Cozdred

Would like to request three new sets for East Caribbean States. There is already a set for ECS gold type coins, but we need gold denomination sets like there currently are for British Virgin Islands. Here is what I propose: 1) British Caribbean Territories / Eastern Caribbean States (1981-Date) / East Caribbean States, Gold $10, 1981-Date, Proof 2) British Caribbean Territories / Eastern Caribbean States (1981-Date) / East Caribbean States, Gold $20, 1981-Date, Proof 3) British Caribbean Territories / Eastern Caribbean States (1981-Date) / East Caribbean States, Gold $50, 1981-Date, Proof Here are sample coins for each set: King Charles III would like you to do this for his 8 constitutional monarchies. Thanks!

Would like to request a new set for Tristan da Cunha proof 1 Sovereign. There is already a set for TdC proof 2 sov, Competitive Sets Tristan Da Cunha 2 Sovereign, 2010-Date, Proof Here is a sample coin: King Charles III would like you to do this for him. Thanks!

Hello. Trying to get a coin with a slightly different name allowable in an existing set. Can't figure out where to request that! In the category Competitive Sets Multiple Countries Gold Sovereign, One Per Ruler Per Mint, 1817-Date, Circulation Issue Slot 22 for King Chas III allows: 2022 G.britain Great Britain 1SOV QE II Memorial MS DPL . My coin is the same thing, but with "First Releases" added in title. 2022 G.BRITAIN GREAT BRITAIN 1SOV QE II MEMORIAL FIRST RELEASES MS 70 DPL The NGC cert # is 6673540-079. Thanks!

Hi Boo60, I don't get on Chat very often, so as usual I'm late for this topic. But, I do have valuable information to offer, so I will add it late now! Although I've only been collecting gold sovs for 2 years, I decided early on to specialize in the DISH varieties of the Jubilee Head series. I've corresponded with Steve Hill several times, and he was even nice enough to send me a signed copy of the 2017 Iverson collection booklet which he helped put together. Early on, Iverson and Hill decided to assume that 6 different obverse dies existed for the hooked J version minted in London sovs 1887. I believe this came about based on their research into the Melbourne and Sydney varieties. Originally only L1 and L2 were identified, however by the time the 2017 booklet was published L3 and L4 had been discovered. Just this past summer, I am fairly certain that I have discovered L5 and L6, and I've had some discussions with Steve about L5 without yet reaching agreement. Since when I started I did not have the 2017 booklet, I was curious to know what L3 and L4 look like, and Steve was kind enough to send me his personal copies of those images. Now, when I compare the printed image of L4 (2017) with the image he sent, I'm convinced that these are two separate dies. Currently I think of them as L4a and L4b, however if my analysis proves to be correct I would expect L4b to eventually be called DISH-L7. Just speculation at this time. As of today, I've seen a few examples of L4b and would classify it as R5 rarity, however I've never seen any other example of L4a, and would therefore classify it as R7. Anyway, looking at the image you posted, I would say you have a very good match to the more common L4b, If you compare it to the L4a image in the 2017 booklet, I think you will note significant differences, as I have. Now for the bad news... I've submitted quite a few examples of DISH coins to NGC in order to get the correct Marsh and DISH numbers added to the label. I added the info in the Variety Plus section of the submission form as, for example, "Marsh 125B - DISH L3". You have to request a grading tier for this, since the grader has to examine the coin and verify the variety. So my understanding is that you cannot just ask for reholder. Since all varieties are different, you can submit this with other world gold coins if you like. I usually submit 5 or 6 DISH varieties on the same sheet, each with different numbers. What I've found is that NGC currently does NOT recognize DISH varieties at all, and also do not recognize Marsh numbers for the Jubilee Head series. They completely ignore DISH numbers, however they will add Marsh numbers to the holder, but NOT as part of the coin description. Instead, they put the Marsh number at the bottom as part of the Pedigree of the coin. This is extremely disappointing. PCGS does recognize Marsh numbers as part of the coin description, which puts them ahead currently IMO. But at least having the correct Marsh number somewhere on the coin holder is helpful, so currently I settle for that. Many months ago I submitted a request to have a new category of Jubilee Head gold sovs by Marsh variety, and this was rejected. Was told to enter it as a Custom Set. NGC is desperately trying to avoid recognizing DISH varieties since this will cause major headaches with their database management. Again PCGS is ahead of them since they do have competitive categories for Marsh Jubilee varieties. Another interesting quirk of both NGC and PCGS is that they will NOT guarantee accuracy for varieties. PCGS is notoriously poor when assigning gold sov varieties -- among other collectors I know they are considered a joke. So I'm not sure that NGC even checks them very carefully. If you were to send in a coin with a hooked J and ask the grader to determine the variety, I'm not sure they would do that. I can't say for certain, since I always send in the desired Marsh number with the submission. The reason I think that they don't really pay much attention to the variety is because one time I had to "guess" the variety of a coin for which I didn't have a high res image. On the submission form I entered "Marsh 125 - DISH L1" and asked for high res PhotoVision image. When I saw the image it was clear I'd made a mistake, and the coin was actually Marsh 125C - DISH L4. However, even with the PhotoVision image in hand, the grader still returned the coin with Marsh 125 on the pedigree part of the label. They just put down what was on the submission sheet, probably without checking. Why bother, since they don't guarantee accuracy anyway? Hope this info helps! If you've already sent the coin in, with DISH L4 requested, I would expect that was ignored based on my experience. If you requested Marsh 125C, I would expect that got returned on the label as pedigree. And if you just asked the grader to determine the variety for you, I expect that was denied. So please post what occurred so I can see if I have guessed correctly! By the way, I'm rather stunned that your coin was graded MS61. Based on the wear patterns on both sides, along with the significant amount of dirt built up in the denticles, it's very obvious that this coin saw a good deal of actual circulation. Coins sitting in mint bags or bank vaults don't get dirty! I would grade the coin AU55, maybe AU58 if I was in a good mood So you're lucky you didn't get me as the grader that day!

