India Mint Gold Sovereigns - A Comedy of Errors - Weight - Finish Quality

[LawrenceChard]

Probably at least a year ago, I asked what the correct gross weight of a sovereign should be according to its specifications. There are numerous responses, but I am not sure whether I revealed the correct answer, and the arithmetic used to arrive at the answer, but, while I try to find the original topic / thread, how about this:

"The 2013 Sovereign"

"The Royal Mint"

Let's look at the other side:

According to the Certificate signed by Adam Lawrence, CEO of the RM:

Weight 7.98805 grams.

Thoughts anyone?

... and...

Anything else?

 

Edited May 21, 2022 by LawrenceChard

[Roy]

I just checked the website of a reputable dealer in the NW of England and found this:

 

Diameter (Millimeters)	22.05
Weight (Grams)	7.988
Alloy (Carats)	22
Fineness (millesimal)	916.6
Actual Gold Content (Grams)	7.322
Actual Gold Content (Troy Ounces)	0.2354

 

Doesn't seem to contain any discrepancies?

Curiously, the writer (owner?) goes on...

'Initially produced for Henry VII in 1489, the gold sovereign...... .......at the time the sovereign only weighed half a troy ounce (15.55 grams), comprised of 23 carat gold and held a face value of twenty shillings or one pound sterling.'

Only? Compared to what...was there a heavier sovereign? (Don't say Henry VIII 😄)

🤔

 

[LawrenceChard]

1 hour ago, Roy said:

I just checked the website of a reputable dealer in the NW of England and found this:

 

Diameter (Millimeters)	22.05
Weight (Grams)	7.988
Alloy (Carats)	22
Fineness (millesimal)	916.6
Actual Gold Content (Grams)	7.322
Actual Gold Content (Troy Ounces)	0.2354

 

Doesn't seem to contain any discrepancies?

Curiously, the writer (owner?) goes on...

'Initially produced for Henry VII in 1489, the gold sovereign...... .......at the time the sovereign only weighed half a troy ounce (15.55 grams), comprised of 23 carat gold and held a face value of twenty shillings or one pound sterling.'

Only? Compared to what...was there a heavier sovereign? (Don't say Henry VIII 😄)

🤔

 

That's quite good information, from quite a good dealer.

There are some approximations:

7.988 is rounded to 3 decimal places, and should be 7.98805, so the certificate is correct.

Although 22 carats is correct, 916.6 is of course rounded, and should be 916.6' (where ' means recurring), and if calculating, it's better to use 22/24 instead of trying to use decimals.

7.98805 x 24 / 22 = 7.32237916666667 rounded to 14 decimal places, although it should be 66 recurring. 

/ 31.1035 to convert to troy ounces, gives 0.235419781267917 to 15 decimal places, but 0.2354 is not a bad approximation.

Thanks for spotting "only" on this page https://www.chards.co.uk/blog/technical-specification-of-a-gold-sovereign/181, which I'm sure Amy at @ChardsCoinandBullionDealer will correct for me on Monday morning.

So, the Certificate is accurate, although it has rounded the fineness to 0.9167, which is more accurate than our page, but still not as good as using 22/24 or 11/12.

Where's the problem?

😎

Edited May 20, 2022 by LawrenceChard

[Roy]

Is it the denomination?

There is no denomination 'sovereign', however the value is £1?

 

[LawrenceChard]

21 minutes ago, Roy said:

Is it the denomination?

There is no denomination 'sovereign', however the value is £1?

 

Is it the denomination? - No, I am quite happy about that.

There is no denomination 'sovereign', however the value is £1?

Apart from the rounding errors noted above, which are normal, reasonable, and acceptable approximations, there is nothing much wrong with the certificate.

Therefore the problem must be somewhere else...

😎

[TeaTime]

...'of the utmost quality and craftsmanship'... also includes the special 'scar-face' privy.

[Foster88]

Is it something to do with the ‘I’ Mint mark?

[LawrenceChard]

3 minutes ago, Foster88 said:

Is it something to do with the ‘I’ Mint mark?

No!

😎

[LawrenceChard]

17 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

Probably at least a year ago, I asked what the correct gross weight of a sovereign should be according to its specifications. There are numerous responses, but I am not sure whether I revealed the correct answer, and the arithmetic used to arrive at the answer, but, while I try to find the original topic / thread, how about this:

"The 2013 Sovereign"

"The Royal Mint"

Let's look at the other side:

According to the Certificate signes by Adam Lawrence, CEO of the RM:

Weight 7.98805 grams.

