How much is the right price for a 1989 Full Sovereign (PCGS PR70DCAM)?

[ConnecticutCoins]

Hi. I'm new to sovereign collecting and I've just noticed there are a lot people selling 1989 sovereigns but not many graded as PR/PF70. People seem to be paying quite a lot for these.

Is paying £2000 (which includes buyer's premium) a lot for a 1989 Full Sovereign graded PR70DCAM by PCGS? Trying to get my head around this market.

Thanks!

Edited May 13, 2023 by ConnecticutCoins

[harrygill111]

The 89 proofs have taken off over the last few years - but can be picked up for about £1800. 

They may come down again in the future 

[GoodAsGold]

I’ve seen 1989 NGC PF70 sovereigns being advertised for sale or selling at £2K on a FB group. Though the mintages were high, they seem to be in demand particularly by new collectors. I believe that 70 grades are difficult to obtain on the 1989 series which is now well over 30 years old. My own 4 coin set is currently with NCS/NGC for conservation and grading.

[Frenchie]

An auctioned  PGCS PR70 Sovereign 1989 has been sold yesterday (Coin Cabinet) for £2400, and a NGC PF69 for £1550, add the 6% + VAT  fees on top of these prices

Edited May 17, 2023 by Frenchie

[Leonmarsh]

Personally wouldn't touch a 1989 at 2k 

When your paying that kind of money there are so many other nicer coins you could pick up an 1817 - 1820 sov a mint state guinea and still have change 

Edited May 19, 2023 by Leonmarsh

[Britannia47]

1 hour ago, Leonmarsh said:

Personally wouldn't touch a 1989 at 2k 

When your paying that kind of money there are so many other nicer coins you could pick up an 1817 - 1820 sov a mint state guinea and still have change 

 

[Leonmarsh]

2 hours ago, Britannia47 said:

 

Nice coin there is no historical value in a 1989 it's not even a coin is it really? Didn't circulate as with all modern sovs? 

That 1817 has passed through many hands used as payment? Who what when why magical to think 

A proper coin 

[BiigT]

Bought my 1989 70 for £1870 over 12 months ago. I wouldn't sell it, but if I was, I wouldn't be looking at any less than £2k. I've not seen any selling as low as £1800

[GoldDiggerDave]

They are a bargain at 2k……..remember the bellyachers telling you not to buy these when they hit 1k each?????  
 

It’s amazing the financial advice you get from people who can’t afford to buy and hold these coins.

Give it another few  years and  5k might look cheap. 

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by GoldDiggerDave

[harrygill111]

COTR have been regularly round the 1800 mark or less over the last year or so non PF70s are cheaper 

 

[Leonmarsh]

16 minutes ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

They are a bargain at 2k……..remember the bellyachers telling you not to buy these when they hit 1k each?????  
 

It’s amazing the financial advice you get from people who can’t afford to buy and hold these coins.

Give it another few  years and  5k might look cheap. 

 

Proper bargain 2k ?

Coins are hyped by you tubers such as yourself who rely on people grading for the quest for a 70 

[GoldDiggerDave]

2 minutes ago, Leonmarsh said:

Proper bargain 2k ?

Coins are hyped by you tubers such as yourself who rely on people grading for the quest for a 70 

Good to see you back mate! They went from £870-£1,200 very quickly and if you look back at archived chats on here many were saying not to buy them they are over hyped.  Just how many of those bellyachers would sell their granny to how’ve one for that price now? 
 

Im a collector 100% and I see the value of holding these coins, even if gold went to zero by Monday morning my life would not change and I’d still be happy to be the custodian of these coins.

 

As for YouTube is for 100% fun and enjoyment of the hobby, some for get that.  Just filmed my latest video yesterday will get that up soon.  Got a few 2023 coronation SOTD sovereigns 

 

 

[Leonmarsh]

Only pulling your plonker Dave your a good egg 🥚

[Britannia47]

The value of the 1989 has been well discussed in previous posts. @ConnecticutCoins  It was something of an enigma in the past. It got off to a very slow start, perhaps not being appreciated by many collectors, despite the fact that the 500th anniversary of the sovereign was a worthy candidate for commemoration. The RM released it for £149.95 at the time - Even  9 years later the proof sovereign was still £149!