Not on any of my coins. I am very well-versed in sovereign varieties, and I simply avoid all of their mistakes. And I see a LOT of their mistakes, many of which can easily be seen with the naked eye with no magnification needed. Simply due to incompetent grader. As an aside, I should mention that many auction houses have very poorly qualified cataloguers as well, and make serious mistakes on varieties. I frequently take advantage of such lots "on sale". And for less knowledgeable folks, sometimes it's too late to get re-holdered! Just a few months ago I saw a gold sov offered in a London auction, with a very rare variety attributed on the PCGS holder. Being familiar with the item, I recognized instantly (as any supposedly professional grader should) that this was in fact NOT the rare variety but the common one that shows up about 100 times more often. At the end of the auction, some sad collector or investor who buys "slabs" rather than coins paid a very large amount for the coin (nearly 5 figures), about 15 times what the true variety sells for. At some point in the future, he or somebody he sells it to is going to finally get called out on the true identity, and there will be NO recompense by PCGS since they specifically state they do not certify varieties. Caveat emptor, eh? And if you're dealing with PCGS material, better check twice...

Yes, I'm only talking about my very limited one-year experience with British gold sovereigns. All of my US silver coins were acquired raw, long before grading was popular, so I don't have any opinion on any TPG for US issues. What I really found disturbing was not that NGC might think a PCGS coin was a level too high, but that they determined the coins were not gradable due to problems. IMO there's no excuse for any TPG to miss something like that, and that's why I won't buy any more PCGS coins. Been burned too many times. Plus, the fact that they so flagrantly mis-assign varieties and don't seem to care to correct mistakes tells me something about their corporate philosophy. Even several auction houses I deal with have pointed out how badly PCGS misses on varieties. So this is a well-known problem as far as British sovs go. There is clearly a removed mintmark, which can be verified by another feature of this coin which only appears on the branch mint coin. You can only see the evidence with coin in hand, tilted at an angle, so the image listed by the auction house didn't reveal it. I've examined the PCGS "guarantee" very carefully, and it is basically worthless as far as I'm concerned. If you return a coin that they agree is improperly graded, PCGS only will refund what "a dealer can purchase the coin for," that is, wholesale. And PCGS alone determines that price, not a panel of independent experts! Well, I'm not a dealer, and I pay retail. And it's obviously in PCGS's best interest to quote me the lowest price they think they can get away with. This is monstrously unfair. PCGS should refund the price that I paid and have a valid receipt for IMO. To make matters worse, if I disagree and It's a large amount, I can only sue PCGS in the CA county where they reside, nowhere else! Any attempt to sue in any other location instantly voids the "guarantee." Cute. A pathetic excuse for a "guarantee" so extremely weak indicates to me that PCGS has no interest whatsoever in standing behind their work. These ridiculous policies are designed to cheat the vast majority of people who get badly graded PCGS material. I'd be very surprised if anyone has ever filed a claim with PCGS, unless they enjoy losing money.

