new ones now.  Only those known by the author(s) of the Gold Sovereign book will be noted.  Some error coins and varieties can be worth more than a standard version, sometimes significantly, some are just something that makes the coin more interesting and potentially more desirable 

Edited February 1 by Orpster

[dicker]

51 minutes ago, bazbigfoot said:

also do you clean coins or leave as they are any advice would be appreciated thanks

Cleaning is a massive no no.  I own Shields that are covered what appears to be tar or ink, others just plain dirty. Best left as is.

A lot of coins for sale on eBay have been cleaned, but look on.  It destroys their value.  

[dicker]

1 hour ago, bazbigfoot said:

hi i am totally new to sovereign collecting but ive just got book by marsh and he lists and rates errors on coins i have an 1860 full sovereign with what looks like an r under d in fid and another under f in def and its not listed in book why ? and is it worth more or less than perfect coin ? baffled

They are noteworthy and folk will pay a little more for them but they are not spectacular errors, so they price slightly but not masses higher than a normal Sov in the same condition.

Mis aligned die errors and errors where a coin has completely the wrong letter such as the Sydney Half spelled Sovrreign are in a different (higher) league.