I wonder what this might mean...

[westminstrel]

https://m.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3017240

 

The title reads:

ALTERING THE PROCLAMATION OF THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER 1953 TO DETERMINE NEW INSCRIPTIONS FOR CERTAIN GOLD COINS

 

And here’s an excerpt that piqued my interest...

The following paragraph shall be substituted for the paragraph headed ‘GOLD COINS’ of Our said Proclamation of the fourth day of October 1953.

GOLD COINS

‘Every sovereign shall have for the obverse impression Our effigy with the inscription “· ELIZABETH II ∙ DEI ∙ GRA · REGINA ∙ FID ∙ DEF” and for the reverse the image of St George armed, sitting on horseback, attacking the dragon with a sword, and a broken spear upon the ground, and the date of the year. The coins shall have either a grained or plain edge.

 

I can’t tell what the difference is between this amendment to the design and the Sovereign designs so far.

[sovereignsteve]

6 minutes ago, westminstrel said:

I can’t tell what the difference is between this amendment to the design and the Sovereign designs so far

I don't think sovereigns were strictly allowed to have plain edges in the past. The mint probably got told off for calling the 2017 SOTD BU a sovereign!

[Cornishfarmer]

Does it mean they are applying an exemption of the normal coin? Did they do this 89,05,12?

[augur]

1 hour ago, sovereignsteve said:

I don't think sovereigns were strictly allowed to have plain edges in the past. The mint probably got told off for calling the 2017 SOTD BU a sovereign!

Does that mean the SOTD 2017 BU is another illegal coin? We had plenty in 2017 but not from an official mint...

[sovereignsteve]

7 hours ago, Cornishfarmer said:

Does it mean they are applying an exemption of the normal coin? Did they do this 89,05,12?

a good question. I'm not a follower of the Gazette notices so don't know if they had to declare exemptions for those years. IIRC they did announce the design of the 2017 proof beforehand.

[sovereignsteve]

4 hours ago, augur said:

Does that mean the SOTD 2017 BU is another illegal coin?

"Illegal" may be a tad too far but probably bending the rules a little.

[sixgun]

Since the Royal proclamation defines the sovereign, which is legal tender, it defines what is legal and so by subtraction what is not legal (illegal). So if a sovereign shall have a reeded edge then a gold coin with a plain edge is not a sovereign. The coin itself is not illegal but to call it a sovereign would be.

Legislation is not law, it is a set of rules for legal persons (aka people who are tricked into thinking they are legal entities - aka slaves) .

[sovereignsteve]

whatever, i'm sure nobody at the mint got prosecuted.

not so sure a sovereign is necessarily legal tender, maybe in this country. the royal mint were unsuccessful in trademarking the term sovereign so other mints can now strike sovereigns but they won't be legal tender.

[westminstrel]

Interesting thoughts... I did search for the 1953 proclamation on that website  to see if I could read the original design specifications, but nothing came up  

[kimchi]

5 hours ago, westminstrel said:

Interesting thoughts... I did search for the 1953 proclamation on that website  to see if I could read the original design specifications, but nothing came up  

The Gazette can advise how to access the archives - it may involve a trip to a library though!

[sixgun]

11 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

whatever, i'm sure nobody at the mint got prosecuted.

not so sure a sovereign is necessarily legal tender, maybe in this country. the royal mint were unsuccessful in trademarking the term sovereign so other mints can now strike sovereigns but they won't be legal tender.

The Royal Mint attempted to register the word sovereign as trademark. This failed. If you read down the page you will see it was accepted the sovereign is legal tender in the UK. This is the reason i have discussed on other threads about paying in sovereigns at face value - (£1) as a way round taxation.

https://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading-room/sovereign-trade-mark-royal-mint-failed

No-one at the mint will get prosecuted. We see how they break their own rules with say the £50 for £50 coinage. It is legal tender, it has a face value of £50 but then they instruct banks not to accept the coins. They say the coins are legal tender but you can't practically use them as legal tender, although if you paid them into court to discharge a debt i expect they would have to be accepted.

[kimchi]

6 hours ago, sixgun said:

...

They say the coins are legal tender but you can't practically use them as legal tender, although if you paid them into court to discharge a debt i expect they would have to be accepted.

Of course they would, but it's all an utterly fake pretence - let you think you've 'won' etc. If the judge can't deal with it, it will just be shifted along to one who can.

Level 2 or 3 from the film Inception imo.

Why on earth would you go to court in the first place (referring here to the implication in many other of your posts) if you don't already accept you are a legally dead fictional entity/ledger entry/bond/slave?

[sixgun]

@kimchi If you owed me £500 and you didn't pay up, i put a claim into the County court.  If i won the case you could settle the case with £50 for £50 coins at face value - i would not want them but the court would accept them and i would have to accept them. The coins would discharge the debt.