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.

  • Join The Silver Forum

    The Silver Forum is one of the largest and best loved silver and gold precious metals forums in the world, established since 2014. Join today for FREE! Browse the sponsor's topics (hidden to guests) for special deals and offers, check out the bargains in the members trade section and join in with our community reacting and commenting on topic posts. If you have any questions whatsoever about precious metals collecting and investing please join and start a topic and we will be here to help with our knowledge :) happy stacking/collecting. 21,000+ forum members and 1 million+ forum posts. For the latest up to date stats please see the stats in the right sidebar when browsing from desktop. Sign up for FREE to view the forum with reduced ads. 

Sovereign Errors, Overdates and Varieties


Recommended Posts

In hand. 

IMG_2165.jpeg.43797d8fd92bfe17f9f7d43815bbdf35.thumb.jpg.7d46b695cb2239677d0ca152967b0ea1.jpg

London

427A5EA4-8F52-4F2A-BF1E-05DD6B79A325.jpeg.31683782c0fd32505f84656438a31f1d.thumb.jpeg.87e3623013c92f4fd2accf4efc7f7891.jpeg

Melbourne 

(Don't ask me, I'm colourblind!)

Technically, alcohol is a solution..

'It [socialism] poses a growing threat, however unintentional, to the freedom of this country, for there is no freedom where the State totally controls the economy. Personal freedom and economic freedom are indivisible. You can’t have one without the other. You can’t lose one without losing the other.'

"There is no such thing as public money, there is only taxpayers' money"

Let not England forget her precedence of teaching nations how to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Zhorro said:

With the advent of the 1887 Jubilee Head sovereign, the Royal Mint in London took the decision to use a more ‘yellow’ gold in order to make the intricate design stand out.  I have not seen this mentioned by Marsh but Hattons of London’s website describes the situation as follows:

          “With the introduction of a new [Jubilee] portrait the Royal Mint was uncertain how the gold coinage would look, especially as the new portrait had a much finer level of detail.

          To ensure a high standard of production they decided to soften the gold by adding 1.25% silver to the alloy which was usually 91.7% gold and the remainder copper (for

          strength). By replacing 1.25% of the copper with silver, the natural golden colour was enhanced and the coins of 1887 looked more ‘yellow’. 

          This was only ever carried out in one year – 1887. Tests with the usual alloy proved acceptable, so in the following year the silver was not added to the alloy, making the 1887

           coins a one-year-only alloy.”

But did this apply to the Branches in Australia?  Below is a comparison of the London 1887 sovereign with the Melbourne one.  It seems that it was only the Royal Mint in London that used the ‘yellow’ gold in 1887? 

1887-4.png

1887-5.png

Looks like the Sydney Mint was using Silver in the 1/2  and full Sovs for a while. I wonder why they stopped.

IMG_0379[1].JPG

IMG_0378[1].JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zhorro said:

But did this apply to the Branches in Australia?  Below is a comparison of the London 1887 sovereign with the Melbourne one.  It seems that it was only the Royal Mint in London that used the ‘yellow’ gold in 1887? 

Yes I'd noticed that, the London coins are clearly more yellow when you see then together in hand.

Profile picture with thanks to Carl Vernon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/02/2019 at 17:38, Xander said:

Looks like the Sydney Mint was using Silver in the 1/2  and full Sovs for a while. I wonder why they stopped.

Thank you for this information.  I’ve now had a look at what few pre-Jubilee Sydney sovereigns I have, and there does seem to be a difference between their colour and that of the London sovereigns.  I had not noticed this before, but I think the Sydney ones are slightly lighter in colour.  The following pictures try show there is a difference in colour (left, London 1871, right Sydney Young Head 1887).  The first two pictures show the coins at an angle and just about show a difference in colour.  Pictures three and four show the coins from directly above, and the Sydney one does seem to come out darker – but this is probably because it is more reflective (but you often see this shade with Australian sovereigns).

