Underweight gold sovereigns

[Zhorro]

I am sure most of us know that a gold sovereign is supposed to weigh 7.98 grams – and this is often used as the test of whether a coin is genuine or not.  However, if a sovereign has been well circulated, then obviously one would expect it to weigh slightly less.  Under the Coinage Acts of the nineteenth century a sovereign was deemed non-legal when its weight became about 7.937 grams.

In the revised edition of Marsh’s The Gold Sovereign (p.29) it states that “during Victoria’s reign the sovereign was used very much for trading purposes, and being made of such soft gold, it took only a short period of time for wear to become very evident... the extensive recoinage that took place between 1842 and 1845 when more than £14,000,000 of light gold coinage, estimated to be one third of the total gold in circulation, was withdrawn.  Around £500,000 more per year of gold coins below the legal weight limit continued to be taken out of circulation after 1845.”

As someone that can remember really worn Victorian pennies and half pennies circulating in the late-1960s (sometimes the year, the lettering and even the effigy could hardly be identified), and I have noticed that very worn silver coins can be found on eBay.  However, I have been struck by how few really worn sovereigns I have seen while I have been collecting over the past year, and I suppose the above statement in Marsh would go some way to explaining why this may be the case.

 

So, this post is to ask:

What is the lightest genuine early sovereign you have seen?

Have you any pictures of really worn early sovereigns?

 

An implication of the Marsh statement is that while the mintage numbers may give an indication of scarcity this is complicated by the number of coins that have been withdrawn and melted down due to being worn and underweight.

So, do you know of any sovereign years that are listed by Marsh as being common but which are in fact difficult to find?

[caloundracats]

No, I haven't got a clue but have one of those Victorian pennies you mentioned!

[Pete]

I am not sure you will ever come across a seriously worn sovereign.
If you had one of these coins and wanted to sell it, the only place likely to be interested is a bullion dealer who would pay spot or less on the weight of the coin before scrapping it so that's the end of its life.

[Murph]

I’ve seen plenty of pre Victorian very worn sovereigns, many half sovereigns and some Victorian sovs.  Sydney mint Victorian sovs, I.e. the ones marked Australia,  are often well worn as well.

[Zhorro]

1 hour ago, Pete said:

I am not sure you will ever come across a seriously worn sovereign.
If you had one of these coins and wanted to sell it, the only place likely to be interested is a bullion dealer who would pay spot or less on the weight of the coin before scrapping it so that's the end of its life.

This is an interesting point, but I would have thought that even an underweight George III, George IV or early Victorian sovereign would have attracted a premium over its scrap value.  Even though the bullion value of the coin may be light, I would have thought this would be outweighed by the numismatic value (especially in relation to early sovereigns).

Even the best sovereign collections contain underweight coins.  For example in Baldwin’s third Bentley auction (8^th May 2013):

        Lot 996 contained an 1855 sovereign weighing 7.89 grams,

        Lot 1033 contained an 1864 sovereign weighing 7.91 grams, and

        Lot 1092 contained an 1866 sovereign weighing 7.90 grams.

Though these coins portrayed some wear, and were all under 7.93 grams, they were still numismatically significant.

[sovereignsteve]

5 minutes ago, Zhorro said:

but I would have thought that even an underweight George III, George IV or early Victorian sovereign would have attracted a premium over its scrap value

I can't remember exactly when, without checking the literature, but there was a major effort to take out of circulation and melt down underweight sovereigns around those times.

[Zhorro]

I do not mind buying worn coins (which I think gives them character) as long as they are not offensive to the eye (e.g. harsh scratches or large dinks!).  Whilst it is relatively easy to buy George III, George IV and William IV sovereigns in good condition (as long as you have £900-£2,000 to spend), but it is not that easy to find nice looking worn examples at consequently lower prices. 

The reason I was interested in this topic of underweight sovereigns was because at the time I started the thread I was in the process of buying this worn 1824 sovereign which the vendor said weighed just over 7.5 grams.  For a sovereign this seems light but to me it looks genuine, however, other opinions would be welcome.

 

[5huggy]

You would have to weigh it yourself - as you won,t know the accuracy of the sellers scales!

Just a thought!

🙄       🧐

[Durham]

As the value in using a sovereign as cash is very low in England and the banks dont get then in with other coins they would not be taken out of service today.

[shortstack68]

26 minutes ago, Durham said:

As the value in using a sovereign as cash is very low in England and the banks dont get then in with other coins they would not be taken out of service today.

Thats because the gold content is worth more than any circulating coin we use, the british public aren't completely stupid to try and slip a sovereign into their change and disguise it as a pound coin to give to the bank teller over the counter

[Zhorro]

In March 2019’s Coin News there is an article “The Sovereigns of Queen Victoria from 1846 to 1849” (pp.40-41) in which Clive King reports (p.40):

“...a large number of the 4.5 million sovereigns struck for 1847 were actually well under the legal tender weight.  Many weighed as little as 7.92g and would certainly have been deemed illegal tender under the Coinage Act of 1816-1870.  It’s amazing to think that if 25 per cent of the sovereigns struck for this year were 0.06g too light, that it would have left around 70kg of gold in the cupboard.”

As this is not mentioned in Marsh, I thought it was worth highlighting.