As for todays valuations, a NGC 70 grade, if you could get one, would be the ultimate. I have no idea why a single 1989  sovereign is now worth £2000+ but uniquely, in the past, it was more valuable then the Double sovereign!

An alternative would be to collect ‘Proper’ circulated coins perhaps?….LOL😀

 

[Leonmarsh]

Definition of a coin, is used to facilitate trade 

Modern sovereigns haven't facilitated trade and therefore imo opinion are simply gold bullion for stacking purposes 

Coin collectors the purist want coins don't they ? I can never imagine the 1989 has been bought so much as a loaf of bread 

The magic of coins is timeless history

[SidS]

On 19/05/2023 at 12:50, Leonmarsh said:

Nice coin there is no historical value in a 1989 it's not even a coin is it really? Didn't circulate as with all modern sovs? 

That 1817 has passed through many hands used as payment? Who what when why magical to think 

A proper coin 

Agreed.

Sovereigns minted after 1914 did not circulate in the UK.

1918 Indian sovereigns, I'm not sure how widely they circulated in Asia.

I'm not sure how widely the Canadian sovereigns circulated, more for bank storage or reserves I guess.

Aussie sovereigns circulated widely and were still in use up to 1931 (as attested by redemable banknotes).

South Africa sovereigns probably circulated until 1931.

Any and all of the above, plus the Gillicks were used in the Middle East (as were MT Thalers) for barter, more based on bullion value than their face at the time.

The Machin onwards, they're mostly just collector coins and bullion investors coins.

 

[SeverinDigsSovereigns]

31 minutes ago, SidS said:

Agreed.

Sovereigns minted after 1914 did not circulate in the UK.

1918 Indian sovereigns, I'm not sure how widely they circulated in Asia.

I'm not sure how widely the Canadian sovereigns circulated, more for bank storage or reserves I guess.

Aussie sovereigns circulated widely and were still in use up to 1931 (as attested by redemable banknotes).

South Africa sovereigns probably circulated until 1931.

Any and all of the above, plus the Gillicks were used in the Middle East (as were MT Thalers) for barter, more based on bullion value than their face at the time.

The Machin onwards, they're mostly just collector coins and bullion investors coins.

 

Collectors' coins are still "coins" though. What about the £5 Una and Lion? They were proof and were intended for collectors from day 1. Also it's not always so straightforward to tell the difference between coins and medals because some medals also had face values.

Also when gold standard was in place bullion value=face value.

Edited May 22, 2023 by SeverinDigsSovereigns

[Leonmarsh]

Just now, SeverinDigsSovereigns said:

Collectors' coins are still "coins" though. What about the £5 Una and Lion? They were proof and were intended for collectors from day 1. Also it's not always so straightforward to tell the difference between coins and medals because some medals also had face values.

Una and lion is not a coin 

It's a collectors item 

Coins have to circulate to be a coin simple as 

Having a token £5 quid on the back is just to avoid CGT and to be classed as a coin 

[SidS]

22 minutes ago, Leonmarsh said:

Una and lion is not a coin 

It's a collectors item 

Coins have to circulate to be a coin simple as 

Having a token £5 quid on the back is just to avoid CGT and to be classed as a coin 

Agreed.

I've never considered pattern pieces as coins, merely concept of design. With regards to the Una and the Lion or even the beloved Gothic Crown they are really presentation pieces. Very nice ones to be sure.

Even 1937 gold proofs are touch and go when it comes to coins. They are explicitly NOT legal tender as they have plain edges. If they're sovereigns, but not legal tender (and never have been - which is the crucial point) are they coins?

I guess it all depends upon your definition of a coin.

To my mind bullion rounds like Britannias and Eagles may state a denomination, but it is a token gesture and it purposely bears no relation to the intrinsic value of the 'coin' since there was never any intention to circulate them, merely use them as an investment vehicle. The face value was never close to spot even at the outset because the issuers did not want them becoming an alternative to fiat.

