Sovereign Errors, Overdates and Varieties

[sovereignsteve]

4 minutes ago, drakesterling said:

The small/different 3 is scarcer than the normal 3, but not by much. 

 

It exists on the London issue as well.

 

Eric

yes on closer inspection, i would say the 1 and 8 are the same height, the 7 is distinctly larger and the 3 is slightly smaller.

[TheGoldSovereign]

18 hours ago, Elements said:

I’m not sure if it’s smaller that’s why I asked SG86 if he had any to compare. There’s something different about it though as sovtracker notes. The ‘small variety’ or ‘dodgy 3’ doesn’t look even to me, the top part of the 3 not curling as far towards the Center line as as the bottom section. The other 3 looks symmetrical

I think it's a nice spot, not one I've noticed and recorded. I have 15 but they are all in storage so can't check unfortunately 

Not a great deal of variety in young head st.george overall to be honest! 

Edited January 26, 2019 by sg86

[Xander]

Not sure if this 1/2 Sovereign is one of the variants M Marsh describes in his book, The Gold Sovereign.

[TheGoldSovereign]

On 26/01/2019 at 16:49, Xander said:

Not sure if this 1/2 Sovereign is one of the variants M Marsh describes in his book, The Gold Sovereign.

You need to give people a clue as to what you think may be different, and I would also say pictures could do with being a lot clearer if possible! 

[shortstack68]

1 hour ago, sg86 said:

You need to give people a clue as to what you think may be different, and I would also say pictures could do with being a lot clearer if possible! 

And a lot nearer, also, the half sovereign wouldn't be in the sovereign book 😁

[Xander]

10 hours ago, sg86 said:

You need to give people a clue as to what you think may be different, and I would also say pictures could do with being a lot clearer if possible!

Your right enough, photos are a bit rubbish. I have put two up this time. The 1870, die 1 cross lines on the reverse have no dot and the head on the obverse is pointing between the T and the O, does this make it a variant. The 1871 die 71 is unrecorded by Marsh. This one also has no dot on the cross lines, the head on the obverse though is pointing way down toward the bottom of the T...  not sure what that's about. Not sure if this is also a variant.

[Xander]

10 hours ago, shortstack68 said:

also, the half sovereign wouldn't be in the sovereign book 😁

M Marsh Book. The Gold Sovereign has the 1/2 Sov recorded in it.

[sovereignsteve]

4 hours ago, Xander said:

The 1870, die 1 cross lines on the reverse have no dot and the head on the obverse is pointing between the T and the O, does this make it a variant. The 1871 die 71 is unrecorded by Marsh. This one also has no dot on the cross lines, the head on the obverse though is pointing way down toward the bottom of the T...  not sure what that's about. Not sure if this is also a variant.

The nose pointings are standard for the years. There are a few variants for these years and in my experience you need to refer to both Marsh and Spink to elucidate them.

I'm sure we've had this conversation on here at some point.😊

[Xander]

23 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

The nose pointings are standard for the years. There are a few variants for these years and in my experience you need to refer to both Marsh and Spink to elucidate them.

I'm sure we've had this conversation on here at some point.😊

Here is a page from the M Marsh revised edition, The Gold Sovereign. 

This is what piqued my interest, not sure if you have come across it. Looks interesting.

[TheGoldSovereign]

On 29/01/2019 at 22:06, Xander said:

Here is a page from the M Marsh revised edition, The Gold Sovereign. 

This is what piqued my interest, not sure if you have come across it. Looks interesting.

There you go then, I can't say if it's a good find myself as haven't sorted any of the half sovereigns I have, but if Steve Hill / M.Marsh and others have recorded it then you have something

I wish I had more half sovereigns to do my own research into them, but they are just too rare and pricey in high grade for me to even start right now, considering the amount of work I still have to do on the full sovereign run also.

 

[Xander]

18 minutes ago, sg86 said:

There you go then, I can't say if it's a good find myself as haven't sorted any of the half sovereigns I have, but if Steve Hill / M.Marsh and others have recorded it then you have something

I wish I had more half sovereigns to do my own research into them, but they are just too rare and pricey in high grade for me to even start right now, considering the amount of work I still have to do on the full sovereign run also.

 

I just find Sovereigns, half and full are so interesting, these differences are something I would never have noticed if it weren't for the Sovereign book. Keep those 👀 pealed.

[TheGoldSovereign]

Is anyone aware of any George V overstamps? I've never seen one in 1000s of coins, nor seen any recorded. Just come across this 1920-P that has a very clear 2/ (high 2 I think), I don't have my scope or tripod to take clear macros with right now, this is the best i can do handheld on 1/20 shutter!

[Zhorro]

1 hour ago, sg86 said:

Is anyone aware of any George V overstamps? I've never seen one in 1000s of coins, nor seen any recorded. Just come across this 1920-P that has a very clear 2/ (high 2 I think), I don't have my scope or tripod to take clear macros with right now, this is the best i can do handheld on 1/20 shutter!

I’ve got to ask the question, are you sure it is genuine?

The dragon’s claws look like hands and the tail looks to be more solid than on a definitely genuine one I found on the internet (below).

[TheGoldSovereign]

2 hours ago, Zhorro said:

I’ve got to ask the question, are you sure it is genuine?

The dragon’s claws look like hands and the tail looks to be more solid than on a definitely genuine one I found on the internet (below).

You know what I rush so much I didn't even consider that. Yes the tail is the stand out difference so need to have a second look 

[sovereignsteve]

Definitely suspicious

[TheGoldSovereign]

Well this one at least is real, not been recorded before and new to my database also, R over higher R in GRATIA on an 1853.

Quite a bit higher and was easy to spot without a loupe

[sovereignsteve]

Never seen such a lop-sided G either. The engraver must have been having a bad day. Hangover?

[SovTracker]

The Tail on the 1920P was the first thing I noticed and as the technique for striking the coin had advanced somewhat since early Victorian times - I doubt if there should be many, if any overstamping. 

The 1853 however is not that unusual for the time. I've had a number with either one or two letters overstamped (misaligned same letters) or virtually the whole of one side - usually the Obverse. One from the 1860's comes to mind with the rotated RIA in VICTORIA - an example was in the Bentley collection and I have one also and I've seen a few about. 

I blame the Industrial Revolution. 

[TheGoldSovereign]

6 hours ago, SovTracker said:

The Tail on the 1920P was the first thing I noticed and as the technique for striking the coin had advanced somewhat since early Victorian times - I doubt if there should be many, if any overstamping. 

The 1853 however is not that unusual for the time. I've had a number with either one or two letters overstamped (misaligned same letters) or virtually the whole of one side - usually the Obverse. One from the 1860's comes to mind with the rotated RIA in VICTORIA - an example was in the Bentley collection and I have one also and I've seen a few about. 

I blame the Industrial Revolution. 

Yes I will do some basic checks on the 1920 when find half hour, interesting either way if its an old counterfeit or what, always wish I had an XRF gun in these situations!

I know overstamps aren't uncommon in early shields (I must have 15 for 1861), and higher/lower letters aren't as interesting as flipped letters for example, but I am recording everything and this has not been recorded by any previous cataloguer 🙂

Also just a note that this isn't die doubling which is what you are describing, this is a mistake by the engraver

[TheGoldSovereign]

So, the 1920-P is definitely counterfeit, thanks @Zhorro for making me take a second look! Must say it's one of the better fakes though which makes me think it be middle eastern and therefore high gold content. I've read they alloy with silver and this definitely has that look to it in colour.

I still find fakes interesting to some degree, but only if they are close to 22ct when I've paid for 22ct. Would an XRF tester be a worthwhile investment? Not sure the local jewellers would appreciate me popping in to test my own coins every few weeks

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by sg86

[Zhorro]

1 hour ago, sg86 said:

So, the 1920-P is definitely counterfeit, thanks @Zhorro for making me take a second look! Must say it's one of the better fakes though which makes me think it be middle eastern and therefore high gold content. I've read they alloy with silver and this definitely has that look to it in colour.

I still find fakes interesting to some degree, but only if they are close to 22ct when I've paid for 22ct. Would an XRF tester be a worthwhile investment? Not sure the local jewellers would appreciate me popping in to test my own coins every few weeks

 

I am sorry to hear the news that it is definitely a fake, but as you say it is a good one.

I am still in shock after seeing the £5 Jubilee forgery that Chards showed last week on the Forum.

As to an XRF tester, I do not have one, but I suppose it depends on how many sovereigns you buy a year as to whether it would be worthwhile.

[sovereignsteve]

2 hours ago, Zhorro said:

I am still in shock after seeing the £5 Jubilee forgery that Chards showed last week on the Forum.

I missed that. If you can find it easily, I would appreciate a link, thanks.

[Zhorro]

34 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

I missed that. If you can find it easily, I would appreciate a link, thanks.

It is under YouTube Topics & Videos, and the thread is "How to spot a fraud" - in one post there are pictures of the genuine and the forgery of the gold £5 Jubilee coin and separately in another post there is also a video.

[ChardsCoinandBullionDealer]

On 07/02/2019 at 09:23, sg86 said:

So, the 1920-P is definitely counterfeit, thanks @Zhorro for making me take a second look! Must say it's one of the better fakes though which makes me think it be middle eastern and therefore high gold content. I've read they alloy with silver and this definitely has that look to it in colour.

I still find fakes interesting to some degree, but only if they are close to 22ct when I've paid for 22ct. Would an XRF tester be a worthwhile investment? Not sure the local jewellers would appreciate me popping in to test my own coins every few weeks

 

Without good macro photos it's hard to tell from looking at the features, but as you mentioned the alloy here is a giveaway.

The coins colour looks very yellow and is lacking the red tone that copper gives. It's actually much harder to see that colour difference in person but a good photo, particularly a side by side with a genuine Sovereign, makes it much easier.

We have a video going up on our channel in a few hours that is quite relevant.

https://www.youtube.com/user/Chard1964Ltd

 

[Zhorro]

With the advent of the 1887 Jubilee Head sovereign, the Royal Mint in London took the decision to use a more ‘yellow’ gold in order to make the intricate design stand out.  I have not seen this mentioned by Marsh but Hattons of London’s website describes the situation as follows:

          “With the introduction of a new [Jubilee] portrait the Royal Mint was uncertain how the gold coinage would look, especially as the new portrait had a much finer level of detail.

          To ensure a high standard of production they decided to soften the gold by adding 1.25% silver to the alloy which was usually 91.7% gold and the remainder copper (for

          strength). By replacing 1.25% of the copper with silver, the natural golden colour was enhanced and the coins of 1887 looked more ‘yellow’. 

          This was only ever carried out in one year – 1887. Tests with the usual alloy proved acceptable, so in the following year the silver was not added to the alloy, making the 1887

           coins a one-year-only alloy.”

But did this apply to the Branches in Australia?  Below is a comparison of the London 1887 sovereign with the Melbourne one.  It seems that it was only the Royal Mint in London that used the ‘yellow’ gold in 1887?