I just joined NGC a little over a year ago, so I'm very late to see this topic. However, it's extremely interesting to me, and I would like to add a few comments. Prior to 2020, I did not own a single graded coin, from any TPG service, although I've been a collector off and on for many decades. Early in 2020, I finally decided that graded coins were acceptable and I started purchasing a few of them. I bought a mix of PCGS and NGC coins. In 2022 when I became interested in registering a few sets, I first joined PCGS. But when I found out they do not accept NGC coins, I was not happy. Furthermore, when I considered how they score coins in sets, it seemed obvious to me that it was massively skewed in favor of complete sets, since each coin appears to me to be graded solely on condition, with no regard to relative rarity. So a very common coin in MS65 gets a much higher score than an exceedingly rare coin in AU50. Makes no sense to me, so I quickly abandoned the idea of registering with PCGS. Next I tried NGC, and found that the US $20 gold categories accepted both NGC and PCGS coins. Also, the scoring system of the NGC registry rightfully takes rarity into account. So this seemed like the place for me, and I added my mixed NGC/PCGS sets. So I'm a bit confused about the earlier 2017 posts which imply that no PCGS coins are allowed here. Was the decision changed sometime between 2017 and 2022? Sometime early in 2022 I decided to start collecting British gold sovereigns, and as usual I bought a mix of PCGS and NGC coins. But when I went to register them here, I found that PCGS coins are NOT allowed in World sets. At first that was a bit disappointing. But I sent in the handful of PCGS coins I had to be crossed over, and they all received the same grade when put into new NGC holders. Did cost a bit of money, but now I knew the rules of the game. One year later, I've made some interesting observations... there were a few times when I saw PCGS coins for sale or in an auction, which the NGC pop census showed to be very scarce, so I opted to buy them and submit later for crossover. Of the dozen PGCS coins I've submitted, fully half of them were rejected by NGC graders! They were simply returned to me in the PCGS holder with no explanation of any kind. After carefully examining each coin, I found possible problems. Two seemed to have scratches from an old cleaning, one possibly had rim filing on one side. I'm no expert on coin grading, but it's possible that a couple of others might have been one grade too high. However, a couple of coins looked completely normal and properly graded to me, and one of them was extremely expensive. So I filed a complaint with NGC asking for an explanation as to why this coin was not crossed. I did not insist that it be crossed; i only insisted that any submitter who's paid his money has the right to a written explanation of WHY a coin is rejected. If NGC thinks it's over-graded, that's subjective and not open to question. But if the coin has some hidden flaw that makes it ungradable, that is critical information for the owner, and after paying $50 to $60 each, an explanation seems due. In the case of the very expensive reject, a note was added to the final report stating that the coin had an "altered mintmark." I immediately examined it again, and I have to agree with NGC. There are very faint signs of this, which PCGS completely missed. Too bad for me. During the past year, I'm examined hundreds of coins that I was interested in purchasing, many graded by NGC and many graded by PCGS. I look for coins with good "eye appeal," and tend to reject about half of what I see immediately. I'm no expert on coin grading, but I've noticed a trend. I've seen quite a few NGC coins that I thought were over-graded. But I've found that most of them seem correct. On the other hand, it appears to me that the majority of PCGS coins are over-graded, some to an extreme degree. I think Mr. Salzburg must have come to the same conclusion in 2017, but was very careful how he said it. My experience over the past year has shown me that PCGS grading standards are not nearly as strict as NGC's. Furthermore, I collect unusual varieties of older coins, and PCGS makes horrible mistakes assigning varieties. They don't seem to care, since they do not guarantee varieties, only grades. But still, I would think they would have some professional pride that would get them to do the most accurate job possible. In one case, I sent a note to them about a situation in which all three of the examples shown for one coin were very clearly the wrong variety, and after 9 months they have not removed the offending images. Sadly, they just don't care if their graders look incompetent. As of now, I've decided that I will never again purchase another World gold coin in a PCGS holder. I'm tired of wasting my money hoping that their graders did a proper job and NGC will cross it over. I've been disappointed too many times. This is in no way blaming NGC of course. The blame is entirely on PCGS for doing a poor job! Not noticing cleaned coins, filed rims, incorrect varieties, and removed mintmarks is inexcusable for people who purport to be professional graders. I've come to the point of having no confidence at all in their products. So I completely agree with Mr. Salzburg. Allowing PCGS over-graded coins to compete here alongside NGC coins is absolutely unfair and should not be allowed. While I applaud Mr. Salzburg for his ethical decision to uphold strict grading standards, that may not be a smart business decision! If I had a raw coin that I wished to sell, I would naturally send it to PCGS, since the odds of getting a higher grade seem quite likely to me. But on the other hand, if I'm looking to purchase a coin, NGC is the only way to go IMHO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- One final comment... it's very bad practice for NGC to simply return un-crossed PCGS coins with no explanation whatsoever!! This is essentially stealing money from customers! If I pay the price to have a coin examined, I deserve to have it given a grade or a reason why it would not be graded. The NGC grader must have a reason in his head when he rejects a coin, so there needs to be a new policy that places that explanation on the final submission report. I'm astonished that after 35 years in business, this obvious improvement in service has never been addressed. I do hope someone in authority will force this change!