Just because something can hold value and be bartered does not make it a coin. Shells and banknotes are all mediums of exchange but are clearly not coins.

In reference to the original question, 1989 sovereigns are nice but why spend £2000 on one when you can buy a genuine Henry VIII half sovereign of similar design and gold content for £1000-£1500? Don't buy the homage, buy the original.

[SidS]

50 minutes ago, SeverinDigsSovereigns said:

Also when gold standard was in place bullion value=face value.

Officially yes, but that's not straight forward.

The UK was on the gold standard until 1931 - in the 1920s sovereigns sold at a premium (and were even bought by dealers at a premium over face value). They were still in theory a part of the then current currency system, just merely an unused one.

A modern comparison might be that 25p crowns are still legal tender for that amount, but have you ever tried to acquire one for 25p though? No doubt easy in 1972 or 1977 upon issue, impossible now, as 'bullion' is probably higher than face now.

[SeverinDigsSovereigns]

55 minutes ago, Leonmarsh said:

Una and lion is not a coin 

It's a collectors item 

Coins have to circulate to be a coin simple as 

Having a token £5 quid on the back is just to avoid CGT and to be classed as a coin 

OK.

[SeverinDigsSovereigns]

25 minutes ago, SidS said:

Agreed.

I've never considered pattern pieces as coins, merely concept of design. With regards to the Una and the Lion or even the beloved Gothic Crown they are really presentation pieces. Very nice ones to be sure.

Even 1937 gold proofs are touch and go when it comes to coins. They are explicitly NOT legal tender as they have plain edges. If they're sovereigns, but not legal tender (and never have been - which is the crucial point) are they coins?

I guess it all depends upon your definition of a coin.

To my mind bullion rounds like Britannias and Eagles may state a denomination, but it is a token gesture and it purposely bears no relation to the intrinsic value of the 'coin' since there was never any intention to circulate them, merely use them as an investment vehicle. The face value was never close to spot even at the outset because the issuers did not want them becoming an alternative to fiat.

Just because something can hold value and be bartered does not make it a coin. Shells and banknotes are all mediums of exchange but are clearly not coins.

In reference to the original question, 1989 sovereigns are nice but why spend £2000 on one when you can buy a genuine Henry VIII half sovereign of similar design and gold content for £1000-£1500? Don't buy the homage, buy the original.

Well, it is down to the fundamentally different definitions of what a coin is. In my mind a coin is a metal token issued by a monetary authority. Oxford Dictionary defines a coin as "A piece of metal (gold, silver, copper, etc.) of definite weight and value, usually a circular disc, made into money by being stamped with an officially authorized device; a piece of money." So what makes banknotes and seashells NOT coins is the material and processing. A coin needs to be 1) made 2) in metal(s).

You could mint a £1,000,000,000 base metal "coin" to settle debt or pop up inflation and still call it a coin, just as £1m banknotes have been made and they are still "banknotes". The face value does not necessarily agree with spot, indeed, as the base metal coins today probably have melt values much lower than the denomination, and banknotes are just paper. 

But I can quite see your reasoning there. You seem to believe that a circular metal object only becomes a "coin" if it's been circulated, which I suppose is a valid point of view, and a token/pattern/whatever can still be attractive even if it does not fall into this definition of a coin.

17 minutes ago, SidS said:

Officially yes, but that's not straight forward.

The UK was on the gold standard until 1931 - in the 1920s sovereigns sold at a premium (and were even bought by dealers at a premium over face value). They were still in theory a part of the then current currency system, just merely an unused one.

A modern comparison might be that 25p crowns are still legal tender for that amount, but have you ever tried to acquire one for 25p though? No doubt easy in 1972 or 1977 upon issue, impossible now, as 'bullion' is probably higher than face now.

Denominations aren't straightforward, indeed, or else they wouldn't have replaced the guineas with sovereigns. But that doesn't disqualify something as a coin. A sovereign still has £1 face value and is worth £370 melt, and a 1910 sovereign is not much different from a 2010 sovereign in that regard.

A coin may or may not be a collector's item, and a collector's item may or may not be a coin. I'll say there is an intersection of the two categories. Whether a particular piece falls into that intersection could be debated.