Fenntucky Mike

Won't higher listing prices only cause sell prices to go up across the board for hucksters and honest individuals alike? Unless your end goal is to get buyers to look elsewhere. Local coin shop? In person auction? Doubtful. Higher prices will potentially push buyers toward other outlets, Etsy perhaps?

Good find, I haven't seen that one before. Thanks

Is it known if the 1965 22ct and 23.5ct were mixed between BU and Proof or for example was the 22ct used exclusively for the proofs?

Had some time to circle back to this. Did some more checking and found a couple of minor updates, not listed in Southall, both Die Marks. 1974 BU, Die Mark "A" 1977 Die Mark "A"

That's what I thought. Have you ever gone to their website, they have quite a few documents scanned and available for download. https://www.tynwald.org.im/Pages/Search.aspx?=&s=All Sites&k=sovereign&start1=1 Here's one about the 1983 sovereign's, not really any additional info but you might be able to find some documents.

Found the 91' four crowned shield proof, cert # 2036791-007 Sold through HA in 2009, here's the link https://coins.ha.com/itm/isle-of-man/world-coins/isle-of-man-elizabeth-ii-gold-half-sovereign-1991-/a/3006-22520.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515

Like I said the information in Southall on the bullion issues (I'm including sovereigns as bullion) was lacking or at least seems like it to me. Granted PM is a dumpster fire (that's probably where they filed the mintage figures) when it comes to record keeping and releasing info but there are just some obvious omissions and mistakes that could have been corrected with a little more research. I agree it's still the "go to" for IOM coinage. Do their horns always droop after a shearing?

LOL, wouldn't want to be in the cross hairs of one of those. Reading on Wiki, it says they can occasionally have 6 horns and are delicious. Mmmmm. There is a heard isolated on the Calf of Man near Chicken Rock, love those names. Hmm, they were put on an island (Calf of Man) to separate them from another island (Isle of Man) to protect them from a bigger island (UK). That's a lot of islands.

Not me.

If you find it, post a pic. Would love to see that one and add it to the list. I contacted Pobjoy last month and this is the response I received. Dear Mike, Thank you for your email. I am really sorry but we do not disclose our mintage figures. I am sorry I cannot be of further assistance. Kind regards, Customer Service Department

Great coins! Only problem with collecting the proofs is that I would need the 1981 to complete the set. I may have to leave that slot blank.

I would not, but I'm fine with a person keeping the Cert # in there inventory. What if.... Someone competing in the NGC registry had a PCGS graded coin in their set, crossed it to NGC but left the PCGS slab in the set. No harm no foul? If these TPG's would communicate crossovers and not leave it up to the coin owners this would go away and the population reports would be more accurate. That's were my annoyance lies, you can't rely on individuals to report crossovers.

Been looking into the proofs a little bit, Southall (3rd edition) lists the 78' proof as having die mark "A", not that it really matters if all the 78's have the same mark. He also lists the 1983 as BU and Proof and has an 86' with a mintage of 12, wow, imagine if one of those popped up. I've also looked into the NGC population reports and they list a 1991 proof not listed in Southall. Looks like NGC is recognizing the Die Marks on the labels and is updating the mint mark "PM" to the labels as coins get submitted (they are doing the same with the Angels, adding "PM" to the descriptions as coins are submitted). Hey NGC, the category title in the census is "Isle of Man - Modern - 1971 To Date" might want to consider changing it to "1965 To Date". Just saying. I'm definitely starting with the proofs, I feel like they need some attention and that there could be some new "discoveries" to be found. Took a look at the PCGS pop reports there is not much but they have graded one 1984 proof and list the mintage as 20. I hate how they have their world coins organized.

I've been kicking the tires on these for a few years now, I bid on a few (didn't win). I was going to start with proofs, just haven't come across the right deal/coin yet. When I get my first I'll let you know. Pobjoy cracks me up with their lack of self knowledge and records but I guess that's part of what makes collecting coins minted by them frustrating and fun at the same time. Frustrating in that Pobjoy doesn't know what they did, fun in that you get to figure it out and make "discoveries". I'm running into similar "occurrences" with the 1/10 angels. Were there different die pairs used for the proofs as well, or did they stick with one pair of dies for the proofs? Were there design variations within the sizes, 1/2, 1 & 2 sovereigns minted in the same year. I'm wondering if the reversed warrior on the 1/2 sovereign is a design from a different size or date. From what I've been seeing (in the angels) Pobjoy liked to mix and match designs through the sizes and between proofs and BU's in the same year/s.