[sovereignsteve]

3 hours ago, Zhorro said:

In March 2019’s Coin News there is an article “The Sovereigns of Queen Victoria from 1846 to 1849” (pp.40-41) in which Clive King reports (p.40):

“...a large number of the 4.5 million sovereigns struck for 1847 were actually well under the legal tender weight.  Many weighed as little as 7.92g and would certainly have been deemed illegal tender under the Coinage Act of 1816-1870.  It’s amazing to think that if 25 per cent of the sovereigns struck for this year were 0.06g too light, that it would have left around 70kg of gold in the cupboard.”

As this is not mentioned in Marsh, I thought it was worth highlighting.

Does he state his source of this information?

I find this difficult to believe unless the info came direct from the mint itself, which I doubt.

[Zhorro]

5 hours ago, sovereignsteve said:

Does he state his source of this information?

I find this difficult to believe unless the info came direct from the mint itself, which I doubt.

I'm afraid that no source is stated.  What I will do is send an email to the Editor and see if it can be passed on to the author.

[Britannia47]

On 02/03/2019 at 10:55, Zhorro said:

In March 2019’s Coin News there is an article “The Sovereigns of Queen Victoria from 1846 to 1849” (pp.40-41) in which Clive King reports (p.40):

“...a large number of the 4.5 million sovereigns struck for 1847 were actually well under the legal tender weight.  Many weighed as little as 7.92g and would certainly have been deemed illegal tender under the Coinage Act of 1816-1870.  It’s amazing to think that if 25 per cent of the sovereigns struck for this year were 0.06g too light, that it would have left around 70kg of gold in the cupboard.”

As this is not mentioned in Marsh, I thought it was worth highlighting.

Yesterday, I weighed 15 Shield-back sovereigns ranging from 1843 to 1881 using a 'Tanita' calibrated scale. I used a 2002 shield sovereign as a control which weighed in at exactly 7.98. Bearing in mind the legal limit of 7.937 I found that 2 sovereigns at 7.92 (1855 and 1862) were under weight! Both I would describe as in 'Fine' condition. There was noticeable wear in the hair above the ear as to be expected. So technically these coins would have been returned to the Bank, melted and re-coined, or refused by a shop keeper in Victorian times, once checked on a brass sovereign scale. 2 other sovereigns at 7.94 were just within the limits and confirmed on my own brass scales by starting to balance. At the other end, several were  7.98 in  EF condition. Average weight of all sovereigns was 7.956g. However, as others have commented,  an underweight Sovereign still has numismatic value, so carry on collecting!

Oddly, 2 other sovereigns ( 1979 Isle of Man and an 1870 'Australia' sovereign) showed 7.99g!  - not unheard of as 7.9881 is nearer to .99 than .98.

 

[Prophecy]

Sovs don't look very worn at all to become illegal under the act. Not like the pennies etc.

Edited August 3, 2020 by Prophecy

[pricha]

Just sold a few slightly worn sovs on eBay , now a guy is questioning the authenticity of one because it's slightly under weight . Give me strength ,  that's why i sold them cheaply , they were circulated , worn Victoria coins. Oh the joys of eBay 

[Zhorro]

51 minutes ago, pricha said:

Just sold a few slightly worn sovs on eBay , now a guy is questioning the authenticity of one because it's slightly under weight . Give me strength ,  that's why i sold them cheaply , they were circulated , worn Victoria coins. Oh the joys of eBay 

Do you have any pictures?  And any idea of the actual weight?

[pricha]

I am waiting for the gentleman to reply with the weight he found , i'd be interested to know . He may be a forum member, who knows ? He said he had sovs over 8 grams, which to me would be more of a worry. I offered a refund . I have over 2000 postive feedbacks and it's the first time anyone has questioned one of my coins.  I found the above information quite helpful .  

[dicker]

Hi @pricha what type of Sovereign was it that you sold out of interest?

Personally, weight is the last thing I would consider looking, well below visual examinaton.

[Happypanda88]

I do not purposely seek to buy worn sovereigns. In fact, I avoid them as they do not look pleasing to my eyes.

About 18 months ago, my order for 6 pre-owned sovereigns arrived from our friendly bullion dealer in Birmingham.

One coin, a 1893 Victorian veil head was really worn and it annoyed me for a while. It weighs 7.93g. I had thought about sending it back but couldn't be bothered in the end. The other coins in the batch (4 Victorian and 1 Isle of Man) were in good condition.

If I were to sell any of my sovereigns, that worn one would be the first to go. Perhaps, Zhorro would be good enough to take it off my hands when time comes 🤗

[RDHC]

To me the 1893 looks much more worn on the obverse than the reverse, where the rein across the horse's neck looks in very good condition and that is usually a tell-tale wear point. And also on shield reverse sovereigns it is usually, so far as I can see, the obverse that gets the wear; the little lions often survive surprisingly well.

[Britannia47]

I have revived this topic from 4 years ago, because like many other past threads they can provide invaluable info. I hope  Dr Dave may find this helpful. As for new sovereigns weighing 8 grams it’s not unusual as Tom Jones would say! I weigh all my gold coins also. Invariably, whether 22ct or 24ct there’s always a little ‘extra’ gold added above the minimum weight I have found. Underweight sovereigns thru’ wear and tear is numismatically not really an issue in many cases….