SY Australia Gold Sovereign Composition

[SilverJacks]

Quick question, could anyone tell me the correct composition for 1864 SY sovereign?

I understand they're roughly .9167 gold, alloyed with silver. Do they have copper also?

Have searched online for answer but couldn't find any info other than .917 gold...

Thanks in advance

[LawrenceChard]

8 minutes ago, SilverJacks said:

Quick question, could anyone tell me the correct composition for 1864 SY sovereign?

I understand they're roughly .9167 gold, alloyed with silver. Do they have copper also?

Have searched online for answer but couldn't find any info other than .917 gold...

Thanks in advance

I can't help you much in regard to South Yorkshire sovereigns, however you might like to look at this:

https://www.chards.co.uk/blog/analysis-of-alloy-content-of-gold-sovereigns/180

... which might give you some clues.

😎

[SilverJacks]

Interesting and helpful information. Many thanks @LawrenceChard

Shame there's no South Yorkshire sovereigns on the list, although tbf they are rather elusive.

[LawrenceChard]

1 minute ago, SilverJacks said:

Interesting and helpful information. Many thanks @LawrenceChard

Shame there's no South Yorkshire sovereigns on the list, although tbf they are rather elusive.

I guess you might have meant Sydney Mint, Australian sovereigns.

I have probably tested at least 90% of all sovereign date / mintmark combinations, but publishing them all would  / will be a major project.

I also presume you have one of the above, but how are you going to test / check / compare it with any previous tests?

You might need to buy a Niton XRF machine!

😎

[SilverJacks]

2 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

You might need to buy a Niton XRF machine!

Okay. Maybe I will pick one up on sale from Wish.com, same place I got the coin 😂

All jokes aside, I took an 1864 to a high st dealer. Unfortunately, they refused to offer the exact readings. But they did offer to XRF it for free. All they would confirm is 22ct gold, alloyed with silver and copper, with higher presence of silver than copper. Judging by the info you have kindly provided, it sounds about right 🤷‍♂️

[SilverJacks]

@LawrenceChard Looking at the coin on the right, would you be concerned with the reeded edge? 
 

 

[LawrenceChard]

2 hours ago, SilverJacks said:

@LawrenceChard Looking at the coin on the right, would you be concerned with the reeded edge? 
 

 

I would take a good look at the whole of the coin.

😎

[SilverJacks]

Absolutely but does the edge look concerning?

[SilverJacks]

I can’t produce good quality pictures right now, but any thoughts would be appreciated 

 

 

[Britannia47]

I’d like to make a comment about the alloy content of (SY)DNEY mint ‘Australia’ sovereigns of that era, but you seem to be suggesting now that one of the Sovereigns may be fake because of the apparent difference in thickness? Are they both 1864 and have you weighed them? ……

[SilverJacks]

37 minutes ago, Britannia47 said:

I’d like to make a comment about the alloy content of (SY)DNEY mint ‘Australia’ sovereigns of that era, but you seem to be suggesting now that one of the Sovereigns may be fake because of the apparent difference in thickness? Are they both 1864 and have you weighed them? ……

Please feel free to make any comment about the alloy content of Sydney mint sovereigns or the coin I have provided photos of. I had originally started the topic in regard to the composition. I thought that these type of coins may be alloyed with just silver, not both, but have now learned the composition is most likely correct.

Yes, the reason for the XRF test was indeed due to a questionable edge, which you have also noticed as being wider than the (known legitimate) coin it was compared against. 

It was also an 1864 for comparison, albeit quite worn. The serrations also look more square on the left coin, compared to the thinner serrations on the right.

I am still learning. My knowledge is rather limited. I'm wondering if this edge could be seen as an anomaly, perhaps less wear than the coin it was compared against? Or any other reason why it looks different? It was visually compared against several other SY Sovereigns between 1859-1870, with the same apparent results.

It weighs bang on 8 grams on two different sets of digital scales (they were the cheaper scales commonly found on Amazon/eBay). Its diameter measures 22mm on cheap digital callipers that only measure to 1 DP.

 

Edited September 27, 2022 by SilverJacks
rephrased a sentence

[dicker]

Hi

A good starting point may be where did you get it from?  The usual rules apply that eBay for example is more prone to counterfeits that a reputable dealer and (some) auction houses   

I have not seen any Type II counterfeits, but I have not handled millions of Sovereigns as @LawrenceChard has done.  That doesn’t mean they don’t exist!

From the photos (and it’s a bit hard to judge given the blur) it doesn’t look obviously counterfeit.

@LawrenceChard I am not sure I have seen the page with your XRF results before but I was pretty surprised how similar the 1957 and 2021 Sovereigns are in composition but so different in their tone (appreciate I have not seen the actual coins tested but I assume that the Gillick was not a horrible copper colour!)

 

Edited September 27, 2022 by dicker
Typo

[LawrenceChard]

20 minutes ago, dicker said:

@LawrenceChard I am not sure I have seen the page with your XRF results before but I was pretty surprised how similar the 1957 and 2021 Sovereigns are in composition but so different in their tone (appreciate I have not seen the actual coins tested but I assume that the Gillick was not a horrible copper colour!)

