My first sovereign

[airmac]

So today I went bought my very first sovereign a 1925. Paid 265€ and was hoping if the experts here can tell me if I did ok.

[Clens92]

Looks like you've got a high-rimmed re-strike.  Very rare to find genuine 1925s, you've probably got a 1949 / 1950 / 1951 restrike.

Price seems about right.

[Micky9776]

Congrats on your fist sovereign! A 1925 is on my list to buy as well. First of many sovereigns?

[airmac]

Well @Clens92 says it's a restrike but still a beautiful coin  ?

[sovereignsteve]

It's still a sovereign and in very nice nick too.

[Ares]

Great strike, George V is one of my favourites of the more accessbile designs.

[Ansel]

19 hours ago, Clens92 said:

Looks like you've got a high-rimmed re-strike.  Very rare to find genuine 1925s, you've probably got a 1949 / 1950 / 1951 restrike.

Price seems about right.

Am I correct in thinking the re-strikes are just the 1925s without mint marks?

 

Welcome to the sovereign club @airmac, a lovely first coin you have there. 

[sovereignsteve]

4 hours ago, Ansel said:

Am I correct in thinking the re-strikes are just the 1925s without mint marks?

Bullion sovereigns were minted in London during the years 1949 - 1951 using dies from 1925 so have the George V effigy instead of George VI

Originally, 1925 sovereigns were minted in London, South Africa and the 3 Australian mints. The re-strikes do not have mint marks.

The re-strikes are supposed to have a higher profile rim than the originals which is only really noticeable on the obverse.

Personally, I wouldn't commit myself to saying which type yours is as your photo is straight on and I feel more comfortable judging the difference with a slight angle viewpoint.

[metallica73]

I'm sure this is obvious and well known amongst Sov collectors but why do older Soverigns look SOOOOOOOO much better than modern ones?

I mean, they scream GOLD to me, whereas the 2006 I have just has a kind of plasticy appearance ( its genuine I assure you lol)

[sovereignsteve]

43 minutes ago, metallica73 said:

I'm sure this is obvious and well known amongst Sov collectors but why do older Soverigns look SOOOOOOOO much better than modern ones?

I mean, they scream GOLD to me, whereas the 2006 I have just has a kind of plasticy appearance ( its genuine I assure you lol)

Entirely down to how they finish the dies surfaces and prepare the blanks. For some reason in recent years, some idiot at the mint decided we would prefer our sovereigns to look like they were coated in lacquer like a new car metallic paint job. Why on earth they chaged away from the earlier QE2 sovereigns which had a beautiful finish. Sovereigns prior to the change had a matt background that showed up lots of metal-flowing luster.

I think in general, modern sovs don't show as much detail so the change could have been a cover in order to produce cheaper dies quicker.

[metallica73]

1 hour ago, sovereignsteve said:

 like a new car metallic paint job.

A much better description than my 'plasticy' !!

 

[player1ssg1]

I agree older sovereigns looked so much nice. The matt background really showed of the lustre of a coin. 

[Sovsaver]

It looks nicer than the one I got recently (1930 SA), mine was a lucky dip from ATSB and cost a little more. So, it looks like you got a very nice one.

The one I got has a bit of a gouge on the obverse under his ear.

[airmac]

4 hours ago, Sovsaver said:

It looks nicer than the one I got recently (1930 SA), mine was a lucky dip from ATSB and cost a little more. So, it looks like you got a very nice one.

The one I got has a bit of a gouge on the obverse under his ear.

Better or worse, it's the first. Like the first time  

[zittergie]

Today I bought my first Sovereign too.
Was more a lucky deal of some old Belgian Silver Coins and one Golden Coin, a 1958 Sovereign.

Very happy man