I just acquired a 1937 George VI sovereign. Its obverse and reverse have full and correct detail. Its weight and thickness are correct. However, its diameter is a little shy of normal sovereign specifications: ~21.7 mm vs the nominal 22.05 mm. I conjecture that this is because the 1937 sovereign, uniquely I believe among modern (since 1817) sovereigns, does not have a reeded edge; i.e., that the milling process, if it had included reeding, would have extruded the peaks of the reeding to the nominal diameter. Lacking reeding, the coin's diameter is a little smaller. Does anyone know if my conjecture is correct?
.35mm isn't much, but it still seems to be excessive for the difference between the peaks and valleys of normal reeding. Krause doesn't mention a lack of reeding on KM#859, and gives its other specs as exactly the same as all other 20th Century Victoria, George V, and Elizabeth II sovereigns. As the only sovereign minted during his 16-year reign, and with a mintage of only 5,500 proofs, it is a definite candidate for forgery. In this case correct weight and fineness don't mean much, as the Krause value is a significant multiple of even today's bloated bullion value.
Actually, with somewhat better calipers, I now get a diameter of ~21.9 mm, but still a small fraction of a mm shy of my other sovereigns. As for the smooth edge, that is well established, e.g., in the Bonhams book on the sovereign by Daniel Fearon, it says of the 1937 sovereign, "To emphasise that they were not intended for general circulation they were struck without milling on the edge."
George Turin,all the 1937 British gold coins were struck only as Proofs.You still have to be extremely careful,& only buy from a very reputable & experienced dealer.I have seen a few sets that have the Double Sovereign (2 Pounds) & the Quintuple Sovereign (5 Pounds).These come in red cases. Aidan.
Thanks Aiden. Yes, the 1937 sovereigns were only made as proofs. The last Commonwealth sovereigns made, matte, for circulation were made in South Africa in 1932. (The last ones made for circulation in the UK were made briefly in 1925 when Winston Churchill tried to return Britain to the gold standard, which it had left during WWI; but 1917 was really the last year before that that sovereigns were minted in the UK for circulation--these were under George V.) As I understand it, making the 1937 George VI UK sovereigns only as proofs and with the non-reeded edge was to emphasize the disconnect from previous mintings, under George V and before, which were for circulation. The dealer I bought this coin from (in a red case, for what that's worth) seems quite reputable and knowledgeable -- family in coin business in the UK for 43 years. Still, I am seeking independent corroboration that the diameter of the 1937 coin is a shade less than other sovereigns, all of which have reeded edges. Anybody??
What matters here is the weight. A sovereign is based on the gold weight more than the diameter. With two coins of the exact same diameter & thickness and of the same alloy, one with a reeded edge and one without - the one with the reeded edge will weigh less than the one with the smooth edge. This makes perfect sense because the space between the reeds are empty air - not metal. So since the coin in question has a smooth edge and all other specs being equal, it should rightly be of a slightly smaller diameter. Now that in no way proves the coin is genuine, but it's a good starting point.
