Backwards-Slabbed Gold Sovereign

I have no understanding of slabbing.

But I find it quaint that they describe a coin of 1908 as "Australian".
Yes, Melbourne is in Australia, and was the National Capital from 1901 to 1927, but the Melbourne Mint was a branch of The Royal Mint, headquartered in London. The same was true of mints in Sydney and Perth.
There was no "Australian coinage" until 1910.

Personally, I would prefer a sovereign - or any British and British Empire/Commonwealth coin, for that matter - to face reverse-up like this, since that's the side that most of the important information is on. If I were to buy a slabbed sovereign, I'd definitely want it facing this way.

ANACS seems to have slabbed these coins both ways. Other examples of reverse-up slabbing of sovereigns by ANACS can be found here and here. Obverse-up slabs can be seen here and here. I assume the yellow ones like yours are the newest style; there appear to be more obverse-up slabs in the this style. Perhaps it is a relatively recent policy decision, to line up with expectations of the majority of people who actually collect this series.

Either way, it appears to be "normal enough" for ANACS, so I doubt being "the wrong way around" would affect your resale value.


The Krause catalogues file them under "Australia", so therefore the TPGs do as well. So do I, for that matter, even though my tradesman tokens all get filed under their respective colonial names.

ETF, I would crack out that Morgan and send it into NGC or PCGS if you think it could grade that much higher.

I accept that Australian minted Imperial sovereigns minted in Australia are Australian. They were certainly recognised and accepted as legal currency in Australia until 1931, although they did not circulate in a practical sense in Australia after 1914.

If I were to own a slabbed Australian sovereign, I would prefer to have it slabbed as ANACS has done with this one.

Life is full of acceptable exceptions to general rules and conventions.

Hey did these gold sovereigns exchange freely in Australia? I am confused as to how the British currency system worked, particularly in Australia, Canada, India, South Africa, etc..

If Australis starting coining Australian money in the 1910's, did the country essentially use foreign currency, similar in nature to how America used Spanish, German, Brazilian, French, and other money earlier on in its existence? I am trying to understand how Sovereigns played into the financial system in Australia, and I always find it fascinating to see how money evolved over time in various countries. It's pretty cool stuff to learn, and too few economics books explain the evolution of money...Either that or I am total nerd! anyway, anyone from Australia here would probably have the most first-hand historical information, maybe passed down through family and school.

Thanks in advance for any information you could provide, as I am always curious about my coins!

EndTheFed

@ EndTheFed:
From a practical point of view, Australia started using standard 'as issued' British currency from 1825, when a very large issue of specie (coins) from London was landed in the colony of Sydney on that date.
This shipment was intended, and successfully replaced, all of the other hodge - podge of circulating coins from all over the World.

British minted sovereigns circulated in the Australian Colonies before 1855, when Australian minted sovereigns were minted for circulation. British minted sovereigns were longer shipped from the Mother Country after 1855.
The settlement of overseas debts were paid in (mainly) Australian minted sovereigns after 1855. The half sovereign was mainly used for domestic circulation.

Roughly ten times as many sovereigns were struck as half sovereigns, although both circulated domestically, alongside banknotes of the same face values.

Gold coins were withdrawn from circulation in 1914, but remained legal tender until 1931.

Thanks for the incredible information.

Ths Spanish coins seemed to be preferred everywhere, and I think this is due to the fact that they were "heavier" coins, carrying slightly more gold and/or silver than most others. The funny thing though, with Gresham's Law in mind, one would think that the undervalued Spanish dollars would have been driven OUT of circulation and hoarded. In some areas, it seems like the Spanish coins were the only consistently reliable coins, and therefore they not only settled debts, but they were also able to circulate freely.
British coins and other European coins were constantly clipped, debased, and restamped, with the Kings always taking a "cut" of the coins, until their precious metal content dwindled to a point that they needed to start over again (Thus, the "POUND STERLING "going from 150 grams+ of silver down to much much less).

One final point:
When you say that gold no longer enjoyed legal tender status in 1931 in Australia - does this coincide with the decision from the "worst President in American History and Face of the Democrat Party" FDR rendering gold illegal to own in America too? When FDR took America of the gold standard in 1933, several other countries followed; I find it interesting that Australia did this in 1931, as Britain really worked with America during this time of public fleecing. I wonder if something corresponds here, and you can bet your bottom (worthless token) dollar that I will research further to find out.

When we think of the value of money, in terms of its purchasing power...I think of a 1964 Kennedy half. There is a nice even $7.00 worth of silver in those babies. The value of money, meaning its purchasing power has NOT gone down(silver prices of course fluctuating a bit, but you know what I mean). The purchasing power of that 1964 Kennedy half, EVEN when we at least used some semblance of hard money, has not gone down one bit - it is still worth nearly the same $7.00 purchasing power equivelant, adjust for inflation, that it had back then.

It is the complete token coinage and fiat money that is worthless, and I cannot accept that we allow Government to debase our currecny, take us completely off such a standard, whether it be the true gold standard, bimetalism, bimetalism with fluctuating exchanges, breton woods pseudo-gold standard, etc.. Except for true Jacksonian hard money, I am not a fan of ANY of these - but they were ALL better than what we have today. EVEN when we had Breton Woods, and Central Banks from Foreign countries were cleaning out Fort Knox to the tune of $35/Ounce Gold, we still used 90% silver coins up until 1964, and similar things occurred worldwide for coinage.

This country (The US) is in deep trouble, and a look back at its history will help us to understand WHY we need to go back to harder money today. Other countries are locked into the value of the 2014 dollar, and those of you from England know we were on a world pound sterling reserve currency before us....yours did not turn out good either. UK citizens will remember the unrest in the 60's and 70's, where there were required 3-day work weeks, trash heeps in the middle of downtown the size of football fields, and rationed electricity, etc.. when the currency system faltered. This will not translate well in America. It is time for its citizenry to elect responsible politicians, and it is time that the citizens stop deeming this a scare tactic, because every other country on the planet depends on the value of the dollar. It is our responsibility to contract, deflate, resume hard money or gold backing, and work together with these other strong nations(England, Germany, France, Australia, South Africa, Japan, South Korea) for currency reform.

Bring back hard money as "WEIGHT", not as arbitrary fiat. STOP allowing governments to run the printing presses (although now this too is a metaphor, because today the Federal Reserve buys theoretical "Bonds" to justify adding zeroes to member bank accounts).

If anyone is not scared, please help me understand why - seriously. What is the position outside the insulation of the apologetic, liberal American press on this matter?

EndTheFed