Jump to content
  • The above Banner is a Sponsored Banner.

    Upgrade to Premium Membership to remove this Banner & All Google Ads. For full list of Premium Member benefits Click HERE.

TheGoldSovereign

Deactivated
  • Posts

    1,282
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    18
  • Trading Feedback

    100%
  • Country

    United Kingdom

Posts posted by TheGoldSovereign

  1. On 05/07/2021 at 10:50, dicker said:

    Here is my 1857....

    Our coins are very similar:

    - 8 appears to be somewhat undersized

    - 5 is over a 5 or a 3

    - The 7 in both of our coins appears to have something going on at the top left of the 7

     

    Best

    Dicker

    1857.jpg

    From my reference:

     

    1857    4021            5 over lower 5 in date            yes    VF    London    false                        40O    Gold Sovereign: Victoria (Shield) - London    Gold Sovereign - London

  2. On 01/06/2021 at 16:13, dicker said:

    1876..this one is more interesting to me at any rate.  Not sure what is going on with the die number.....

     

    INV-42 Die Number Over.jpg

     

    From my reference:

     

    1872    5600-49    206984        Die 49        9 in die number over lower 9    yes    aUNC    London    true    8 -    49    false            56    Gold Sovereign: Victoria (Shield) - London    Gold Sovereign - London    victoria-young-shield

  3. 23 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

    It is quite common to see "blocked" letters and numerals such as the "5". It is almost certainly caused by some debris (swarf?) filling the incuse space between the top horizontal and the diagonal on the die.

    None of the four numerals look entirely "normal", but hey, when was the RM ever famous for production quality? 🙂

     

    I agree, it's easy to get bogged down with small irregularities and not call everything an error, I'm personally guilty of this but this is why I've not released any of my finds to my reference until I've found a better way to categorise them. Clear overstrikes and errors only for now.

     

  4. Good to see that this thread is doing well with some keen interest! :)

    Needless to say I have 95% of small errors and true varieties being shared here, all will be public on my reference when I have time to image everything properly, though anyone who thinks they've something quite special please email me so I can check my records and make sure I have it. It will be much better to be a community effort as I'm sure I do not have everything out there.

     

  5. 1 minute ago, Foster88 said:

    Hi @TheGoldSovereign I was directed to this post by @Elements earlier today.

    I’ve recently bought a 1889 M mint sovereign, first variety as according to Marsh is R3 in the The Gold Sovereign updated 2021 version.

    I was curious to see if you had found any more 1887-1892 of the first variety? According to PCGS there are just 15 graded. This being AU53 with 10 in a higher grade.

    E006064B-C74D-471A-9D73-C089FB340783.jpeg

    6F751B3D-A6DF-41E4-91D6-55394876CE77.jpeg

    Yes of course! They do exist in quite significant amounts in lowers grades, it's the MS coins you want to find!

    This series IMHO is underrated for its variety but at the same time I personally find these coins difficult to grade because of the detail, and graders have no idea what they are looking at either so pop reports are a total mess.

    DISH has taken large steps in making future grades easier, and I feel PCGS are following it well, NGC as always are clueless as ever and put on their labels whatever the user requests, which is extremely lazy and helps nobody.

  6. 1 hour ago, Foster88 said:

    I’m resurrecting an old post here but @TheGoldSovereign did you ever get any further with this?

    I wonder if you found any more first variety in your collection?

    Hey, this was in my very early days of collecting jubs, I know an awful lot more know mainly thanks to David Iversons research along with Steve Hills publication.

    What specifically were you interested in knowing? I'm yet to fully publish everything in my reference but it won't be long now.

  7. I just wanted to update this thread with an error that's going around in PCGS slabs because Spink refuse to do some actual research on the coins they put in their books and let this one erroneously in, my emails to them have been dismissed as "well someone must have seen it"

    The coin in question is an apparent 1857/5 variety, that just does not exist.

    I'm bringing it up because there is one upcoming in an auction in a week's time and is already up to 800quid, and people seriously need to look at what they are buying rather that just trusting labels! 

    Below is the coin in question which you can clearly see isn't an error, I have over 10 examples of this exact same coin and I can assure everyone there is no error to be found.

    40444018_max.jpg

  8. On 08/08/2020 at 17:11, Britannia47 said:

    Apologies for missing the point of your question. You are right, it is shown in the latest 'Marsh' revised by Steve Hill as 53A 'Die number 34 struck from "yellow gold" with a rating of R3. My earlier Marsh books only shows one variety as C. I am not sure what that means in terms of the exact alloy used. I suggest you email Steve Hill at Sovereign rarities and ask for clarification. He has been helpful to me in the past. Perhaps the percentage of silver was increased in the alloy to make it appear more yellow - who knows? but just for one die number? I'm baffled.

    Yes you are correct that it is assumed the gold used would have been alloyed with silver, it is common in the 1Sov AUS series.

    I have 7 of this die number for 1869 so will do some further research at some point :), some metallurgical analysis with SEN would be preferable

     

  9. 13 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

    Agreed, but he was referring to the missing serifs on the "I". They are pretty rare in my experience.

    Ah yes I see, not something I often record actually unless its on the previously recorded dates like 1843 etc. I assume its just a poor strike that causes this just like the As

  10. 12 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

    I believe this is a theory not established fact.

    However an interesting find which increases our knowledge.

    I believe it is a fact that each die was assigned to an engraver for accountability, though I don't have any records to hand I've read it many times before.

    I just had assumed that only one die would ever be made for each number, but maybe instead if an error was found they would go back to the engraver and ask them to remake it. Therefore errors on die number shields, whereby the error was found and a die remade could be considered quite that much scarcer, at least I've never seen one. 

    It does seem strange because if a die was flawed and damaged I thought again they would use another die and not remake one with the same number. I thought this could be the reason some die numbers are scarcer than others. Still learning!

×
×
  • Create New...

Cookies & terms of service

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies and to our Privacy Policy & Terms of Use