Whilst looking at these coins, I got the impression that the Sydney sovereign was slightly larger than the London one, but I thought I must be imagining it.  However, I subsequently found a post on this Forum in which members reported finding Sydney sovereigns 0.15mm larger than the standard sovereign.  See:

Precious Metals > General Precious Metals > Fractionals and Fakes (7th June 2018 and 10th February 2019)

Aus3.png

Aus4.png

Aus1.png

Aus2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/02/2019 at 16:49, Zhorro said:

With the advent of the 1887 Jubilee Head sovereign, the Royal Mint in London took the decision to use a more ‘yellow’ gold in order to make the intricate design stand out.  I have not seen this mentioned by Marsh but Hattons of London’s website describes the situation as follows:

          “With the introduction of a new [Jubilee] portrait the Royal Mint was uncertain how the gold coinage would look, especially as the new portrait had a much finer level of detail.

          To ensure a high standard of production they decided to soften the gold by adding 1.25% silver to the alloy which was usually 91.7% gold and the remainder copper (for

          strength). By replacing 1.25% of the copper with silver, the natural golden colour was enhanced and the coins of 1887 looked more ‘yellow’. 

          This was only ever carried out in one year – 1887. Tests with the usual alloy proved acceptable, so in the following year the silver was not added to the alloy, making the 1887

           coins a one-year-only alloy.”

But did this apply to the Branches in Australia?  Below is a comparison of the London 1887 sovereign with the Melbourne one.  It seems that it was only the Royal Mint in London that used the ‘yellow’ gold in 1887? 

1887-4.png

1887-5.png

 

Must say that I have noticed this before on the 1887 jubs and didn't know why so thanks for the knowledge.

The Gold Sovereign

The Gold Sovereign aims to provide the most complete online resource to collectors of the world's most popular gold coin - the Sovereign.

www.thegoldsovereign.com    |    contact@thegoldsovereign.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/02/2019 at 10:30, Zhorro said:

I am sorry to hear the news that it is definitely a fake, but as you say it is a good one.

I am still in shock after seeing the £5 Jubilee forgery that Chards showed last week on the Forum.

As to an XRF tester, I do not have one, but I suppose it depends on how many sovereigns you buy a year as to whether it would be worthwhile.

XRF testers are 12k, I was very disappointed but did make a contact who would run a large batch out of hours with me for a small fee. Not worth it for this sovereign though so will just send it back, kind of a shame if its 22ct as I find fakes interesting as well

The Gold Sovereign

The Gold Sovereign aims to provide the most complete online resource to collectors of the world's most popular gold coin - the Sovereign.

www.thegoldsovereign.com    |    contact@thegoldsovereign.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what about this one?! 🤔

I literally can't even hazard a guess with this, never seen anything like it before. The coin is an 1853 shield.

DSC08039.thumb.JPG.bca6ad80ef7f5bd54bd477b87456a482.JPG

DSC08039-2.thumb.JPG.09b94df6b4d39de4fe890a1c8b006d7d.JPG

 

The Gold Sovereign

The Gold Sovereign aims to provide the most complete online resource to collectors of the world's most popular gold coin - the Sovereign.

www.thegoldsovereign.com    |    contact@thegoldsovereign.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Xander said:

There is a 1853 Shield back recorded with an inverted A for V in Victoria. It looks like your coin is a fudged A. 

The problem with some of the recorded coins is there aren't any examples around so this may well be what Marsh recorded as an A/V but it's an awful correction if so! 

 

The Gold Sovereign

The Gold Sovereign aims to provide the most complete online resource to collectors of the world's most popular gold coin - the Sovereign.

www.thegoldsovereign.com    |    contact@thegoldsovereign.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sg86 said:

The problem with some of the recorded coins is there aren't any examples around so this may well be what Marsh recorded as an A/V but it's an awful correction if so! 

 

They may not be common but they exist, I've seen most of them.

 

Profile picture with thanks to Carl Vernon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sovereignsteve said:

They may not be common but they exist, I've seen most of them.

 

Yes I've got most and 100s of others not recorded but my point was really that it's down to whoever recorded it and what they assumed it was

There has been quite a few examples of errors recorded as something that were later proved to be something else, or recorded as something (like this one) just because there was no other fit for it. I would have to record this as A/V for lack of anything else, but if this isn't the same error as someone else recorded then it gets a bit messy!

