Sovereigns

[WolfStacker]

What kind of sovereign coins do you prefer?

Edited July 13, 2023 by Rares

[Skyfiller]

You need a don’t care option @Rares

[WolfStacker]

3 minutes ago, Skyfiller said:

You need a don’t care option @Rares

Thanks, it's done
You can vote now, @Skyfiller

[Skyfiller]

Cheers @Rares A sovereign is a sovereign in my stack, whatever the colour 😀

[Stuntman]

Personally I prefer the quintuple ones, then the double ones, then the full ones, then the half ones - and lastly the quarter ones 🙂

As a serious answer, I only have post 1999 sovereigns in my collection (the coppery looking ones) but I wish that they were more golden looking.  But I'm currently choosing to buy 999.9 fine gold coins if I want them actually to be golden looking, in preference to buying older sovereigns.

[dicker]

1 - Shields

2 - Victoria Young head G and D

3 - Victoria Jubilee

4 - Victoria Old Head

5 - Gillick

6 - Machin (but not that much)

But errors are a trump card and shift the above order around.

 

[WolfStacker]

55 minutes ago, dicker said:

1 - Shields

2 - Victoria Young head G and D

3 - Victoria Jubilee

4 - Victoria Old Head

5 - Gillick

6 - Machin (but not that much)

But errors are a trump card and shift the above order around.

 

Errors -> 1st place? 

[pricha]

I'd rather have 1/4 9999 coins than modern sovereigns.  The special " one off " designs don't do it for me except the 1989 and 2017. 

They seem cheap and  tatty , but at least a 1/4 is pure gold. 

80% of my stack is Victoria shields.  A uncirculated has me drooling 🤤  but I'll take most . So much history.  

Edited July 14, 2023 by pricha

[dicker]

33 minutes ago, Rares said:

Errors -> 1st place? 

Yes, if they are interesting, genuine errors and particularly unidentified!

[GoldDiggerDave]

I liked them when they were £197 quid each. 

Young head/Shield backs with die numbers,

anything 1860 in and around that date, 

anything proof special year reverse.

[Silverlocks]

So, after some evolution in my thoughts on this, here are my favourites in order - for me, good looking and photogenic beats rare.  If a rare coin were to fall into my lap I'd be happy, but I'm not particularly interested in coins just for their rarity or bragging rights.

George V: These are my favourites because they're relatively easy to get in good condition with low premiums, as they were largely uncirculated, and produced in large numbers.  The McKennal portrait is very photogenic and has good definition, so they're easy to get good photos of.   You can collect George V sovs, as there are more than 60 varieties, and a date run of 22 is reasonably achievable if you feel so inclined.  The low premiums also mean that the spreads are low, so they're good for stacking, and photogenic ones are easy to sell.  Really, gold is not a good speculative investment at the best of times - if you're looking for volatility, trade crypto.  

Machin: The Machin portrait was the last to come in gold coloured alloy, and has much better relief than the Gillick portrait.  This makes them much easier to get good photos of, and from this perspective, it's probably #2 behind McKennal's George V.

Gillick: The Gillick portrait is nice, and they're fairly easy to get in good condition with low premiums.  However, the Achilles heel of the Gillick is the low relief of the portrait, which does not photograph well.  If you go for contrast, the surface tends to show blemishes off badly, makes Liz's face look like she has vitiligo or cystic acne.  Nice, but shows blemishes badly and they're hard to get good photos of unless in near-pristine condition.  On the plus side, the alloy with slightly less slilver than the 197h century ones has a nice warm colour, but not too coppery.

Victoria (young): Wyon's portrait of 18 year old Victoria is a classic and is arguably the nicest of the portraits, although I think McKennal's George V gives it a run for its money.  However, as they were circulated coinage, most are in rather rough condition, and good ones are quite uncommon.  Also, they tend to command a premium so by and large the value has aready been extracted by the time you get them.  Maybe 10 years ago, shields would have been good value.

The shield reverse is a nice design, but it pays to remember that every sovereign minted between 1821 and 1871 and about half of all Australian sovs from 1872 to 1887 had some variant of the shield design, and every half sovereign between 1821 and 1892 was a shield.  Shields aren't rare - shields in good condition are rare.  There are a lot folks flogging munters at rather optimistic prices, so you do have to pick and choose which ones you buy.  Out of the 20 or so young vic sovs I've bought and sold in the past year, only three are of a quality that I actually want to keep, and those are really in the gVF to aboutEF range.  Young vics are all very fine, but don't overpay.

