2016 low mint half sov?

[GoldDiggerDave]

5 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

Well done!

But isn't it dumb that the RM call the proof halves "The Half Sovereign 2016"*, as though it was written by someone with no understanding of what they were writing. 

* and similar for all the other proofs!

Also, there is no mention of bullion versions of any of the 5 sizes.

😎

But see above!😎

There's so many inaccuracies with the BU/ proof sovereigns from the RM.  I'm convinced they made the more recent SOTD's all matte to try and keep it simple for themselves.   

[Stackem]

4 minutes ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

There's so many inaccuracies with the BU/ proof sovereigns from the RM.  I'm convinced they made the more recent SOTD's all matte to try and keep it simple for themselves.   

Quite astounding that an official government led entity appears to have issues tracking figures and stats 😂 sounds familiar 

[LawrenceChard]

22 minutes ago, Stackem said:

Are these not the bullion figures? 

No!

😎

[LawrenceChard]

16 minutes ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

There's so many inaccuracies with the BU/ proof sovereigns from the RM.  I'm convinced they made the more recent SOTD's all matte to try and keep it simple for themselves.   

😎

The RM didn't like it when, many years ago, I suggested that the reason B.U. quintuple sovereigns had a "U" on them is so RM employees could tell the difference between them and proofs.

😎

[DrDave]

41 minutes ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

 

 

Not sure if i'm reading this wrong, but there's one for sale with a COA 0667 - Half Sovereign 2016 Brilliant Uncirculated, yet the RM list says that 472 were minted??

[Stackem]

11 minutes ago, DrDave said:

Not sure if i'm reading this wrong, but there's one for sale with a COA 0667 - Half Sovereign 2016 Brilliant Uncirculated, yet the RM list says that 472 were minted??

Does it have the special privy and London mint? 

Edited September 23, 2022 by Stackem

[DrDave]

4 minutes ago, Stackem said:

Does it have the special privy and London mint? 

Ah? Not sure TBH. 🤔

[shawy2510]

7 hours ago, DrDave said:

Not sure if i'm reading this wrong, but there's one for sale with a COA 0667 - Half Sovereign 2016 Brilliant Uncirculated, yet the RM list says that 472 were minted??

Maybe they only actually minted 472 with more planned but never happened. The 2014 is also 1 you rarely come across.

[GoldDiggerDave]

7 hours ago, DrDave said:

Not sure if i'm reading this wrong, but there's one for sale with a COA 0667 - Half Sovereign 2016 Brilliant Uncirculated, yet the RM list says that 472 were minted??

COA's are not reflective of the sales figures, I had a COA satin 2234 when they only sold 950 or something like that.

[GoldDiggerDave]

7 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

😎

The RM didn't like it when, many years ago, I suggested that the reason B.U. quintuple sovereigns had a "U" on them is so RM employees could tell the difference between them and proofs.

😎

I think that "U" looks ugly as hell on the £5 sovereigns and I bet it still confuses them! 

"Myfanwy does this n stand for New?"  Myfanwy " You have it upside down Barri you are such an idiot, it's "U" for unrealised!

[Darr3nG]

14 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

Yes, he's a very helpful guy, but it might cost you a few beers!

Now you tell me...

[Richiesilver]

These are very rare but I think due to their modern status they will not realise their true value for many years. 2015 was nearly the same, tiny number of bullion half sovs. I got one in a lucky dip buy from Atkinsons 😃

[LawrenceChard]

13 minutes ago, Richiesilver said:

These are very rare but I think due to their modern status they will not realise their true value for many years. 2015 was nearly the same, tiny number of bullion half sovs. I got one in a lucky dip buy from Atkinsons 😃

I suspect the 500 mintage shown in Marsh applies to the B.U. version, not to bullion coins. Similar to 2016.

In any case, 500 is not "very rare", except on ebay, where it is probably "unique"!

😎

[Richiesilver]

20 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

I suspect the 500 mintage shown in Marsh applies to the B.U. version, not to bullion coins. Similar to 2016.

In any case, 500 is not "very rare", except on ebay, where it is probably "unique"!

😎

Sell me one for standard margin then 🤣

[SidS]

18 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

😎

The RM didn't like it when, many years ago, I suggested that the reason B.U. quintuple sovereigns had a "U" on them is so RM employees could tell the difference between them and proofs.

😎

I've never known why they had the U on them, the thought of it meaning UNC had occured to me.

[LawrenceChard]

13 minutes ago, SidS said:

I've never known why they had the U on them, the thought of it meaning UNC had occured to me.

Perhaps B.U. might have been clearer, or...

B.U.Mint Condition

😎

[Stuntman]

If it's a 2016 bullion half sovereign and not the Brilliant Uncirculated version - the mintages in that RM list do not show the bullion half sovereign mintage.

I suspect that the bullion half sovereign will have been minted in the high thousands, or the tens of thousands.  So it's not particularly rare in the context of post-2000 bullion half sovereigns with the George & Dragon reverse.

I certainly wouldn't expect to pay more for a 2016 than another similar year.

If it is indeed the BU coin then yes, it's relatively scarce, but once again I don't think scarcity will have a big effect on its value relative to other similar years.  I doubt if many/any dealers would offer you a higher buying price for it.

But definitely nice to get a scarcer coin on the lucky dip, in the same way it would be if you got a 2004, 2006 or 2007 sovereign.