Your £50,000 Fantasy Gold Sovereign Collection

[TheShinyStuff]

10 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

Can it be a dead parrot?

Only if you held it in place with a fork handle.

[LawrenceChard]

3 hours ago, TheShinyStuff said:

Only if you held it in place with a fork handle.

Would require a minimum of four.

[KevjustKev]

Around 150 normal bullion ones, which could leave about £1600 to be invested in houses, public ones! 

[Stuntman]

I'm not really a sovereign collector, but for my £50k I would buy a good type example of every head, monarch and mint from 1817 to the present day. 

So probably an 1817, an 1821 Laureate Head, a George IV Bare Head, a nice William IV example (perhaps my favourite bullion sovereign design), a Victoria young head shieldback, a Jubilee Head and a Veiled Head, an Edward VII example and a George V example - plus an example of all the branch mints for Victoria, Edward VII and George V.

I would then add an Elizabeth II Gillick head, and then bullion examples from 2000 onwards to include the 2002, 2005, 2012 and 2017 offerings.

And if I had money left still, I'd add BU examples of the 1989 quintuple and then 2017, 2002, 2012 and 2005 in that order.

 

That would do me very nicely.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Stuntman

[LawrenceChard]

On 23/07/2021 at 23:44, fethiye2003 said:

With only 15 -25 Ansell sovereigns known to still exist, it's a very rare coin. In September 2012, the auctioneer Baldwin's offered for sale one of the finest Ansell sovereigns available. The hammer fell at £13,000 and with buyer's premium at 20%, it took the final purchase price to £15,600.

I wonder what grade it is and what its worth now.

Nice choice.

Im new to collecting but im leaning towards modern and older rarities.

I just happen to be looking at yet another 1859 Ansell sovereign.

It might surprise some people to hear that I think these are somewhat over-rated and over-hyped.

The first time I recall being aware of "Ansells" was in the auction catalogue for the "Douro" salvage hoard. I must try to check whether they were known before Douro or not. I just grabbed an old (1988) Seaby catalogue, which does not mention Ansell. I am sure we own at least one copy of the original auction catalogue, but it might take some time to find.

My thoughts when reading the catalogue were "so, they have got an extra line on them". As Shania Twain might have said "That don't impress me much". I seem to think that the catalogue description left me with the understanding that the Ansell sovereigns were made of hard hard gold, and thinking, in that case, how did the Mint manage to strike them. I recenlty bought one of the modern reprints of Ansell's 1870 book "The Royal Mint...". He states that the batch of gold received at the Mint was brittle, and describes how he had it further refined to be workable. He then mentions that it was then very hard. I think this has caused confusion. Things which are hard are often brittle, or vice versa, but things which are soft are usually malleable and ductile. This is generally true in metallurgy.

Marsh states the Ansell mintage as 167,539 which I believe is correct, but rates it as R4, which means 10 to 20 known example. 13 were disovered in the Douro hoard, and I am sure I have seen many which did not come from the Douro, including one which was in our bag of 1859 "bullion" sovereigns about 8 years ago. We try to photograph any of the most interesting sovereigns which we see, although some of our original photos might have been on now expired hard drives. It requires considerable effort to maintain and organise a photographic record, otherwise I might have been able to see how many we have handled. I suspect that there must be at least 100 surviving examples.

Now I need to finish reading "The Royal Mint", (published 1870) and I will be almost up to date!

[dicker]

@LawrenceChard 

I cannot remember if it was in the Ansell RM book or another book but I distinctly remember reading mention that the Ansell Sovereign “could not be bent with pliers” or words to that effect.  Whether it snapped is another matter!

Thank you for the above post and thoughts - those of us that do not handle thousands of of Sovereign a week / month don’t get a view of what is really out there.  As has been discussed recently, Marsh’s rarity may not correlate to what dealers can see in the market.

Best

Dicker

 

 

[LawrenceChard]

49 minutes ago, dicker said:

@LawrenceChard 

I cannot remember if it was in the Ansell RM book or another book but I distinctly remember reading mention that the Ansell Sovereign “could not be bent with pliers” or words to that effect.  Whether it snapped is another matter!

Thank you for the above post and thoughts - those of us that do not handle thousands of of Sovereign a week / month don’t get a view of what is really out there.  As has been discussed recently, Marsh’s rarity may not correlate to what dealers can see in the market.