125 years later.... Bullion flavored.

Always liked the IOM sovereigns, it's a series that has always gnawed at me, a series (1/2 sovereigns) that is on my short list of "next sets to get serious about". Maybe next year. Nice set and great job in acquiring the 1984 1/2. Are there a few slots missing in the registry set? I've notice that the number of sets in the IOM registry has greatly increased, maybe twofold, seems to be a slight increase in interest in IOM coinage. I see you referenced Southall in your descriptions. How accurate do you feel his information on the 1/2 sovereigns is, I felt his information on the bullion issues to be lacking, specifically the 1/10 gold angels. Overall a great book, I have the 3rd edition (going to reread the sovereign section tonight). It really tweaks me that Pobjoy doesn't release mintage figures.

That's ridiculous, I can't believe PCGS didn't contact you. I've never sent a coin into PCGS but have sent coins to NGC several times, like you said they send an email and give you the option. Now I know, Thanks.

Been skipping out the last few weeks, so here is a group. Atwood - Coffee lists 8 varieties in the sixth edition, here are 6 of them. These are Timetable Tokens for the Graham & Morton Steamship Line which (in one form or another) operated in the Great Lakes from the end of the 19th Century to the mid 20th. Initially started to transport goods (mainly timber products, along with grains) from Wisconsin and Michigan to Chicago. Once the timber supply dwindled and the demand was reduced due to the increased use of steel in construction, more fresh produce was transported mainly fruits (apples, peaches) in the fall. With the construction of railroads the need for transportation of goods was drastically reduced, now enter the vacationing public, to replace the loss of freight, vacation resorts were established in towns up and down the shores of Lake Michigan, the most popular destinations were on the West Michigan shoreline. Vacation excursions were popular, especially during the peak season of the fruit harvest (still are today). With the increased popularity of the automobile as a mode of transportation and an improved highway system (note the tagline "Dustless Way To Happy Land" in the brochure, this was a reference to the roads.) the popularity of the Steamship slowly faded away, until in 1951 (I think) when the Graham & Morton Line set off on their final "commodious" voyage to "Happy Land".

Was "restoration" refused or did they not give you the option?

The only ASE's that have a "W" mint mark on them are the burnished ones. If on the label the mint mark is displayed in parenthesis (W) that means it was minted at West Point but there is no mint mark on the coin, same with (P) and (S), no mint marks on the coin if labeled in that way. You're looking for an ASE labeled 2020-W, no parenthesis, a coin labeled as such should have a "W" mint mark. The burnished ASE's are prepared differently and are not given a MS grade by PCGS, they will be labeled SP. I believe NGC has been labeling the 2020 burnished ASE's as MS though. Confusing enough for you?

Yep, that's a beauty. I'm surprised they gave it a "star" (glad they did) without any of the toning that people seem to go crazy for. Must really look great in hand.

The "Star" designation means "exceptional eye appeal", while it may mean that the coin could sell for above the list price compared to a coin of the same grade, I wouldn't consider it a rarity. The "Star" designation is 100% subjective. If you can, post some pics of the coin, sounds like a beauty.

I like #4, the top and bottom appear to be rounded over as I would expect the edges on a circulated coin to be. The tops and bottoms of the reeds seem to transition smoothly to the rim, no shelves or ledges. I don't like the inconsistent spacing and reed size though, but I guess that's good in eliminating it as a gear rack or some mechanical (non coin) object meant to trip us up. I'm going to go with #1 as my second guess. It's just so clean looking, possibly NCLT, or not?

I can't leave Questions 2 & 4 blank. I'm in both registries so I'm assuming you would want me to leave these blank. Might have to add another selection.

Both, any collector with one or more slabbed coins from each of the top two TPG's, which I thought would be a majority of collectors who participated here (in the NGC registry) or at any registry, "Buy the coin not the slab", right. Slabbed coins may not make up the majority of the individuals collection but they would have at least something to enter into multiple registries. My thought is, if you have a slabbed coin why not register it as proof of ownership, cataloging/inventory, ease of access, etc. I guess I don't see any reason not to register a slabbed coin and "participate" in multiple registries, if you have them. Granted I'm painting with a very broad bush but in general my expectation was that most people who were in a registry had slabs from multiple TPG's and that they were "participating" in multiple registries. I was wrong