Victoria (old): Examples in good condition are fairly easy to come by, and they're not in demand in quite the way that young vics are.  They can be good for stacking as they're quite common, and they don't show wear anything like as badly as jubilee portrait coins do.

Edward VII: Like Old Vics, good examples aren't uncommon, and they aren't in demand by collectors.  Some have large mintages as well.  Edward VII sovs look quite good when they're in good condition, as the mint lustre shows up in Ed's hair particularly.  From that perspective they can be quite photogenic in good condition.  The De Saulle portrait isn't all that inspiring, though.

Victoria (jubilee): The Boehm ('Jubilee') portrait shows wear very badly, and poor old Victoria often ends up looking like a kewpie doll.  If you can find examples in good condition they look fairly nice, but good examples aren't common.  I've ever had precisely two Jubilee in a condition I want to keep, and quite a few munters.

Modern: The copper colour and move to a shiny finish has spoiled modern sovs to some extent.  It wouldn't take a lot of silver to bring up the colour - the typical silver content of a 19th century sov is about 3-4 parts per thousand.  As this would cost about 1.5p per coin, and finishing the dies with the satin finish would be a trivial accomplishment for modern die cutting technology, science is powerless to explain why RM don't do this - and RM's own explanations are famously less than satisfactory.  When PAMP-MMTC minted sovs for a few years, they made a point of producing them in a yellow alloy and emphasizing this in their advertising.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Silverlocks

[iacabu]

Receiving the latest KCIII sovereign reinforced my dislike for modern sovereigns. The colour and shine are not for me. 

I'm definitely going through a phase of enjoying older coins with some history too, so it isn't all about composition and appearance of the coin. 

[DTL1982]

I actually don’t mind the new reddish look as it makes a Sovereign look unique to other gold coins on the market. Other than the Sovereign and the Krugerrand, most gold coins have a similar color so the uniqueness is welcome. That said, the old ones are beautiful as well especially as they were used in circulation so develop character. 
 

Portrait-wise I think Edward VIII had the best looking but most of us will never be able to afford one of those and the also outrageously priced, rare George VI would be next on my list. For realistic examples with a king, George V had a far better portrait than Edward VII or KCIII. For queens, I think the Gillick portrait is the prettiest of QEII and the young Victoria is next in line. I like the jubilee Vic for the oddly small crown but it doesn’t seem to age well. 

[pricha]

I agree George V look magnificent.  Plenty available In great condition.  But correct me if I'm wrong. There are more fakes , good and bad of George V than any other variety? 

[Silverlocks]

49 minutes ago, pricha said:

I agree George V look magnificent.  Plenty available In great condition.  But correct me if I'm wrong. There are more fakes , good and bad of George V than any other variety? 

I'm not sure what the stats for fakes are.  I think Jewellers' sovs tend to be George V designs due to when they were made, but they usually have maker's marks that make them readily identifiable.  As for forgeries intended to deceive, I think 1887 is the poster child for those.

[Silverlocks]

10 hours ago, DTL1982 said:

[ . . . ]

Portrait-wise I think Edward VIII had the best looking but most of us will never be able to afford one of those and the also outrageously priced, rare George VI would be next on my list. For realistic examples with a king, George V had a far better portrait than Edward VII or KCIII. For queens, I think the Gillick portrait is the prettiest of QEII and the young Victoria is next in line. I like the jubilee Vic for the oddly small crown but it doesn’t seem to age well. 

The Boehm Jubilee portrait isn't bad - apparently the coronet Victoria is depicted as wearing was a favourite of hers as it was relatively light and comfortable, and the veil with the lace trim is something she wore for the rest of her life after Albert died.  But, it does wear badly and good examples aren't that thick on the ground.  Half the time the wear is so bad Victoria ends up looking like a kewpie doll and uderweight ones (under 7.93g) are quite common due to the poor wear characteristics. 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Silverlocks

[GoldDiggerDave]

1 hour ago, Silverlocks said:

The Boehm Jubilee portrait isn't bad - apparently the coronet Victoria is depicted as wearing was a favourite of hers as it was relatively light and comfortable, and the veil with the lace trim is something she wore for the rest of her life after Albert died.  But, it does wear badly and good examples aren't that thick on the ground.  Half the time the wear is so bad Victoria ends up looking like a kewpie doll and uderweight ones (under 7.93g) are quite common due to the poor wear characteristics. 

