Sovereign Off Diameter

[Epictetus]

Hi Everyone, I’m a bit confused since I had always thought that all sovereigns were standard 22.05mm diameter. 

I bought one Sovereign 1910 (Melbourne Mint) in Atkinsons and I’ve got the following measurements:

Diameter: 22.2mm 

Width: 1.5mm

Weight: 7.98g

Specific G. Test= 7.98/between 0.44 and 0.46 = 18.13 / 17.34.

 

Everything seems to be right except for the 22.2mm diameter, I’m sure it’s legit since I bought in a reputable shop but I can’t find any information in Numista about this coin 22.2mm. All entries say it should be 22.05mm. 

I’m wondering if I’ll find some problems in the future when I want to sell it and the new buyer sees 22.2mm diameter. 

If I had an entry of this coin I could let him know in advance.

Any help about this? This is a pic of the coin.

 

 

Thank you

[James32]

Those specs are a near approximation, doesn't mean it will be exact. I'll check a couple of sovereigns shortly and report back the diameter. 

[James32]

So I measured two sovereigns..

1907 22.01mm

1957 22mm

Safe to say you're okay, remember all quoted sizes online are just a close approximation, slightly smaller is a good sign, if the coin measured above the stated size, then I'd be more worried. 

[Epictetus]

36 minutes ago, James32 said:

So I measured two sovereigns..

1907 22.01mm

1957 22mm

Safe to say you're okay, remember all quoted sizes online are just a close approximation, slightly smaller is a good sign, if the coin measured above the stated size, then I'd be more worried. 

Thanks for your answer. 
I just bought a caliper so I don’t have much experience testing coins.
I would expect less diameter, specially in older coins, due to wear but not more, however I don’t know what is the “allowed” threshold when considering to buy a coin or not. 0.04 and 0.01 doesn’t seem like a lot. In my coin the difference is 0.15 and I’m not sure if that’s a big difference or not. 
if you were buying to an user instead to a shop would it be acceptable 0.15 difference? 

In the future I want to buy to other users and the problem is I don’t really know how a fake looks like in terms of size, weight and how far from the given measures it can differ. 

[James32]

2 minutes ago, Epictetus said:

Thanks for your answer. 
I just bought a caliper so I don’t have much experience testing coins.
I would expect less diameter, specially in older coins, due to wear but not more, however I don’t know what is the “allowed” threshold when considering to buy a coin or not. 0.04 and 0.01 doesn’t seem like a lot. In my coin the difference is 0.15 and I’m not sure if that’s a big difference or not. 
if you were buying to an user instead to a shop would it be acceptable 0.15 difference? 

In the future I want to buy to other users and the problem is I don’t really know how a fake looks like in terms of size, weight and how far from the given measures it can differ. 

Are you loosely measuring or firm with the points on the calipers? Make sure to zero them in the closed position as they have a habit of wandering slightly. 

I honestly think your coin is fine and I wouldn't be worried if I purchased it. 

[Sovhead]

4 hours ago, Epictetus said:

Hi Everyone, I’m a bit confused since I had always thought that all sovereigns were standard 22.05mm diameter. 

I bought one Sovereign 1910 (Melbourne Mint) in Atkinsons and I’ve got the following measurements:

Diameter: 22.2mm 

Width: 1.5mm

Weight: 7.98g

Specific G. Test= 7.98/between 0.44 and 0.46 = 18.13 / 17.34.

 

Everything seems to be right except for the 22.2mm diameter, I’m sure it’s legit since I bought in a reputable shop but I can’t find any information in Numista about this coin 22.2mm. All entries say it should be 22.05mm. 

I’m wondering if I’ll find some problems in the future when I want to sell it and the new buyer sees 22.2mm diameter. 

If I had an entry of this coin I could let him know in advance.

Any help about this? This is a pic of the coin.

 

 

Thank you

As James said make sure you zero out the calipers before measuring…to be .2 up isn’t right.

Sometimes the thickness differs, some Gillicks and Geo Sovs have that thicker rim than Victorian sovs and can measure thicker.

but to be as big as .2 up on the diameter shouldn’t be happening.

