1919-P Gold Sovereign - Noticeably Yellow and High Gold Content

[LawrenceChard]

1919-P Gold Sovereign - Noticeably Yellow and High Gold Content

I saw photos of this before I got to see the actual coin. This was because a Chard staff member was concerned that it looked slightly too yellow.

We had Niton tested it to check, and the results for gold content were slightly higher than usual. Often this is a bad sign, or at least a flag that it is probably fake, and to exercise more caution.

Our photographer also commented "Unevenly spaced serrations on this one - triple checked count.  That's probably a warning sign in itself, eh?"

Me: "Indeed, warning or alert, but might still be genuine", "I am happy this is genuine"

... and the obverse:

The Niton XRF Alloy Analysis:

Although the tester did not weigh it, I did 39.865 cts = 7.973 grams, which is very slightly below specification, but with normal expected range.

I did a quick retest which was consistent with the above, but I also noted GPND gold plating not detected.

Serration count 108 which is normal.

This sovereign is worth studying because of thje number of very slightly unusual features, but I believe it is within the production parameters and tolerances at the time, especially being Perth Mint. Possibly they had so much spare gold in the ground over there, that they were not as careful with it as the London Mint might have been.

😎

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by LawrenceChard

[dicker]

Many thanks for the photos and then analysis.

A pleasing yellow, caused by an oversupply of gold in the blanks is a nice problem to have.  Much nicer than the horrible “copper pipe” finish that we see from the RM.

 

[Orpster]

Talking of oddities from the Aussie mints I have had a few slightly oversized half sovereigns over the years, always from the aussie mints and always George V

Never really visible to the naked eye and only apparent when you try and put it into a capsule they are a super-tight fit.  Latest was a 1915S from Britannia Coins last week - I think that's the third or fourth I have had like that over the years

[GoldDiggerDave]

Just got one of these back from the NGC 

 

[LawrenceChard]

16 minutes ago, dicker said:

Many thanks for the photos and then analysis.

A pleasing yellow, caused by an oversupply of gold in the blanks is a nice problem to have.  Much nicer than the horrible “copper pipe” finish that we see from the RM.

 

Thanks.

Agreed.

One day the RM might listen!

😎

[LawrenceChard]

16 minutes ago, Orpster said:

Talking of oddities from the Aussie mints I have had a few slightly oversized half sovereigns over the years, always from the aussie mints and always George V

Never really visible to the naked eye and only apparent when you try and put it into a capsule they are a super-tight fit.  Latest was a 1915S from Britannia Coins last week - I think that's the third or fourth I have had like that over the years

Thanks, I will have to try and remember to check a few more closely.

There were a few mentions about the diameter of sovereigns recently, which I did not get round to double checking.

I'll have to ask Britannia Coins where they get their 1915-S halves from!

😎

18 minutes ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

Just got one of these back from the NGC 

 

Very interesting.

What do you reckon ours would grade?

😎

[dicker]

It’s an interesting one.  The Branch mints from what I can see produced fewer Sovereign overdates and character errors but do have their fair share of other oddities.

[GoldDiggerDave]

5 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

Thanks, I will have to try and remember to check a few more closely.

There were a few mentions about the diameter of sovereigns recently, which I did not get round to double checking.

I'll have to ask Britannia Coins where they get their 1915-S halves from!

😎

Very interesting.

What do you reckon ours would grade?

😎

Obverse is very nice almost PL (IMO)  reverse only slight wear to the highest points and a good strike for an Australian sovereign based on mine being a MS61 I'd say around MS63+ for yours.  

 

 

[LawrenceChard]

39 minutes ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

Obverse is very nice almost PL (IMO)  reverse only slight wear to the highest points and a good strike for an Australian sovereign based on mine being a MS61 I'd say around MS63+ for yours.  

 

Sounds like a no-brainer then!

😎

[LawrenceChard]

3 hours ago, dicker said:

It’s an interesting one.  The Branch mints from what I can see produced fewer Sovereign overdates and character errors but do have their fair share of other oddities.

In most cases, I think the Royal Mint London supplied dies to the branch mints, so the overdates and character errors would mainly have originated in London.

The branch mints were working remotely from their "head office", so must have needed to improvise.

🙂

[Booky586]

Excellent photos and analysis as usual!

Sovereigns can be tricky things. You can have a coin within the normal specification range (weight, diameter, alloy composition, etc) and it can be a counterfeit. Then they turn up outside specification and it can be genuine.

Does that just leave us with the impression from the die as the only true reference? If it comes from a genuine die then a sovereign it is, just out of spec. May be we are seeing a slip in quality control from the Australian mints in this period.

 

[LawrenceChard]

17 minutes ago, Booky586 said:

Excellent photos and analysis as usual!

Sovereigns can be tricky things. You can have a coin within the normal specification range (weight, diameter, alloy composition, etc) and it can be a counterfeit. Then they turn up outside specification and it can be genuine.

Does that just leave us with the impression from the die as the only true reference? If it comes from a genuine die then a sovereign it is, just out of spec. May be we are seeing a slip in quality control from the Australian mints in this period.

 

I would not call it a slip in QC.

As mass-produced items, sovereigns and other coins are subject to some degree of tolerance.

The permissible torerance and variation is specified, although not often quoted; something I must look at doing.

Our Niton reading might be slightly out (it can and does happen).

I might be wrong about the coin.

😎

[Booky586]

36 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

The permissible torerance and variation is specified, although not often quoted; something I must look at doing.

I will have a rummage around for the allowable tolerances, it's definitely worth finding for future reference. Ansell's book about his time at the mint will be where I'll start. 

[Oddjob]

Western Australia  - Perth have always matched to the beat of their own drum ever since 1829....Have have never really seen themselves as part of Australia and certainly don't give a rats how the other states conduct their affairs...thus a genuine but not totally conforming sov....no big surprise from the Sandgropers.

[dicker]

5 hours ago, Oddjob said:

Western Australia  - Perth have always matched to the beat of their own drum ever since 1829....Have have never really seen themselves as part of Australia and certainly don't give a rats how the other states conduct their affairs...thus a genuine but not totally conforming sov....no big surprise from the Sandgropers.

Blessed with Coolgardie and Kalgoorlie they could do what they wanted!

[Oddjob]

17 hours ago, dicker said:

Blessed with Coolgardie and Kalgoorlie they could do what they wanted!

Add the iron ore, gas and oil to that too in recent decades.

[Foster88]

A 1923 Perth Mint sovereign that I’ve always wondered why it looks so ‘yellow’.

The photos aren’t the best.

On a side note, I received an email from RM, which I’m sure many did about the Australian Branch Mint sovereigns. I wonder if they have a ‘spy in the camp’ on TSF and saw my thread from last year.

Anyway, here are the photos which don’t quite capture how yellow it is. It almost looks 24ct to look at.

[Foster88]

For anyone, old or new members, who are wondering what I mean about an old (last year) post of mine.

Here it is:

 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Foster88