Sovereign Errors, Overdates and Varieties

[bazbigfoot]

regarding values of sovereigns i have read on this site full sov £380 to £400 and half sov £180 to £200 the1860 full sov i have with letters underneath other letters and what looks like a large O in date and the 1878 half sov with unlisted die no 68 how much more would they be worth thanks in advance

[Petra]

2 hours ago, bazbigfoot said:

regarding values of sovereigns i have read on this site full sov £380 to £400 and half sov £180 to £200 the1860 full sov i have with letters underneath other letters and what looks like a large O in date and the 1878 half sov with unlisted die no 68 how much more would they be worth thanks in advance

The die number isn’t particularly special, however, a couple of good pictures could help with your other queries!🤔🤔

[bazbigfoot]

hi petra pictures of faults ive already posted but here are some more i dont know if its a large o in date or small 6

[Allgoldcoins]

46 minutes ago, bazbigfoot said:

hi petra pictures of faults ive already posted but here are some more i dont know if its a large o in date or small 6

This is a Large 'O' type sovereign, the '6' is misaligned which common on a lot of 1860 sovereigns.

 

[Petra]

There you go some good guidance already!🤔👍

[bazbigfoot]

so the large 0 and the misaligned 6 are common what about these other faults with the F and the D having what i believe is an R underneath them is this common as well ? When you read marsh he lists faults as rare 1 or 2 etc but in fact they are common and are not relevant to value of coin 

[Allgoldcoins]

2 hours ago, bazbigfoot said:

so the large 0 and the misaligned 6 are common what about these other faults with the F and the D having what i believe is an R underneath them is this common as well ? When you read marsh he lists faults as rare 1 or 2 etc but in fact they are common and are not relevant to value of coin 

This looks to be F over repositioned F in DEF, typical of the type of workmanship at the Mint during the mid 19th century.

Not sure about the D FID here but again appears to be just sloppy workmanship.

[bazbigfoot]

definitely an r under the f curly bit the foot of an r and i believe bit sticking out of d is foot of r but all irrelevant doesn't matter if its got micky mouse under them still only worth 8 grams of 22ct gold , ive got 1861 sov the date looks as if its been put on with liquid gold its got runs yet ive got george 3rd and they are perfect 

[Allgoldcoins]

6 hours ago, bazbigfoot said:

definitely an r under the f curly bit the foot of an r and i believe bit sticking out of d is foot of r but all irrelevant doesn't matter if its got micky mouse under them still only worth 8 grams of 22ct gold , ive got 1861 sov the date looks as if its been put on with liquid gold its got runs yet ive got george 3rd and they are perfect 

That links in nicely with another thread the great engravers, GEO III and early GEO IV sovereigns were both the work of Benedetto Pistrucci, he did the original engraving, cut and prepaired the dies himself, he was a perfectionist. The GEO IV laureate head series 1821-1825 contains no notable error sovereigns.

[GoldDiggerDave]

6 hours ago, bazbigfoot said:

definitely an r under the f curly bit the foot of an r and i believe bit sticking out of d is foot of r but all irrelevant doesn't matter if its got micky mouse under them still only worth 8 grams of 22ct gold , ive got 1861 sov the date looks as if its been put on with liquid gold its got runs yet ive got george 3rd and they are perfect 

I like to see worn dies, there’s some truly worn dies that join almost all the letter on the legend together. 
 

I love the common die break on the 1871 (off the top of the 1 to the neck of Victoria) I have so many of these with the die in various degrees of degradation. 

[bazbigfoot]

when i was at school which wasn't in the 1860s if i'd made mistakes like there is on these sovs i would have had red ink marks in my books heres another the date has run on this 1861 must have used liquid gold 😏

[dicker]

Don’t forget the quantity that were being minted.  Over a billion Sovs in total the Shields using Victorian techniques!

[bazbigfoot]

yes understand but someone must have been dyslexic definitely an r under the f and part of an r sticking out of d , gona put it on ebay unique one of a kind starting bid £50,000 for those who think they have everything but hav'nt 😃

[Spyder]

What would collectors prefer a die crack, over letters or extra lumps of gold like below

Little on the steep side, this coin seems have some strange marks like gold spill in two places effigy side.

https://handt.co.uk/collections/coins-gold-bars/products/22ct-gold-queen-victoria-full-sovereign-coin-2122

 

Edited February 27 by Spyder

[Belmont]

A little unsure on this one. Any opinion is appreciated.

[paulmerton]

3 minutes ago, Belmont said:

A little unsure on this one. Any opinion is appreciated.

Looks like a strike-through to me.

[Spyder]

This is a miss strike, auction 14 March est £2000+   I myself could never like a coin like this.

Anyone interested in who is selling, it is here

https://iritamarriottauctioneers.co.uk/catalogue/lot/f7f5a4c1f8eb14ac8b6e9d2e54eeefbd/ac869eb6fd0ab6f5ae3773f46ee09093/march-antiques-and-collectors-auction-930am-start-lot-224/

Edited March 11 by Spyder

[Zhorro]

4 minutes ago, Spyder said:

This is a miss strike, auction 14 March est £2000+   I myself could never like a coin like this.

As long as it is genuine!  It does seem odd that such a coin is so worn.

Edited March 11 by Zhorro
typo

[paulmerton]

51 minutes ago, Zhorro said:

As long as it is genuine!  It does seem odd that such a coin is so worn.

Is it worn, or simply not struck with enough pressure...

[dicker]

Whilst I collect errors, I don’t have enough confidence that this is genuine. 

I particularly don’t like the peeling gold at the very bottom of the obverse side.

[SilverTalent]

.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 17 by SilverTalent

[Belmont]

I have this 1861 half sovereign in hand (NGC graded). I wonder what everyone's thought on that 8:

I found one more example like this in PCGS holder.

[Spyder]

18 minutes ago, Belmont said:

I have this 1861 half sovereign in hand (NGC graded). I wonder what everyone's thought on that 8:

I found one more example like this in PCGS holder.

From my point of view, it looks like the wrong size 8 was used and after the correct. It seems every number is different size to the next on all the date.

[1853DEE]

Hi Everyone 
I am trying to work out if this is the angled 4 variety, please comment,thanks

[Orpster]

17 minutes ago, 1853DEE said:

Hi Everyone 
I am trying to work out if this is the angled 4 variety, please comment,thanks

Would appear so I think

Never seen the 1, 8, 5 so 'fat' on an 1845