| Author |
 Replies: 10 / Views: 1,466 |
|
|
New Member
Lebanon
5 Posts |
A friend of mine,one of the most reputable gold dealers around, is offering me a Victoria young head, shield reverse, 1886. Sorry for the fact that I haven't uploaded pictures yet, but I was checking the coin and the test yielded the following results: diameter=21.7 mm which is 0.8 mm below the normal measure. and weight= 7.91 which is 0.07 grams or 0.8% less than it should be. I understand a coin could lose this much weight in 130 years, it's the diameter thing I can't understand. I'm not an expert, and I'm sure the caliper I used is not that accurate regarding the diameter, so I need your expert opinions on these numbers, specially the weight. Would you buy such a coin? Thank you in advance.
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
4208 Posts |
Check the edge - a common practice, although less so in the UK, was to shave a bit off of the edge of a coin before selling it. It should be reeded. EDIT: Note, thats not me accusing the seller, I'm saying this could have happened during trades in this coins lifetime before your seller got to it.
Other than that, perhaps the coin has deformed? I wouldnt worry about weight, that sounds like an acceptable margin of error from the mint.
Edited by Ben
11/21/2012 6:27 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2180 Posts |
I'd have to see it but the diameter seems suspicious. What's the accuracy of the calipers?
Wikipedia (take it with a grain of salt) says that the minimum weight of a sovereign before it should have been removed from circulation was 7.93787g, and I would think that by the time it got that light it would be extremely worn.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
A genuine coin struck in a close collar should never be undersized except from excessive wear. (collars are at their smallest when they are brand new and get larger as they wear.) There is no way a genuine coin would be .8 mm too small in diameter except from EXTREME wear to the coin and in which case the reeding would be completely gone.
|
|
New Member
 Lebanon
5 Posts |
I checked again, and it seems that the problem lies in my caliper, so the diameter is fine, but I'm left with the weight problem, guess it's way off. Sad to let this one go as shield coins are getting hard to find in my country.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2180 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2830 Posts |
another word about diameter: you seem to be working on a figure of 22.5mm,
but the spec is 22.05 mm,
which reduces the discrepancy by more than half.
|
|
New Member
United Kingdom
9 Posts |
Looking through my Marsh book it seems the 1886 Shield back sovereigns were only minted in Sydney and Melbourne,so the coin should have a S.or M. mintmark.
According to Marsh the Sydney coin is scarce with a mintage of just over 1.5 million.But for some reason the Melbourne coin with twice that mintage is classed as R3-extremely rare.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:
But for some reason the Melbourne coin with twice that mintage is classed as R3-extremely rare.
The UK was very proactive about pulling from circulation and melting worn Sovereigns, as they circulated at bullion value. Therefore, a worn, light coin didn't actually retain full value. Chances are many of that issue are now newer Sovereigns. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2180 Posts |
Also mintages from back then were for the calendar year and not what was actually engraved on the die.
|
|
New Member
Lebanon
5 Posts |
Thank you for your messages. The coin has the S mintmark
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 1,466 |
|
Posted 11/21/2012 10:48 pm