This coin is nothing like the A/V that's in the Bentley collection for example. 

The Gold Sovereign

The Gold Sovereign aims to provide the most complete online resource to collectors of the world's most popular gold coin - the Sovereign.

www.thegoldsovereign.com    |    contact@thegoldsovereign.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, sg86 said:

Yes I've got most and 100s of others not recorded but my point was really that it's down to whoever recorded it and what they assumed it was

There has been quite a few examples of errors recorded as something that were later proved to be something else, or recorded as something (like this one) just because there was no other fit for it. I would have to record this as A/V for lack of anything else, but if this isn't the same error as someone else recorded then it gets a bit messy!

This coin is nothing like the A/V that's in the Bentley collection for example. 

Yes I appreciate there are loads of unrecorded errors. The ones that are commonly catalogued are there because there have been enough examples seen and sold over the years to warrant that status. The unrecorded ones are rarer than the others and as such should command a higher status and price. However, because they are not catalogued, most people don't want to pay too much for them because they haven't got a price book telling them what they are "worth".

I don't think anyone should regard this weird error as a A/V. Those are not overstamps but erroneous inverted A for V

This coin is a genuine overstamp, what I've no idea.

I thought you were referring to the A/V and I was talking specifically about that error which is a much rarer than the V/A GRATIA error, many of which are not actually the case, but due to damaged punches.

 

Profile picture with thanks to Carl Vernon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, sg86 said:

The problem with some of the recorded coins is there aren't any examples around so this may well be what Marsh recorded as an A/V but it's an awful correction if so! 

 

There is an example of one in M Marsh The Gold Sovereign.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice new error, there was an example in the Bentley collection with an A/V and Roman I but this just has the Roman I

Also to note this variety has the number Zero (0) for O in date which is also the scarcer variation in my experience

 

1860 - Roman I for 1 in date

DSC08096.thumb.JPG.c15d4c3b13106765531aeb2133b1c70b.JPG

DSC08100.thumb.JPG.4585b640fdbb5d544c98d0ccc99c185c.JPG

Edited by sg86

The Gold Sovereign

The Gold Sovereign aims to provide the most complete online resource to collectors of the world's most popular gold coin - the Sovereign.

www.thegoldsovereign.com    |    contact@thegoldsovereign.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
31 minutes ago, tallthinkev said:

Seen a 2000 bullion Sovereign for sale, is there anything special about these, apart from the date that is. Priced around the same as any other 'normal' Sov.

Nothing special other than the date if you want to celebrate the minnellium😊

Profile picture with thanks to Carl Vernon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
6 minutes ago, augur said:

Maybe someone was bored and chopped with a blade into the date?

Quality control was far better at this point, how could a die with this make it into use? It it more likely then to be an error whilst minting?

I did think it may be a way of making sure the die wouldn't be finished and somehow made it into use but now checking I have 4 of this die number (102) and didn't record this when looking at those others.

Also it's strange that it goes over the 8 but under the 1 and 7 🤔

Edited by sg86

The Gold Sovereign

The Gold Sovereign aims to provide the most complete online resource to collectors of the world's most popular gold coin - the Sovereign.

www.thegoldsovereign.com    |    contact@thegoldsovereign.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some ham fisted engraver made a complete pigs ear of the die.

it looks like a sharp gash in the surface of the die, deeper in the area of the 8 so it appears the same level in the finished coin. you can see where a sharp blade or chisel has gone in from a slight angle.

it was probably spotted and rectified/replaced before too many coins were produced

Profile picture with thanks to Carl Vernon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sovereignsteve said:

it was probably spotted and rectified/replaced before too many coins were produced

This is the fascinating part for me, so actual dies were potentially changed during use? Pure speculation or do we have any knowledge or other examples of this?

When I've been looking through different dies before I never looked for this happening. I have found an error on a die number that then exists on 4-5 others that I've seen, so just assumed all dies would be the same apart from slight wear differences

The Gold Sovereign

The Gold Sovereign aims to provide the most complete online resource to collectors of the world's most popular gold coin - the Sovereign.

www.thegoldsovereign.com    |    contact@thegoldsovereign.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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