 

The page contains only results from one single sample for each year.

To make it statistically significant, we would need to test more coins of each year.

I think in the last few months, I must have tested some more Gillicks, probably including 1957, which showed a higher silver content.

😎

[SilverJacks]

Thanks @dicker for your input. What do you make of the coins edge? Does it look acceptable? I'm starting to think nobody wants to answer that question...

[Britannia47]

24 minutes ago, SilverJacks said:

Thanks @dicker for your input. What do you make of the coins edge? Does it look acceptable? I'm starting to think nobody wants to answer that question...

You may have already answered your question - an anomaly perhaps. Looks genuine IMO.

Re Sydney early sovereigns, they invariably contained silver in the alloy. Gold, Silver, and Quartz were often clumped together in alluvial gold and it was difficult to remove the silver until the chlorine gas method was discovered in the late 1860s. So it was easier to leave the silver in as part of the alloy instead of the copper. Thus, these sovereigns were more gold looking than their London Mint counterparts which were seen to be redder. Anyway, gold alloys have in the past been well discussed, particularly  the exclusion of silver from todays alloy at the R.M.

I find it very difficult to believe that L.C.s test on a 1957 ‘Gillick’ shows ZERO silver by the way! All the ones I have seen look fabulous😀 Photo shows 2 x 1870  Sovereigns and a  2005  Proof commemorative, which actually looked too yellow. As  a result I had it tested by Bairds. It came back with 8.33% silver! No copper whatsoever.

 

 

 

 

[SilverJacks]

Thank you @Britannia47 for taking the time to reply. Would you be so kind as to show photos of the edge of the coin? And of less concern to me, the obverse? No worries if you can't.

For the record, the dealer I bought this from have offered a full guarantee on the coins authenticity without any time limit. They have even offered to cover any postage costs so I won't be out of pocket.

The edge of the coin is driving me insane. There were a couple of other issues, like the very faint "N" in "SOVEREIGN", which could just be weakly struck. 

I have always intended to send the coin to NGC, but if the edge means it is fake (as has already been suggested to me by a knowledgeable source) then it would seem such a shame to send the coin to NGC at a cost of around £50 and an 8-12 week wait. I guess I will have to go ahead with the grading process and hope the edge is anomalous, which I find hard to understand tbh.

Sovereigns really can be slightly wider? and slightly thinner reeding? From what I can gather, this is done in a uniform manner by machine and leave no room for variance, but if that were the case, someone would've said it by now.. 

Perhaps I should rename the topic in regard to the edge... Maybe more people would chime in, since no one has really shed any light on it...

[dicker]

Just to put it in perspective:

- You have purchased from a reputable dealer essentially with a guarantee

- You have had it XRF’d and it’s 22ct with the expected other metals present

- You have weighed it and it’s about right (more accurate scales would help because it shouldn’t be 8g)

- You have measured it

There were 2.69 million minted and many remain (it’s not rare) although you do not see many in fantastic condition.

You mentioned grading. If you are grading to check authenticity I would get that, and it may be the only thing that would set your mind at rest.  Not sure it will grade particularly well, as it has had a hard life.

Sovereigns do have variances and oddities, which is why you really have to look at the whole coin to assess authenticity.  

You mention that it was “suggested to me by a knowledgeable source” - has he / she looked at the coin in person?

Best

Dicker

 

[SilverJacks]

57 minutes ago, dicker said:

You mention that it was “suggested to me by a knowledgeable source” - has he / she looked at the coin in person?

Yes, I didn’t notice any issue with the edge, but he noticed it immediately, without any reference to other coins. 
He said the edge doesn’t look right and offered to compare to his collection of Colonial sovereigns the following day. When I returned, sure enough, the edge appeared different to his coins (5 different coins from 1859-1870, including one the same year). 
I guess the only way to find out is grading. Looking at the whole coin, the N in sovereign is very faint. The lettering on the obverse looks quite rough, which on its own would just suggest it’s had a hard life as you say, but the wreath has near-full detail, which is quite unusual for a coin below uncirculated grade, or that’s just what I make of it anyway. I do wonder why it has such strong detail in some areas, weak in others, and a hard life on top, with luster still present.
Im still amazed that the reeding can be seen as anomalous, but if that’s the view of the forum then my concerns over it are eased somewhat. 
If there’s no opinion shared that it is suspect, then it will go to NGC. Tbh if the general opinion is that it is fake, I would’ve asked the dealer to accept a return without the time/expense of certifying with NGC…

[dicker]

Possibly ex jewellery, which may explain some of the features.  

[Britannia47]

As requested, if it helps, 2 photos, but the attention to detail and knowledge is best left to others to analyse... So good-luck.

 

[SilverJacks]

@Britannia47 Lovely coins. Thank you for sharing.

4 minutes ago, Britannia47 said:

the attention to detail and knowledge is best left to others to analyse

Sure, I’ll send to NGC to be sure. But having purchased the coin, you have to try don’t you? When it comes to learning, one has to start somewhere..

[dicker]

Let us know how it goes with grading!