Order of best Sovereign years?

[ArgentSmith]

6 minutes ago, Britannia47 said:

Looks much better in proof, as do the other ‘specials’. There’s more detail on the frosted relief for a start, where as the shiny bullion version is difficult to photograph. Excellent photo!….

Bullion and proof versions are like chalk and cheese.

[Aldebaran]

10 hours ago, Spanishsilver said:

Nothing wrong with the 2005 it’s a great looking coin imo

 

10 hours ago, 9x883 said:

neither the 2012

Two fantastic photographs of two fantastic coins 🖖

[GreyBeardUK]

On Youtube, including the esteemed Mr Chard's videos, everyone seems to hate the post-1999 sovereigns because of their rose-gold appearance.

No-one seems to have metioned that in the comments above (unless I missed one).

Should that be a consideration, especially for eventual re-sale?

[Matt8v]

18 minutes ago, GreyBeardUK said:

On Youtube, including the esteemed Mr Chard's videos, everyone seems to hate the post-1999 sovereigns because of their rose-gold appearance.

No-one seems to have metioned that in the comments above (unless I missed one).

Should that be a consideration, especially for eventual re-sale?

A very good point, the last couple of years look awful to me. My 2002 isn't too Rose coloured. I'd only consider a special edition coronation one.

[Britannia47]

11 hours ago, GreyBeardUK said:

On Youtube, including the esteemed Mr Chard's videos, everyone seems to hate the post-1999 sovereigns because of their rose-gold appearance.

No-one seems to have metioned that in the comments above (unless I missed one).

Should that be a consideration, especially for eventual re-sale?

I believe most TSF members have a preference for earlier sovereigns simply because of the colour. Today the R.M. uses a  ‘Red’ gold alloy - all copper, without the addition of silver which would give the sovereign a more golden appearance.

Mr Chard has always sought to persuade the RM to change the alloy to no avail. The ‘alloy’ has been discussed many times in the past on TSF. however the R.M. has always refused to engage in the reasons it changed, or even admit it has!  I suspect it was a commercial decision to separate the ‘Sovereign’ product from its core bullion business and other 999 issues

Either way you should not have a problem selling modern Sovereigns regardless of colour.

Here’s a colour comparison photo of a favourite - an early QEII ‘Gillick’ 1957-1968, with a later 2022 bullion & proof version…

One of the best IMO!

 

 

Edited March 26 by Britannia47

[Britannia47]

On 18/03/2024 at 21:01, refero said:

I feel there is a vic Missing there… 

there should be 3;

shield small head, shield large head, st george and dragon 

Finally worked out which Vic was missing - the ‘small head’ shield, which is in a group within the Type 1A obverse 1838- 47 inclusive. I had it all along, an 1843, but you have to look closely to see the difference, unlike for example the small/ large head of the SA sovereigns where the difference is more obvious…

 

 

[SidS]

The small head shields are by far prettier of the two types.

[Matt8v]

So glad I posted this thread now, I am learning a good deal about these. I didn't know there was a small or big head of the same design.

Keep the info coming folks.

[refero]

On 08/04/2024 at 17:15, Britannia47 said:

Finally worked out which Vic was missing - the ‘small head’ shield, which is in a group within the Type 1A obverse 1838- 47 inclusive

the series ends on 1848 even if for this very last year the small head shield is very very rare and the few known are extremely worn..(

the most common 1848 is the "large head" shield