Best

Dicker

 

I Niton XRF tested today's Ansell, as I have done with at least a few others in recent years. Unfortunately, I can't quickly find one with an XRF result on our site, which is frustrating. I am now back home, and the coins and test result are at our office.

I will add the findings on TSF soon.

Just thinking, I may have already posted an earlier result on TSF, so I will try a quick search, although I did just do a Google search a few minutes ago.

I can say there is nothing highly unusual or remarkable in today's test result, except that it has quite a high silver content, which was actually quite usual back then, but sshhh, don't tell the Royal Mint! 😎

[CaptCaveMan]

An 1817 would be top of my list, then like @Stuntman one of each monarch.  After that the modern proofs - 1989, 2002, 2005, 2012, 2016 & 2017 and likely 2022.

Anything left I'd go for bullion to finish off a date run or two such as Gillicks, WWI or modern QEII i.e. since 2000 but also hold out a little for the first Charlie proof Sovereign.

[Paul]

The 2017 proof will be a classic in years to come, 200th anniversary, stunning design. Get as many £5 proofs in pf70 and HODL till you retire or hand down to next generation

[HerefordBullyun]

Cat Deeley with her jugs out! 😜🐮👍

[CadmiumGreen]

7 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

Marsh states the Ansell mintage as 167,539 which I believe is correct, but rates it as R4, which means 10 to 20 known example.

Not sure if I recall correctly, but isn’t the rating based on EF or better? Of which, yes, there could be more than 100 plus surviving examples of a lesser quality, in that regard.

[LawrenceChard]

26 minutes ago, CadmiumGreen said:

Not sure if I recall correctly, but isn’t the rating based on EF or better? Of which, yes, there could be more than 100 plus surviving examples of a lesser quality, in that regard.

No, I don't think rarity ratings such as R4 count only high grade coins, simply total existing.

Of course if most were in lower grades, this would tend to push high grade examples to higher prices.

When I spoke to Michael Marsh, he thought there may be only a handful of 1891-L short-tail horse sovereigns, and I don't think at that stage he was aware of the Melbourne Mint ones.

[LawrenceChard]

19 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

I just happen to be looking at yet another 1859 Ansell sovereign.

It might surprise some people to hear that I think these are somewhat over-rated and over-hyped.

The first time I recall being aware of "Ansells" was in the auction catalogue for the "Douro" salvage hoard. I must try to check whether they were known before Douro or not. I just grabbed an old (1988) Seaby catalogue, which does not mention Ansell. I am sure we own at least one copy of the original auction catalogue, but it might take some time to find.

My thoughts when reading the catalogue were "so, they have got an extra line on them". As Shania Twain might have said "That don't impress me much". I seem to think that the catalogue description left me with the understanding that the Ansell sovereigns were made of hard hard gold, and thinking, in that case, how did the Mint manage to strike them. I recenlty bought one of the modern reprints of Ansell's 1870 book "The Royal Mint...". He states that the batch of gold received at the Mint was brittle, and describes how he had it further refined to be workable. He then mentions that it was then very hard. I think this has caused confusion. Things which are hard are often brittle, or vice versa, but things which are soft are usually malleable and ductile. This is generally true in metallurgy.

Marsh states the Ansell mintage as 167,539 which I believe is correct, but rates it as R4, which means 10 to 20 known example. 13 were disovered in the Douro hoard, and I am sure I have seen many which did not come from the Douro, including one which was in our bag of 1859 "bullion" sovereigns about 8 years ago. We try to photograph any of the most interesting sovereigns which we see, although some of our original photos might have been on now expired hard drives. It requires considerable effort to maintain and organise a photographic record, otherwise I might have been able to see how many we have handled. I suspect that there must be at least 100 surviving examples.

Now I need to finish reading "The Royal Mint", (published 1870) and I will be almost up to date!

Here are the photos:

Obverse, with Insert, and...

Reverse

Niton results to follow.

[sovereignsteve]

14 hours ago, CadmiumGreen said:

Not sure if I recall correctly, but isn’t the rating based on EF or better? Of which, yes, there could be more than 100 plus surviving examples of a lesser quality, in that regard.

 

14 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

No, I don't think rarity ratings such as R4 count only high grade coins, simply total existing.

Of course if most were in lower grades, this would tend to push high grade examples to higher prices.