Edited October 2, 2023 by Sovhead

[Orpster]

Most sovereigns will fit into a 22mm direct fit capsule, around 1 in 25 do not as I found out when I spent a fortune on 22mm airtight direct fit capsules and A tubes, only to have to swop to ringed and T tubes

You coin is 100% not a cast copy, its a common year so unlikely to be one that has been counterfeited.  Nothing sets alarm bells ringing, the picture does make it look like there is an indentation of some sort by the arm but thats likely to be the light:

It is quite a weak strike but detail looks OK.  Might be worth sticking a picture of the obverse up if your still concerned, Edward sovereigns have detail on the hair and tash that would be difficult to replicate.  On colonials the fakes often have really prominent mint marks that make them stand out, and also small indentations from the rust on the dies they used, your has neither of these issues, at least on the reverse anyway  

 

[Spyder]

There is nothing wrong with your coin. 1911s is exactly the same, slightly wider than regular.  When I was designing  my sovereign gauges, I had to take this in consideration.  The 1911s fitted tight and thus had to push it out from the other side. Made some adjustments to accommodate these slightly wider sovereigns. 

[NGMD]

Just being Devil’s advocate and ask if you have checked your other sovereign using the same Vernier (digital callipers). The problem with the cheapo brands is they cannot hold consistent size. Make sure there’s no lint/dust/grime affecting the opening and closing(turn over and wipe while fully open).

[Divmad]

2 hours ago, James32 said:

So I measured two sovereigns..

1907 22.01mm

1957 22mm

Safe to say you're okay, remember all quoted sizes online are just a close approximation, slightly smaller is a good sign, if the coin measured above the stated size, then I'd be more worried. 

Err, I thought this was a 22.2mm coin, WIDER than the norm.

[James32]

Just now, Divmad said:

Err, I thought this was a 22.2mm coin, WIDER than the norm.

Yeah it is, I've read it wrong,but still doesn't concern me.

[ArgentSmith]

56 minutes ago, James32 said:

Yeah it is, I've read it wrong,but still doesn't concern me.

Yeah, Its not your coin 🤣

[ZRPMs]

I have a few that are about this size. I remember thinking There was something up as they were too tight to fit my just fit sovereign capsules. I think I managed to find @LawrenceChard from chards talking about them on YouTube. Hope I didn't dream that it was Lawrence. But I remember reading and watching something about the slight variations in the sizes of the sovereign.

P.S. Tried to pot this yesterday but gave up. Forum on the frits.

[SidS]

Something from the back of my mind says that the 1910 is different to the other Edward dates. If I recall correctly, the reverse outer beaded (or actually lined) boarder is either broader or narrower than the other dates. The edge milling may be different as well? I'm not sure this would make the coins actually wider but maybe they were playing around with the dies/striking during this year. Maybe the dies struck it harder? As the coin is wider, is it slightly shallower when placed next to other sovereigns?

[Britannia47]

4 hours ago, SidS said:

Something from the back of my mind says that the 1910 is different to the other Edward dates. If I recall correctly, the reverse outer beaded (or actually lined) boarder is either broader or narrower than the other dates. The edge milling may be different as well? I'm not sure this would make the coins actually wider but maybe they were playing around with the dies/striking during this year. Maybe the dies struck it harder? As the coin is wider, is it slightly shallower when placed next to other sovereigns?

There can be slight variations of diameter in other gold coins, such as Britannias. I recall a toplc re. fake Britannias many years ago where the buyer (new to collecting bullion) was convinced one of his 22ct 1oz gold Britannias was slightly thinner than others and therefore a fake! Complaints were made to the dealer and the RM. This was the response from the RM….

 

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Britannia47

[SidS]

23 minutes ago, Britannia47 said:

There can be slight variations of diameter in other gold coins, such as Britannias. I recall a toplc re. fake Britannias...

I wasn't suggesting it was fake, only that to be wider in diameter and correct weight, perhaps it was thinner to offset the larger diameter. Only a thought.

[Britannia47]

11 minutes ago, SidS said:

I wasn't suggesting it was fake, only that to be wider in diameter and correct weight, perhaps it was thinner to offset the larger diameter. Only a thought.

As admitted by the Royal Mint, you are correct to suggest that the weight of the strike will affect the size or specification, provided the weight is correct. Neither the Sovereign in this topic or the Britannia were fake…..👍

[Silverlocks]

I've seen a couple of Australian sovs from that era that flat out won't fit in Air-tite A22 caps.  Some sovs (Gillicks, for example) are a tight fit and tend to get stuck, but these wouldn't fit at all.  I don't think it's necessarily a sign that it's fake.