Hello guys. Sorry in advance if my first post is not very interesting, as it seems Gold Sovereigns are quite a bit more common than what the average person would think. Or at least more common than what I thought before we were given some as a wedding gift, so I had to look them up. They span from 1872 to 1963 with most from the 1890s and only the more recent ones are relatively scratch free, with most having some strong scratches and even what appears to be ink? (who would write on a sovereign???). So, the original though was that I would keep a couple of nice looking ones to put in my old coin collection and sell the rest as the gold prices are quite high right now. In any case, reading up on sovereigns it seems that if they are not VF or better they are considered gold bullion, and the newer ones would probably have to be Unc to have any numismatic value over the spot price. Just to make sure I have my facts right, I thought the experts here could take a look at some representative pics and tell me if I am correct and there is no point pursuing anything above spot price for these, or I don't give them enough credit and they aren't that bad. I would be interested in hearing about what you make of their grades, since the grading guides don't feature things like ink etc So, I am attaching a 1876, a 1890, a 1912 and a 1963. I did not include the worst ones, these are average to good. Anyway that should give us enough for this exercise, no point in bombarding you with pics. Thanks in advance.
Simple answer, yes. In most cases they are just bullion. There are a few exceptions for certain date/mint mark combinations. And there are always exceptions for condition rarity. But in most cases once the coin falls below the MS threshold, bullion values take over. Once you get back past the late 1800's values for less than MS start to creep up in more cases. But even then condition is the determining factor. And they must be problem free for that to happen.
Thanks for the answer. I forgot to mention I did check mintages and I didn't see something special that way. I am still curious, how would the pictured coins be graded, anyone care to estimate?
I would say 1876: VG8 1890: F12 (or maybe a bit higher) 1912: EF40 1963: EF45 But, I'm certainly no expert. I'm just basing that on the telltales I use for similar era British pennies.
Significant premium for MS versions of the young heads or somewhat later versions. I have seen Mr. Paul's ads for MS63 and above, though it a little confusing with all the terms connected to the denomination. I tried to make money in MS Kings that were not rare and then running at auction. Those now have to go through PCGS secure grading system because of the counterfeits out there, and that runs a lot more than regular grading. They wanted to charge me $90 for two on the regular tier! Do your research, but unless you are a show dealer you will be hard pressed to charge more and actually have customers who will pay the premiums.
If you don't mind a couple more questions that came up when I was originally looking at grading guides, since I don't suppose they are worth another thread. So, look at this example coin: It is a pretty ok coin with nice details but the wear due to the scratches would put it a around an F grade perhaps? But then, someone actually wrote initials on the coin. I know that cleaning a coin never makes things better, so you are stuck with the writing, but there is nothing about writing on any of the grading guides I have seen. Does something like that simply drop it to the lowest grade (which, fortunately for this coin, does not harm its gold bullion value). Then this coin: I am not very curious about its grade since it is very worn (with a barely visible Perth mintmark), but I am curious about the wear itself, there are less deep scratches than on other coins, however on one side the edge is almost flat. How do you get that kind of asymmetric wear? And the reverse side is very shiny, shinier than most of my other coins of the era and shinier than the obverse of the same coin - does that indicate any attempts at cleaning perhaps?
I have my doubts that either coin is even genuine. But even if they are genuine, both coins are damaged rather severely and worth only melt.
Hmm, I am not sure why you doubt the 1891, but the 1917 one does indeed look peculiar to me too, that's why I am asking if it is any kind of wear you have seen. My FIL bought this bunch in the 70's, after he had them checked for authenticity, but of course I have no idea how reliable his appraiser was...
The jagged edges in places where there would not be and could not be any jagged edges unless it was minted that way. Yeah sure, on jewelry pieces. But a cracked planchet ? I don't think it would have made it out of the Royal Mint. It also has very mushy details - a look common to fakes.
FYI I had those two checked at a bank that deals gold sovereigns. The 1891 checked out as genuine, while the 1917 one was deemed a Lebanese copy (going for about 75% the price of the authentic sovereign).
To answer the original question, even nice sovereigns may only bring 98% of the .2354 melt value when selling to big dealers like Upstate Coins, Apmex, etc.. And fakes bring even less. A large local shop was offering 92%. A dealer I know picked up an 1862/1 Sovereign but may have a hard time getting it attributed by NGC. Fun fact: James Bond carried sovereigns with him for their universal recognition as money around the world.
