Assistance Requested: 1958 British Gold Sovereign - Real Or Not?

Yes!

If I may pester you with one last question. I had also read that at different time periods the British government would allow citizens to turn sovereigns in for "new ones". The reason being, since the sovereign was used as money and had such a relatively high percentage of gold that after a period of time in circulation the weight of the coin would decrease (i.e. due to the nature of gold and the high percentage in the coin) the coin would through normal "wear and tear" decrease in weight, and hence also the gold content decreased.

So the government, in good faith and to firmly back the gold sovereign because they were on the gold standard, allowed the citizens to exchange an older, lower weight sovereign for a "new one" of the correct weight.

I hope I phrased the above correctly.

So to follow my logic I would assume the coins that were turned in were obviously melted.

In addition, I read that Britain paid a number of outstanding foreign debts in gold sovereigns which the receiving government would then melt into bars. The USA being an example of one of these foreign creditors at various times.

I will finally get to the point- despite the large mintage numbers should there not be specific dates whose true scarcity belies the mintage numbers?

Thank you Pertinax!

I shall leave you Brits to it then.

Time to tune in and see what my orange haired, reality show host of a president is going to muck up today.

Issued one day after Britain declared war on Germany. Gold standard suspended; fiat money created. Of course immediately printed more fiat then gold. Over inflation ensued.

Royal Mint did continue to mint sovereigns until 1917, all gold coins soon withdrawn from circulation.

Holder of this note was entitled to obtain on demand during office hours at the Bank of England payment in gold coin of notes face value. (but they took away and stopped minting gold coins and there was more notes then gold backing it!?)

Here's my favorite part:


Provisos (b) and (c) to subsection (1) of section twenty-four of the Post Office Act,
1908, shall not apply to any such postal orders.

This subsection shall have effect only until His Majesty by proclamation revokes the
same, and any proclamation revoking this subsection may provide for the calling in
or exchange of any postal orders affected thereby.

2. Currency notes may be issued to such persons and in such manner as the
Treasury direct, but the amount of any notes issued to any person shall, by virtue
of this Act, and without registration or further assurance, be a floating charge in
priority to all other charges, whether under statute or otherwise, on the assets of
that person.

3. The governor and company of the Bank of England and any persons concerned
in the management of any Scottish or Irish Bank of issue may, so far as temporarily
authorised by the Treasury and subject to any conditions attached to that
authority, issue notes in excess of any limit fixed by law; and those persons are
hereby indemnified, freed, and discharged from any liability, penal or civil, in
respect of any issue of notes beyond the amount fixed by law which has been made
by them since the first day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen in pursuance
of any authority of the Treasury or of any letter from the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and any proceedings taken to enforce any such liability shall be void.

4. Any bank notes issued by a bank of issue in Scotland or Ireland shall be legal
tender for a payment of any amount in Scotland or Ireland respectively, and any
such bank of issue shall not be under any obligation to pay its notes on demand
except at the head office of the bank, and may pay its notes, if thought fit, in
currency notes issued under this Act:

Provided that notes which are legal tender under this section shall not be legal
tender for any payment by the head office of the bank by whom they are issued for
the purpose of the payment of notes issued by that bank.

Wow. That is very humorous and clever them doing that.

Off topic a bit but I'm curious; Are you all currently taxed on physical gold sales in the UK? Whether public or private transactions? Whether a sales tax or capital gains? I would imagine (like here in the USA) you would be taxed on capital gains for owning paper gold, like a Gold ETF for example, but I'm curious about actual physical transactions.

"The British Sovereign gold coins are the most prestigious bullion gold coins in the world and due to their legal tender status in the UK they are Capital Gains Tax free."

and they have been that way for 200 years.


In the USA you have to pay Federal capital gains tax (28%), and not just precious metals, but any "collectible" coin as well.


Just last year the state I live in added a state capital gains tax to the same items as well. This was the first time in my state's history of doing so.

Sovereigns have been minted in:
London
Sydney Melbourne Perth
Ottowa ('C' mm)
Pretoria ('SA' mm)

Sydney Mint half sovereigns 1855 - 66, have roughly only a tenth of the mintage of Sydney Mint Sovereigns 1855 - 70.
They have a completely different reverse to British homeland issues.
Later Australian sovereigns and half sovereigns conformed the standard British homeland designs, as did the Ottawa and Pretoria issues.

The Sydney Mint sovereigns 1855 - 70 were used for bullion payments, primarily to India,
the Sydney Mint Half Sovereigns 1855 - 66, all went into circulation, and so being much scarcer, are also much tougher to find in superior grades.

OH... I almost forgot.

I purchased the 1958 and just returned home a few minutes ago. Here are a few pics taken with the blinds open in the computer room and with a standard desk lamp on in the room as well (cloudy out today). I used an iPhone. I am not good at taking pics of coins.

David,

I sincerely appreciate that compliment. No one has ever said any thing remotely positive about my (lack of) ability as a photographer. I'm keeping the compliment because it makes me feel good.

I do have to give the gentleman who took the original photos some credit for unintentionally making me look good. I think he was probably going through a learning curve with his new multithousand dollar camera he showed me. The camera was a beauty alright. A fine bit of kit.

He did better with the pic of the other coin a purchased I think: