Old sovereigns Vs New sovereigns

[Stackerads]

This has most likely been mentioned before but I've never seen it so........I was wondering why the "tail" piece of George's helmet was removed from recent sovereigns compare to old sovereigns?

It seems the designers are missing out vital details on such a world wide recognised coin, was It an error that left the mint of did they purposely miss out certain details?

 

[Stackerads]

Not to mention the "Cape" in the new sovereign looks like its right on the edge border of the coin 

The old sovereign theres a small gap

[Clockpuncher]

Seems to have been a bit hit and miss on some of the older ones too - it’s there on the 1817 but noticed my 1872 doesn’t have it

[sovereignsteve]

The G&D design has always varied a little over the years. It is what it is, who knows the reason, perhaps boredom or a little mischief.😁

[SidS]

I believe the plume was removed when the sovereign was redesigned in 1821 for George IV. It was restored in 1887. Until recently when the entire design was recut to restore it closer to the original design (minus the helmet plume and garter) as part of an anniversary issue.

Also of note, on the 1817-1820 George III issues, St. George has a broken lance and not a sword, as well as the more obvious garter around the design.

So the standard designs have evolved and regressed over the past 200 years.

[Heirlooms]

And to make things even more confusing, its still present on new half sovereigns. It was removed in 2009 but only on the full sovereign. As @SidS mentioned the streamer has been removed and added various times over the years, no idea why

[Zhorro]

2 hours ago, Heirlooms said:

And to make things even more confusing, its still present on new half sovereigns. It was removed on in 2009 but only on the full sovereign. As @SidS mentioned the streamer has been removed and added various times over the years, no idea why

One reason I have heard is that its removal makes it easier to distinguish the full sovereign from the half sovereign.  Both are fairly small coins and so the two could easily be confused (especially if you do not handle many of them).

[SidS]

44 minutes ago, Zhorro said:

One reason I have heard is that its removal makes it easier to distinguish the full sovereign from the half sovereign.  Both are fairly small coins and so the two could easily be confused (especially if you do not handle many of them).

If this is true, then perhaps it's less to do with in-hand distinguishing of the two types, but maybe to aid in identification with sales relying on photographs?

[Stackerads]

2 hours ago, Zhorro said:

One reason I have heard is that its removal makes it easier to distinguish the full sovereign from the half sovereign.  Both are fairly small coins and so the two could easily be confused (especially if you do not handle many of them).

That's a good point, I didn't know the half sovereign still has this detail after a quick search its right and as you say a good way to identify a half over a full..........you learn something new every day 🙂

 

 

[Stackerads]

11 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

The G&D design has always varied a little over the years. It is what it is, who knows the reason, perhaps boredom or a little mischief.😁

A bit like me when creating this post last night after a few glasses of wine boredom took over 🤭

But on the bright side I learned something new.

[Smiler999]

Wish they would change the colour, the copper ones look terrible

 

 

[silenceissilver]

21 hours ago, SidS said:

I believe the plume was removed when the sovereign was redesigned in 1821 for George IV. It was restored in 1887. Until recently when the entire design was recut to restore it closer to the original design (minus the helmet plume and garter) as part of an anniversary issue.

Also of note, on the 1817-1820 George III issues, St. George has a broken lance and not a sword, as well as the more obvious garter around the design.

So the standard designs have evolved and regressed over the past 200 years.

That's amazing, you never stop learning something new about the Sovereign. I thought I would be done with all the basics which I would put this variation under. How did I even not notice this myself? 

[Foster88]

On 28/01/2021 at 00:16, Smiler999 said:

Wish they would change the colour, the copper ones look terrible

 

 

I agree. I think the new ‘copper’ tone Sovereigns look awful. I showed two to my mum last week, an older 1963 next to a 2014 that both arrived the same week.

My mum said “That 2014 one looks fake to me, are you sure it’s not copper?” 😂 I did laugh and explained the reason why.

[Britannia47]

On 28/01/2021 at 00:16, Smiler999 said:

Wish they would change the colour, the copper ones look terrible

 

 

Quite agree about the colour. Here's the original 1817 Sov. next to the proof 2017. when gold sovereigns actually looked gold! The alloy used in the 1817 was a mix of copper and silver with a trace of iron. Today the alloy is all copper. What's missing from the 2017 Sov. are the initials W.W.P. 'William Wellesley Pole' engraved by Pistrucci concealed on the buckle of the garter. Perhaps the RM thought no one would notice! Without the Master of the Mints say-so the Modern Sovereign would not have existed.