Thoughts anyone?

... and...

Anything else?

 

 

16 hours ago, Roy said:

I just checked the website of a reputable dealer in the NW of England and found this:

 

Diameter (Millimeters)	22.05
Weight (Grams)	7.988
Alloy (Carats)	22
Fineness (millesimal)	916.6
Actual Gold Content (Grams)	7.322
Actual Gold Content (Troy Ounces)	0.2354

 

Doesn't seem to contain any discrepancies?

Curiously, the writer (owner?) goes on...

'Initially produced for Henry VII in 1489, the gold sovereign...... .......at the time the sovereign only weighed half a troy ounce (15.55 grams), comprised of 23 carat gold and held a face value of twenty shillings or one pound sterling.'

Only? Compared to what...was there a heavier sovereign? (Don't say Henry VIII 😄)

🤔

 

 

1 hour ago, TeaTime said:

...'of the utmost quality and craftsmanship'... also includes the special 'scar-face' privy.

 

4 minutes ago, Foster88 said:

Is it something to do with the ‘I’ Mint mark?

There seems to be some conflicting information on the Royal Mint's website, recent screenshot:

2013 Elizabeth II Brilliant Uncirculated Sovereign

India Mint Mark

Price:£670.00

Rated 0 out of 5

• Unusual and collectable sovereign
• Struck in the Indian branch mint as shown by the I mint mark
• Only available in 3 year dates 1918, 2013 and 2014

and:

QUALITY	Brilliant Uncirculated

WEIGHT	7.98 g

So which is true, and which is false?

The Royal Mint Certificate which says:

Quality: Bullion

Weight: 7.98805 grams

... or the Royal Mint website which says:

Quality: Brilliant Uncirculated

Weight: 7.98 grams

?

If you look at most coin dealers' websites, including a famous Blackpool one, you will find they say 7.98 grams, so if we live in an absolute democracy, then the correct answer would be 7.98 grams, but we need to pause and consider where these dealers got their information from. Answers could include the Royal Mint, Chards, Numista, or elsewhere. I just checked Wikipedia, and was expected to include it, but it now has the correct answer 7.98805. I am not sure about Marsh, as I can't find it quickly, but if anyone else knows where Marsh states the weight, please let me know.

I will ask the Mint whether they are aware that most of their proof sovereign certificates and other published sovereigns information sources are wrong, and will be interested in their answer.

I have now answered the weight question, although if we are being pedantic we should call it mass.

What about the production quality of this India Mint sovereign? The answer is probably subjective, but all opinions welcome!

😎

[Roy]

Was the clue in the title?!

The finish, Bullion vs BU?

[LawrenceChard]

21 minutes ago, Roy said:

Was the clue in the title?!

The finish, Bullion vs BU?

Yes, that was one of my points.

The RM Certificate says "Bullion", but the RM web page says "Brilliant Uncirculated". Which is right and which is wrong?

There is another point which I have not mentioned yet.

[Britannia47]

I expect MMTC-Pamp simply differentiate between Bullion or Proof, although the quality certainly looks like BU. The 2018 carded sovereign also says 'Bullion'. Does it really matter? 

Not sure what the last point might be, but I feel the RM and Pamp missed an opportunity to put a privy mark on the 2018 sovereign (100th Anniversary!)

 

[CollectForFun]

The introductory text on the packaging is full of terrible marketing ramblings but I suspect some of the facts presented are wrong? For example, a sovereign being a commemorative coin? Or over 750 years of assuring purity of gold? What does that mean at all?

[LawrenceChard]

4 hours ago, Britannia47 said:

I expect MMTC-Pamp simply differentiate between Bullion or Proof, although the quality certainly looks like BU. The 2018 carded sovereign also says 'Bullion'. Does it really matter? 

Not sure what the last point might be, but I feel the RM and Pamp missed an opportunity to put a privy mark on the 2018 sovereign (100th Anniversary!)

 

I expect MMTC-Pamp simply differentiate between Bullion or Proof, although the quality certainly looks like BU. The 2018 carded sovereign also says 'Bullion'. Does it really matter? 

Yes, the difference between "bullion" and "brilliant uncirculated" does really matter!

... Unless you don't mind scuffs, scratches, edge knocks, and fingerprints on your "mint condition" coins.

According to the Royal Mint

A Coin Collector’s Guide to Striking Standards

https://www.royalmint.com/discover/coin-collecting/striking-standards/

What are Brilliant Uncirculated coins?

