Mycoins

Thanks you for your reply. I am sorry I did nor respond earlier, but I had been logged off for a while. A slayed dragen on the chinese marked would definetly not have worked well, I believe. Do you know of any document where this is reported ?

In 2014 the Royal Mint by mistake issued a certain number of sovereigns with proof reverse and a adverse in business strike- quality. Are there any records regarding the mintigfigures for this " mule- edition " ?

Hello, as I understand the Queen in 1871 demanded a new design for the sovereign ( hence Marsh ), as a result of wich, the St Geotge and the dragon- design was put to live again. But why was not the Shield- type discontinued at once but ran along with the new design for 4 more years in the UK, and even longer in Australia ? Best regards, Mycoins

Still no answer from the auctionhouse. I am starting to suspect that they know what they are doing. Even if Rheinland is not top of the pop, they ought to have a catalogue at hand.

I sent them a mail asking if the coin is followed by an expertise but they have not answered yet.

Genuine or not ? Im not too happy with the irregular types in the date and the ear of the king looks a bit like Mr Spock : https://www.sixbid.com/browse.html?auction=2953&category=61100&lot=2467839

Thank you,Paulus for the welcome and your reply. A fake then. The colour arose my suspiscion, but the emense underweight gives it away.

Here I show you the 1916 London sovereign for comparism:

Hello, I newly obtained this Bombay- sovereign. What struck me at first was the colour wich is slightly more yellowish than that of my other one ( 1916 London ). While the London one hs a weight of 7,98 g , the Bombay oneonly weighs 7,91 g at the most . Size and thicknes are the same wich only can meen that the Bombay one has a lower gold content. Is it known if the Bombay mint perhaps used used slightly less gold or is this simply a fake ? The egde graining of the Bombay- sov by the way looks identicly to the London one.

Hello, I am new to predecimal.com. I registered here because I am at the present researching about one of the greatest rarities in modern British coins. It is believed that almost the entire lot was used for payments to the US where certainly all coins would have met the melting pot after gold was abandoned by Roosevelt in 1933, while those who remained at the Bank of England are likely to have been melted as well during the 1930s. But why was the sovereign of 1917 struck afterall ? Just for backing up the gold reserve ? I was quit astonished when I got over the following note from an auctions description from the 32. St James auction : The most intriguing possible explanation for their existence appears in Cullimore Allen’s reference (Spink, 1965, page 15), as follows in his words: ‘There are many stories about the sovereigns said to have been minted for the use of T.E. Lawrence during his activities in the Middle East’. The Arab Revolt against the Turks took place during this exact time, with Lawrence’s famous siege of Aqaba occurring on 6 July 1917. Well, well, well. Isn`t that a nice one ? Can there be some throuth in this or is it simply a good story ?Undoubtedly it seems as quit a thrill to see Lawrence being connected to a numismatist rarity. Who does not immediately think of the famous scene from Lawrence of Arabia " showing Antony Quinn figuring Arab prince Auda who after the fall of Aquaba ransacks a trunk throwing Turkish papermoney into the air while shouting " There is no gold in Aqaba " Payments to the US or to some Arab tribes ? Was an issue of about 1.000.000 sovereigns sufficient for both ? And how about the 1916 London sovereign ? Theoretically also this issue could have been used for backing up the Arab campain and most certainly also the 1916 has vanished almost entirely,but as the marked does not care it ca be obtained without a hefty premium. Does anyone here know more about the last WWI London sovereigns ?