JEB.....note,  apparently he met an untimely death rumoured to be at the hands of Edward VII at the order of Queen Victoria.  It was rumoured he had been paining Princess Louise (4th daughter of Queen Victoria)  "like one of his French girls"  for several years,  which infuriated Queen Victoria. She ordered  "Bertie" later to be Edward VII and his men to go and collect Princess Louise from JEB's home on 76 Fulham road on the  12th December 1890.   JEB did not live to see the next day.   

Also the Jubilee portrait we have on the our coin was not the final one he produced several and Queen Victoria was not happy with any and she made numerous changes to the design, it took so long to produce they had to go into production with the portrait we know today not the final version. 

JEB has numerous sculptures in and around London, I like the one of Darwin in the natural history museum, added the picture of the titanic scene for artistic impression........

 

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by GoldDiggerDave

[pricha]

8 hours ago, Silverlocks said:

I'm not sure what the stats for fakes are.  I think Jewellers' sovs tend to be George V designs due to when they were made, but they usually have maker's marks that make them readily identifiable.  As for forgeries intended to deceive, I think 1887 is the poster child for those.

I assume you mean mostly the Double sovereign.  I'd never buy this coin unless it was verified and graded. 

[Silverlocks]

29 minutes ago, pricha said:

I assume you mean mostly the Double sovereign.  I'd never buy this coin unless it was verified and graded. 

Yes.  1887 doubles and quints are notorious for this - apparently there was an outfit in Beirut that used to make very high quality fakes, and there was a ring in Italy that got busted at one point.

[Spyder]

On 14/07/2023 at 09:32, GoldDiggerDave said:

JEB.....note,  apparently he met an untimely death rumoured to be at the hands of Edward VII at the order of Queen Victoria.  It was rumoured he had been paining Princess Louise (4th daughter of Queen Victoria)  "like one of his French girls"  for several years,  which infuriated Queen Victoria. She ordered  "Bertie" later to be Edward VII and his men to go and collect Princess Louise from JEB's home on 76 Fulham road on the  12th December 1890.   JEB did not live to see the next day.   

Also the Jubilee portrait we have on the our coin was not the final one he produced several and Queen Victoria was not happy with any and she made numerous changes to the design, it took so long to produce they had to go into production with the portrait we know today not the final version. 

JEB has numerous sculptures in and around London, I like the one of Darwin in the natural history museum,

 

 

 

 

This marble is incredible in details. He who created this masterpiece is an artist not the likes of Damian Hirst or Tracey Emin

[GoldDiggerDave]

38 minutes ago, Spyder said:

This marble is incredible in details. He who created this masterpiece is an artist not the likes of Damian Hirst or Tracey Emin

If you look at the works of art pervious engravers have made they are truly 100% at the top of their craft. 

 

Sir Thomas Brock (  Victoria Old/ veiled head)  

 

The unveiling of this memorial took place on 16 May 1911,^[12] and according to legend King George V was so moved by the excellence of the memorial that he called for a sword and knighted Brock on the spot.^[9] In any event, it was on the same day that the Lord Chamberlain’s Office notified The London Gazette that the king had ordered that Brock be appointed a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath.^[13]

 

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by GoldDiggerDave

[n1k0s]

On 13/07/2023 at 21:47, Silverlocks said:

So, after some evolution in my thoughts on this, here are my favourites in order - for me, good looking and photogenic beats rare.  If a rare coin were to fall into my lap I'd be happy, but I'm not particularly interested in coins just for their rarity or bragging rights.

George V: These are my favourites because they're relatively easy to get in good condition with low premiums, as they were largely uncirculated, and produced in large numbers.  The McKennal portrait is very photogenic and has good definition, so they're easy to get good photos of.   You can collect George V sovs, as there are more than 60 varieties, and a date run of 22 is reasonably achievable if you feel so inclined.  The low premiums also mean that the spreads are low, so they're good for stacking, and photogenic ones are easy to sell.  Really, gold is not a good speculative investment at the best of times - if you're looking for volatility, trade crypto.  

Machin: The Machin portrait was the last to come in gold coloured alloy, and has much better relief than the Gillick portrait.  This makes them much easier to get good photos of, and from this perspective, it's probably #2 behind McKennal's George V.

Gillick: The Gillick portrait is nice, and they're fairly easy to get in good condition with low premiums.  However, the Achilles heel of the Gillick is the low relief of the portrait, which does not photograph well.  If you go for contrast, the surface tends to show blemishes off badly, makes Liz's face look like she has vitiligo or cystic acne.  Nice, but shows blemishes badly and they're hard to get good photos of unless in near-pristine condition.  On the plus side, the alloy with slightly less slilver than the 197h century ones has a nice warm colour, but not too coppery.

Victoria (young): Wyon's portrait of 18 year old Victoria is a classic and is arguably the nicest of the portraits, although I think McKennal's George V gives it a run for its money.  However, as they were circulated coinage, most are in rather rough condition, and good ones are quite uncommon.  Also, they tend to command a premium so by and large the value has aready been extracted by the time you get them.  Maybe 10 years ago, shields would have been good value.

The shield reverse is a nice design, but it pays to remember that every sovereign minted between 1821 and 1871 and about half of all Australian sovs from 1872 to 1887 had some variant of the shield design, and every half sovereign between 1821 and 1892 was a shield.  Shields aren't rare - shields in good condition are rare.  There are a lot folks flogging munters at rather optimistic prices, so you do have to pick and choose which ones you buy.  Out of the 20 or so young vic sovs I've bought and sold in the past year, only three are of a quality that I actually want to keep, and those are really in the gVF to aboutEF range.  Young vics are all very fine, but don't overpay.

Victoria (old): Examples in good condition are fairly easy to come by, and they're not in demand in quite the way that young vics are.  They can be good for stacking as they're quite common, and they don't show wear anything like as badly as jubilee portrait coins do.

Edward VII: Like Old Vics, good examples aren't uncommon, and they aren't in demand by collectors.  Some have large mintages as well.  Edward VII sovs look quite good when they're in good condition, as the mint lustre shows up in Ed's hair particularly.  From that perspective they can be quite photogenic in good condition.  The De Saulle portrait isn't all that inspiring, though.

Victoria (jubilee): The Boehm ('Jubilee') portrait shows wear very badly, and poor old Victoria often ends up looking like a kewpie doll.  If you can find examples in good condition they look fairly nice, but good examples aren't common.  I've ever had precisely two Jubilee in a condition I want to keep, and quite a few munters.

Modern: The copper colour and move to a shiny finish has spoiled modern sovs to some extent.  It wouldn't take a lot of silver to bring up the colour - the typical silver content of a 19th century sov is about 3-4 parts per thousand.  As this would cost about 1.5p per coin, and finishing the dies with the satin finish would be a trivial accomplishment for modern die cutting technology, science is powerless to explain why RM don't do this - and RM's own explanations are famously less than satisfactory.  When PAMP-MMTC minted sovs for a few years, they made a point of producing them in a yellow alloy and emphasizing this in their advertising.

what a great summary. I fully agree with this order. 

[SidS]

My order of preference for sovereigns is:

1. Henry VII

2. Mary I

3. Elizabeth I

4. Henry VIII / Edward VI

5. James I

6. George IV Bare head

7. William IV

8. Vicky shield

9. Vicky G&D

10. George V / George III

11. Vicky Old / George IV laureate

12. Vicky Jubilee

13. Edward VII

14. Gillick

15. 1989

16. Machin

And at 17 in the basement anything coppery.

Edited July 17, 2023 by SidS

[n1k0s]

20 minutes ago, SidS said:

My order of preference for sovereigns is:

1. Henry VII

2. Mary I

3. Elizabeth I

4. Henry VIII / Edward VI

5. James I

6. George IV Bare head

7. William IV

8. Vicky shield

9. Vicky G&D

10. George V / George III

11. Vicky Old / George IV laureate

12. Vicky Jubilee

13. Edward VII

14. Gillick

15. 1989

16. Machin

And at 17 in the basement anything coppery.

impressive list. There are some in here that i don't even know what they look like. 

[SidS]

22 minutes ago, n1k0s said:

impressive list. There are some in here that i don't even know what they look like. 

Not that I can afford anything above number 6, but I can still appreciate the designs. The Henry VII being the inspiration behind the 1989 commemorative sovereign. There's something truly beautiful about hammered gold. It might be thin but the designs are so intricate and detailed that they blow a lot of modern coins out of the water, just my opinion.