Sometimes referred to as ‘BU’, ‘B.U.’, or ‘B.UNC’, Brilliant Uncirculated coins are of a higher standard than circulating and bullion coins. An entry-level collectable, like Proof coins, the dies used to strike Brilliant Uncirculated coins are polished and finished by hand.

The Brilliant Uncirculated blanks are machine-fed and struck twice. As a result, they are produced at a much quicker rate than Proof coins – around 100 per hour. They offer a good level of design detail, but have a lower definition than Proof coins.

Most Brilliant Uncirculated coins are struck in base metal, but they are also issued in gold and silver.

 

What are bullion coins?

Bullion coins are a form of investment. An alternative to holding precious metals in plain bars and ingots, the designs and themes depicted on bullion coins add an element of collectability.

People buy them for the intrinsic value of the precious metal they contain, so production places greater emphasis on efficiency. They are struck at a rate of up to 250 gold and 3,000 silver coins per hour and are of a similar standard to Brilliant Uncirculated coins.

Bullion coins are only struck in platinum, gold and silver.

Although I think there is muddled thinking and confusion at the Royal Mint, especially highlighted by "and are of a similar standard to Brilliant Uncirculated coins".

Most RM "bullion" coins in the past few yeare have been issued with scuffs and bagmarks, and are certainly far from the higher quality normally seen on their "B.U." issues.

An example is the series of gold quintuple sovereigns issued since 1984 in Brilliant Uncirculated (B.U.). These have all been boxed, with a certificate, and producd to a high quality. Their issue prices have generally been almost double the intrinsic gold value. In 2000, the RM also issued a bullion version of the gold quintuple sovereign, at a retail premium around 15%. When I criticised this, an RM Trade Manager gave me something of a lecture about the significant difference between them, apart from the price.

Despite this, I have noticed that the terms "bullion" and "brilliant uncirculated" sometimes appear to be used almost interchangeably by the RM, as if they do not know, or are not clear about the difference.

I have seen RM carded sovereigns described as "brilliant uncirculated" which were indistinguishable from bullion versions of the same year.

In the case of the 2013 India Mint sovereigns, the Royal Mint describes them as "bullion" on the certificates, yet as Brilliant Uncirculated on their sales page. These are for the exact same coins.

 

Not sure what the last point might be, but I feel the RM and Pamp missed an opportunity to put a privy mark on the 2018 sovereign (100th Anniversary!)

1918 version? Of the India Mint sovereign?

According to the Royal Mint page:

• Only available in 3 year dates 1918, 2013 and 2014

So it looks like you stumbled upon my third point without realising it!

Now do I believe the RM who make the things, and must be the undisputed experts, or do I believe you?

It's a tough call!

😎

[LawrenceChard]

On 21/05/2022 at 22:15, LawrenceChard said:

Not sure what the last point might be, but I feel the RM and Pamp missed an opportunity to put a privy mark on the 2018 sovereign (100th Anniversary!)

1918 version? Of the India Mint sovereign?

According to the Royal Mint page:

• Only available in 3 year dates 1918, 2013 and 2014

So it looks like you stumbled upon my third point without realising it!

Now do I believe the RM who make the things, and must be the undisputed experts, or do I believe you?

It's a tough call!

😎

Numista lists another 5 dates from 2016 to 2020 inclusive:

1 Sovereign - Elizabeth II 5th portrait; Delhi mint

It seems someone at the RM doesn't know about these!

😎

[Britannia47]

https://news.coinupdate.com/historic-return-of-sovereign-production-to-india-1861/

This link may explain the differences between sovereigns minted in India and the RM and why they are regarded as bullion/ commemoratives etc.

They were meant for the Indian market only, which is why I had difficulty getting one  from the RM a few years back. My 2013  NGC 69 graded Sov. came from eBay. I bought my 2018 from Dubai Airport, The RM were offering Indian sovereigns at coin fairs at inflated prices, I believe the ‘availability’ at the time was the 1918, 2013/14 years, and the initial contract for 5 years 2013 -2017 continuing on to 2020. i am certain the RM were aware of this. I don’t know if production has now stopped….l

Edited May 24, 2022 by Britannia47

[Stuntman]

A comedy of errors indeed.   I certainly wouldn't describe a sovereign as a commemorative coin, I would say the quality of that sovereign was bullion rather than brilliant uncirculated (it looks nowhere near the quality of the BU quintuple sovereigns, as Lawrence has mentioned), and there are definitely India (I) mintmarked sovereigns made in years other than the three they state.