When I spoke to Michael Marsh, he thought there may be only a handful of 1891-L short-tail horse sovereigns, and I don't think at that stage he was aware of the Melbourne Mint ones.

Quote from the Preface to the first edition of Marsh, given on page vii of the first Hill edition

"As far as rarity and availability are concerned I have given a rating for every sovereign listed; this rating is based on sovereigns found in very fine condition but it should be remembered that some of the more common sovereigns can be rated quite scarce if discovered in uncirculated grade".

I believe this has been constant throughout every edition.

 

[sovereignsteve]

I would want a very nice example of a 1838 or 1843 narrow shield along with as many G3 and early G4 as I could afford within the £50K, high grade of course🙂

1822 proof would be nice😉

[LawrenceChard]

1 hour ago, sovereignsteve said:

 

Quote from the Preface to the first edition of Marsh, given on page vii of the first Hill edition

"As far as rarity and availability are concerned I have given a rating for every sovereign listed; this rating is based on sovereigns found in very fine condition but it should be remembered that some of the more common sovereigns can be rated quite scarce if discovered in uncirculated grade".

I believe this has been constant throughout every edition.

 

Thanks for pointing that out.

I think it is a sub-optimum way to do it. Inter alia, it makes it much more subjective. For example, if Marsh or Hill included a coin because they graded it VF, I migh exclude it because I considered it to be only almost VF, or vice versa. Also it encourages some misunderstanding, as for example with 1899-P, which is rated as "R" (Rare), but is in reality almost common in lower grades, and only rare in higher grades, yet everyone who has one for sale, in any grade, thinks it is rare.

Far better, in my opinion, to be more objective, and work on the total extant numbers, regardless of grade. Most people realise that higher grade coins are harder to obtain, with a few exceptions.

 

[sovereignsteve]

I agree

[LawrenceChard]

On 20/09/2021 at 18:18, LawrenceChard said:

I Niton XRF tested today's Ansell, as I have done with at least a few others in recent years. Unfortunately, I can't quickly find one with an XRF result on our site, which is frustrating. I am now back home, and the coins and test result are at our office.

I will add the findings on TSF soon.

Just thinking, I may have already posted an earlier result on TSF, so I will try a quick search, although I did just do a Google search a few minutes ago.

I can say there is nothing highly unusual or remarkable in today's test result, except that it has quite a high silver content, which was actually quite usual back then, but sshhh, don't tell the Royal Mint! 😎

Niton XRF Test Result for our latest 1859 Ansell sovereign:

 39.735 cts works out to 7.947 grams.

The gold content is about as expected.

The silver content is higher than for recent sovereigns, as everybody except the Royal Mint would expect. I half expected it to be higher than 13 ppt.

The trace of iron is slighly unusual, but not totally surprising. We do see traces of different metals in some tests. As the "Reverse" result showed 0 ppt of iron, we could probably assume it was within the error margin or tolerance of the machine's calibration.

I will test the rest of our Ansells when I get time. 😎

[SidS]

Didn't the Ansell alloy original contain arsenic/antimony (can't remember which), I honestly expected a trace of either As/Sb.

[Britannia47]

23 hours ago, SidS said:

Didn't the Ansell alloy original contain arsenic/antimony (can't remember which), I honestly expected a trace of either As/Sb.

According to Marsh this brittle gold contained 'antimony, arsenic and lead in very minute quantities.' How rare is the 1859 Ansell? Well Marsh in 1980 had it at R5 originally,  but is now shown as R4.

[SidS]

It's clear that if the other Ansells to be tested go on to give similar results to the one above, that whatever Ansell did to process the brittle gold, involved removing the arsenic, antimony and lead.

I wonder if the iron was present beforehand or whether that is a remnant of the treatment process?

[Britannia47]

Apparently the gold was 'reworked' through experimentation and became extremely tough (not brittle) possibly by the addition of the iron. Iron was present in the first Modern Sovereign 1817 but has not been added since. Job done!

[Heirlooms]

1859 Ansell, 1937 sovereign set graded PF66 Cameo or higher (one can dream 🙂), 1oz 2014 Britannia and 2oz completer

[CANV]

as many 66 gillicks as I can.  then beer with the change. 

Edited April 16, 2022 by CANV

[Paul]

A set of graded 70 £5s proofs of the modern variant designs would be nice