Half sovereigns

[Geoff T 3]

Earlier this year I received the 2004 bullion half sovereign. The other evening I was examining it and noticed that, compared to previous years, the reverse is noticeably weakly struck.

Has anyone else encountered this or is mine just a one-off?

Geoff

[Emperor Oli 0]

I haven't got one but I was contemplating buying one. At first, I didn't know the difference between bullion ones and normal ones but then after emailing the Mint, they told me that normal sovereigns are struck three, maybe four times to give a better finish. Maybe you are comparing a bullion to a normal one and noticing the weakness of the bullion strike compared to the normal one?

[william 0]

Clever...

[Geoff T 3]

Maybe you are comparing a bullion to a normal one and noticing the weakness of the bullion strike compared to the normal one?

I'm not sure what you mean by "normal" here. Since 2000 the Mint has been striking two kinds of half sovereign, bullion and proof, as it already did with sovereigns. If either can be called "normal" it's the former and all of mine fall into this category. The proof version, as you know, is quite different. I was comparing like with like.

Geoff

[Emperor Oli 0]

One of the reasons I didn't buy the 2003 one was the truly revolting packaging it's in (I suppose if one took it out then it would be ok). The marketers should be stoned

[Emperor Oli 0]

Yeah when I said "Normal" I meant Proof

[Geoff T 3]

Gotcha.

The one to go for is the 2002, which revived the shield-back as a one-off for the Queen's golden jubilee.

If you buy them from the Mint, you pay for the packaging, but I get mine elsewhere (clue, Blackpool) and they just arrive in a capsule.

Geoff

[Emperor Oli 0]

If you buy them from the Mint, you pay for the packaging, but I get mine elsewhere (clue, Blackpool)

Nice and subtle there Geoff!

The one to go for is the 2002, which revived the shield-back as a one-off for the Queen's golden jubilee.

The Shield back was a delightful change from the monotonous Pistrucci image but I also liked the Sovereign anniversary (500yrs?) ones that they minted with the huge rose - quite unexpected

[Sylvester 15]

The shield reverse was still no where near as nice as the original shield reverse coins of Victoria that they were mocking... now that my friend is my favourite kinda sovereign.

[Emperor Oli 0]

The shield reverse was still no where near as nice as the original shield reverse coins of Victoria that they were mocking

Lol I doubt they were mocking them!

[Sylvester 15]

The shield reverse was still no where near as nice as the original shield reverse coins of Victoria that they were mocking

Lol I doubt they were mocking them!

i mean mock as in copying (like mock-gothic) not as in taking the pis... well erm actually maybe they were.

[Emperor Oli 0]

I was thinking that as I typed but then I'd gone too far so just posted it anyway! Are there any other "big" anniversaries coming up that would merit a change in the sovereign reverse?

[Sylvester 15]

I was thinking that as I typed but then I'd gone too far so just posted it anyway! Are there any other "big" anniversaries coming up that would merit a change in the sovereign reverse?

2017 is the next one i can think of (is it 2017 or 2016?)

the 200th anniversary of the milled sovereign, perhaps they'll reinvent the Geo III reverse?

[Emperor Oli 0]

Right. And if old Queenie dies soon we'll (probably) have Charles' mug on them!

[Sylvester 15]

Right. And if old Queenie dies soon we'll (probably) have Charles' mug on them!

Well i've got nothing against Charles, hopefully IRB won't design those obverses cos the ones we have now are just not nice. (from either a grading point of view or an aesthetic [i.e too low relief] point of view)

[mint_mark 9]

Earlier this year I received the 2004 bullion half sovereign. The other evening I was examining it and noticed that, compared to previous years, the reverse is noticeably weakly struck.

Has anyone else encountered this or is mine just a one-off?

Hi Geoff,

You made me go and examine mine (also bought in a capsule from somewhere else, erm, in Wales) and here is what I can see from my examples...