[Britannia47]

https://www.royalmint.com/sovereign/bullion/ukb19sspb
 

Found this on the RM. Although being sold as ‘bullion’ using Indian packaging the quality is ‘brilliant uncirculated’ Otherwise how would so many achieve NGC69/70 grading?  The quality is equal if not superior to the RM. (IMO) Therefore not sure that I share your view about the quintuple comparison. Of course nothing compares with the original 1918 - See photo.

13 hours ago, Stuntman said:

A comedy of errors indeed.   I certainly wouldn't describe a sovereign as a commemorative coin, I would say the quality of that sovereign was bullion rather than brilliant uncirculated (it looks nowhere near the quality of the BU quintuple sovereigns, as Lawrence has mentioned), and there are definitely India (I) mintmarked sovereigns made in years other than the three they state.

 

[LawrenceChard]

On 23/05/2022 at 23:20, Britannia47 said:

https://news.coinupdate.com/historic-return-of-sovereign-production-to-india-1861/

This link may explain the differences between sovereigns minted in India and the RM and why they are regarded as bullion/ commemoratives etc.

They were meant for the Indian market only, which is why I had difficulty getting one  from the RM a few years back. My 2013  NGC 69 graded Sov. came from eBay. I bought my 2018 from Dubai Airport, The RM were offering Indian sovereigns at coin fairs at inflated prices, I believe the ‘availability’ at the time was the 1918, 2013/14 years, and the initial contract for 5 years 2013 -2017 continuing on to 2020. i am certain the RM were aware of this. I don’t know if production has now stopped….l

I guess the Coin Update News item was based on a Press Release from the RM rather than from MMTC-PAMP based on the quality stated as "BU", who presumably would have stated it as "Bullion" consistent with the packaging.

Sure, someone at the Mint must have been aware of the 3+5 years, but it seems that not everyone was aware. Whoever wrote the 3 years only on the product page must have been unaware.

Production stopped after 2020.

We have asked MMTC-PAMP about future production and supplies, but nothing is certain.

😎

[LawrenceChard]

16 hours ago, Stuntman said:

A comedy of errors indeed.   I certainly wouldn't describe a sovereign as a commemorative coin, I would say the quality of that sovereign was bullion rather than brilliant uncirculated (it looks nowhere near the quality of the BU quintuple sovereigns, as Lawrence has mentioned), and there are definitely India (I) mintmarked sovereigns made in years other than the three they state.

 

2 hours ago, Britannia47 said:

https://www.royalmint.com/sovereign/bullion/ukb19sspb
 

Found this on the RM. Although being sold as ‘bullion’ using Indian packaging the quality is ‘brilliant uncirculated’ Otherwise how would so many achieve NGC69/70 grading?  The quality is equal if not superior to the RM. (IMO) Therefore not sure that I share your view about the quintuple comparison. Of course nothing compares with the original 1918 - See photo.

 

Regarding my comparison with quintuple sovereigns:

In 2000, there were both bullion and BU versions issued, with obvious differences, but also significant prices differences to match.

All the modern "I" sovereigns I have seen are much better than the equivalent RM bullion quality, mainly due to the handling marks, scuffs, scratches, etc, or the lack of them. Sure, they may not be quite up to the standard of the BU quintuple sovereigns, but they are much closer to BU than to current RM bullion production standards.

😎

 

[Britannia47]

Lawrence,

Thanks for the response and update. I agree!

[Stuntman]

I have a 2000 bullion quintuple sovereign, and 2017 & 2018 BU quintuple sovereigns.  The difference in quality and striking is significant and immediately obvious.  The BU quintuples are very impressive things.

It's perfectly possible for bullion coins of any denomination to be well struck on well-prepared blanks and then handled carefully between striking and packaging.  Any such coin would get a 69 or 70 from a reputable TPG company.

So in my opinion it's a bullion strike, with proper/better quality control compared to what is sometimes found in another mint 😉

Edited May 25, 2022 by Stuntman

[LawrenceChard]

I wondered about the serration count, so we checked:

Answer 112 serrations.

Bullion Quality!

No, how many serrations on a 2016 Llantrisant Sovereign?

😎

[LawrenceChard]

15 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

I wondered about the serration count, so we checked:

Answer 112 serrations.

Bullion Quality!

No, how many serrations on a 2016 Llantrisant Sovereign?

😎

The answer didn't take long to arrive:

The answer? 108

Just don't ask me why the UK version is red / pink, while the Delhi, India version looks a nice yellow.

😎

[StackemHigh]

Ohh. I will have to take a another look at my I sovereign. I really do prefer the gold colour to the copper coloured ones.