1893 Quintuple Sovereign

[Organics]

Hi All,

The second of the Quintuple sovereigns I want to sell is this 1893 version. 

As I’m learning all the time I can clearly see this is not mint. The Royal Mint have one on their website at £5290.00 but that is VF. Before anyone says, I know the Royal Mint prices are always very high, so I’m not using as a guide, but just a reference. The 1893 also has a low Mintage of 20,405, which I believe to be quite low.  

Therefore don’t know how to price it. 

Any advice/suggestions would be helpful. 

Thanks in advance 🙏

[Petra]

😮now this is a great looking coin … trouble is, if you have this one you have to find a double, single and half to go with it!🤔👍

[Organics]

3 minutes ago, Petra said:

😮now this is a great looking coin … trouble is, if you have this one you have to find a double, single and half to go with it!🤔👍

That’s why I’m selling it before I get caught up collecting the others lol 😝 

Glad you like it 🙏

[Zhorro]

1 hour ago, Organics said:

Hi All,

The second of the Quintuple sovereigns I want to sell is this 1893 version. 

As I’m learning all the time I can clearly see this is not mint. The Royal Mint have one on their website at £5290.00 but that is VF. Before anyone says, I know the Royal Mint prices are always very high, so I’m not using as a guide, but just a reference. The 1893 also has a low Mintage of 20,405, which I believe to be quite low.  

Therefore don’t know how to price it. 

Any advice/suggestions would be helpful. 

Thanks in advance 🙏

I do fear that in its earlier life the coin was mounted in some jewellery - therefore its value is likely to be a relatively modest premium over spot - but I may be wrong.

[Organics]

35 minutes ago, Zhorro said:

I do fear that in its earlier life the coin was mounted in some jewellery - therefore its value is likely to be a relatively modest premium over spot - but I may be wrong.

Even with the low Mintage and rare year? 

[Silverlocks]

10 minutes ago, Organics said:

Even with the low Mintage and rare year? 

There is a bit of visible damage from the mount, and the coin is quite badly worn for a quint - these were never circulated currency.  It does put it at the bottom of the heap by the quality standards of these coins.

[Organics]

6 minutes ago, Silverlocks said:

There is a bit of visible damage from the mount, and the coin is quite badly worn for a quint - these were never circulated currency.  It does put it at the bottom of the heap by the quality standards of these coins.

Fair enough. Thank you for letting me know 🙏

[Zhorro]

8 minutes ago, Organics said:

Even with the low Mintage and rare year? 

The coin is also quite worn from rubbing as it was hanging in the jewellery.  It is a "rarer" year, but 1937 had a mintage of only 5,501, and many of the Quintuples over the past decade have had a mintage of less than a thousand - so "rare" is relative.  Many numismatic collectors shy away from coins that have been mounted - so you are going to have to sell it on price - a price that will tempt them.

[Organics]

2 minutes ago, Zhorro said:

The coin is also quite worn from rubbing as it was hanging in the jewellery.  It is a "rarer" year, but 1937 had a mintage of only 5,501, and many of the Quintuples over the past decade have had a mintage of less than a thousand - so "rare" is relative.  Many numismatic collectors shy away from coins that have been mounted - so you are going to have to sell it on price - a price that will tempt them.

Thank you for the explanation 🙏

[dicker]

Hi - Are you 100% convinced that it is genuine?

[Organics]

7 minutes ago, dicker said:

Hi - Are you 100% convinced that it is genuine?

Hey 👋, Now you’ve thrown a curve ball 🤦‍♂️. What makes you suggest that? Weighs in correctly and passes the Sigma. Is there a red flag for you? 

[dicker]

The date detail and take a look at the heel of StGeorge’s shoe - versus a sample.  I’m not convinced it’s right or wrong but the date numeral detail caught my eye.  

[Organics]

2 minutes ago, dicker said:

The date detail and take a look at the heel of StGeorge’s shoe - versus a sample.  I’m not convinced it’s right or wrong but the date numeral detail caught my eye.  

OK thanks. I’ll have a look 

[dicker]

Let me know what you think!

[GoldDiggerDave]

https://www.ngccoin.com/resources/counterfeit-detection/top/world/24/

 

Lustre looks off but that could just be the photo however on the reverse theres the possible signs of repeating depressions, under dragon, back of horses leg, overall both sides look soft.  

These will very likely pass a sigma 

[sovereignsteve]

29 minutes ago, dicker said:

Hi - Are you 100% convinced that it is genuine?

Like the 1887 £5 there are lots of counterfeit 1893 as well

[SidS]

The lustre is off because it's been polished. As others have said, ex-jewellery, that's why it's been given many a good shine. Many years of constant polishing will give this worn appearance.

I've had many ex-mount guineas that looked exactly like this. Almost water worn in appearance.

[dicker]

Some slight differences to my eye - but could be wear. 

[Stuntman]

I'd say it's VF at best, and ex-jewellery.  So it probably won't appeal to the numismatic collector very much.  Still a lovely lump of historical gold, but hard to see much of a premium over spot for it.