2004 is about the same as 2003... possibly slightly weaker but I wouldn't say noticeably so. Both are hideously shiny and will show the slightest blemish so easily! If you would like me to take some close up pictures of specific areas of the design I can do that...

2001 is starting to tone nicely and looks a little sharper, but it could be because there is less reflection going on. 2000 is similar.

1982 is actually a different version of George and the Dragon! Mostly I noticed that the horses tail almost touches the sword on the ground in 1982 and there is less detail in the plumes on George's helmet.

As for the 2002 shield reverse... maybe the word is homage... either that or parody

[Sylvester 15]

You made me go and examine mine (also bought in a capsule from somewhere else, erm, in Wales) and here is what I can see from my examples...

Lemme guess Anthony Halse?

[Geoff T 3]

Looking at my 2004 alongside the 2000/2001/2003 I find considerable differences.

The horse - There is barely any definition between the ridge of the horse's rump and the field. It's just about there to the left of the sword but hardly exists to the right. The same is also noticeable under the horse's head, above the rein, and there is poor definition in the upper part of the right hind leg (the one further away).

The dragon - The edges of the inner wing are hardly discernable, as are the scales on the upper part of the wings.

As you say, they're so damn shiny it makes the job of examinin them so much more awkward. The 2000 and 2001 are starting to tone slightly, with great improvement.

Geoff

[Geoff T 3]

2017 is the next one i can think of (is it 2017 or 2016?)

the 200th anniversary of the milled sovereign, perhaps they'll reinvent the Geo III reverse?

The recoinage was 1816, but there were no sovereigns or half sovereigns until 1817. Maybe we should celebrate both. I wonder if (when?) we adopt the euro, we'll still produce sovereigns - and britannias - as bullion?

Geoff

[mint_mark 9]

OK, I looked at mine again, this time at 10x magnification (8x before). Paying special attention to the points you describe, I think you must have a weakly struck example. Those details are as clear on my 2004 as on my 2003.

Having said that, I examined the obverses... my 2004 seems very weak compared to 2003. I know it's a well loved portrait round here In 2003 I can see definition in the individual curls of hair, but in 2004 it's all weak and blurs together... it looks like her majesty is wearing a head full of soap bubbles! Also, the tiara is just a jumble...

*sigh*... just more evidence for my theory that they reduce the quality to make you buy the proofs and sets.

PS Sylvester.... no.

[Chris Perkins 228]

You know I think it's a government ploy that seems to be working, the way everyone assumes that it is just a matter of time before we adopt the Euro.

In saying that, it is probably true of course!

In Germany they still make gold coins, but have them denominated in Euros, and the face value tends to be closer to the bullion value I think. I mean the face value of our gold coins is a complete fiction now isn't it, so why shouldn't they continue with the Sovereign, but to keep Brussels happy call it a EUR1.50 coin, or a EUR90.00 coin or whatever.

I like what the French did, when they issued commemorative coins basically in Francs, but that they actually had a 6.55957 Franc coin, which was funnily enough, a EUR10.00 coin. Isn't that really a very French thing to do!

[mint_mark 9]

I wonder if (when?) we adopt the euro, we'll still produce sovereigns - and britannias - as bullion?

I should think so... the royal mint would never miss a chance to make money. Germany currently issue gold commemorative coins denominated in euros. I wouldn't be surprised if we had sovereigns (tradition, remember the pound), britannias (patriotism) and new euros too!

[Emperor Oli 0]

*Shudders at the thought of a unified European state*

[mint_mark 9]

Of course, the Scandinavians had monetary union back in the 1870s... all their coins were legal tender in each other's countries. And obviously there was a more or less completely unified European currency during the Roman empire... we'd only be going back to our roots

When you think about it, if the UK had joined the euro in 2001 then our outgoing currency would have been one of the youngest... after all, we were quite happy to get rid of it in 1971!

[Chris Perkins 228]

Yes of course, but if you take the basic currency as the Pound (and it's forerunners) then our currency is much older. But you're right of course, decimal put a stop to the real ancient currency in '71.