Would like to request two new sets for Gibraltar, minor denomination gold sovereigns. These would be the same coins as for the 1 sovereign set, which currently has a category. 1. Gibraltar, 1/2 Gold Sovereign, 1989-Date, Proof 2. Gibraltar, 1/4 Gold Sovereign, 1989-Date, Proof

I haven't collected pennies for 50 years, and was not aware of the 1959-D coin you mention. Had to look it up. Interesting story. With regard to 1891 1/2 sov, the Royal Mint produced only "high shield" coins in 1887 when the Jubilee Head design started. They took a couple of years off, and when they recommenced production in 1890 they found there was a problem with metal flow with this design, and so they revised it to create the "low shield" variety. A mix of both was minted in 1890. By the time 1891 rolled around, mint records show that they only produced coins with the new modified "low shield" reverse. In 1892 they produced an enormous amount of 1/2 sovs, and the mint actually records about 5% of the total being of the "high shield" variety. So obviously at the end of 1890 there were still a few "high shield" reverse dies lying around which were available if needed. Low production runs in 1891 supposedly didn't run them out of "low shield" dies, or at least that was the going assumption for 130 years. Apparently they did run out of 'low shield" dies near the end of 1892, and used up the remaining "high shield" dies they had on hand. Since the "high shield" dies were used extensively in 1890, and used to finish up annual production in 1892, it's possible that they may have also made a run at the very end of 1891 using the ones on hand, and just didn't record it. Unlike the penny mule you mention, a second one of the 1891 1/2 sov was discovered in England just a few months ago, so there are now two of these known to exist. I own about a dozen different examples of ultra-rare varieties of gold sovereigns, with known examples of less than 10 in existence (R5). So having something with only two (R7) is not a huge shock! NGC certified it immediately, so they had no issue with it, and I would imagine that they examined it with every known test since at the time it was considered unique. My guess is that either some mint worker accidentally pulled up the wrong reverse die in 1891, and as soon as the error was discovered they swapped it out, or else they used it on purpose but struck so few coins with it that they simply didn't bother to list the number separately from the main production. Like the aforementioned 1913 V nickel, it seems to be an item that was actually produced at the mint, but not recorded anywhere.

Right again Jason! After a short power nap, I just thought of another interesting item that I own. Pic shown below. This is a gold 1/2 sovereign dated 1891. The specific variety is known as the "high shield." Oddly enough, there are no mint records that such a coin was ever produced. And for 130 years it was thought not to exist, since not a single one had ever been seen. But in late 2022, one was discovered, and like a total fool I purchased it because I was not aware at the time that things which are unrecorded by the mint cannot actually exist. Thanks to some not so friendly advice I now know better, but too late. Anyways, I wasted even more money sending this mythical coin in to NGC, and they certified it as real (XF40), even though the mint obviously couldn't have made any since there's no record of it. Hmmm. What to think? I'm currently holding it in my hand, and it seems to be there, but since the Royal Mint didn't list any as being produced, this must be some kind of illusion. Scary! Edit: I'm back after 10 minutes thinking about this. I wonder... could it be possible that the mint actually produced a few items that they didn't record, and some of them escaped into circulation? Hmmm. Interesting concept.

Hi Jason, What you say about TPG requiring authentication of some sort is dead-on accurate. I specialize in UK gold sovereign varieties, and the most authoritative book on that is the 2021 edn of "The Gold Sovereign" by Marsh/Hill. I've actually discovered several new significant varieties which are exceedingly rare and unknown at the time of publication, so they are not listed. Some of these are raw ungraded coins, and I've been advised not to submit them to NGC for certification since the new variety will almost certainly be denied, even though it's plainly evident by close examination of the coin. Kind of frustrating. I've corresponded with Steve Hill, the editor of this book, regarding many of my findings, and he is generally in agreement with what I've found. But until a new edition appears assigning a "Marsh number" to these varieties, I'm just out of luck. When it comes to unusual varieties of coins, US or World, it seems that some random individuals like you or me are not allowed to make "discoveries". That is reserved for folks that have a published track record. To get around this, what I've decided to do is publish short articles on my findings in various British publications like Coin News, and possibly the proceedings of the BNA. I will load them up with high-res images detailing what I'm talking about, and then see what response there is from the collecting public. Since neither of the major TPGs will guarantee correct listings of varieties, I really don't see why they care. On my home comp, I have a large file full of incorrectly assigned varieties, almost all by PCGS, so I can understand their reluctance to stand behind their work in this area. But since they have nothing to lose, other than reputation, I don't see why they won't consider certifying new varieties that are plainly evident. But these seem to be the rules of the game, and we have to play by the rules. By the way, for the record I come from a background in science, where difference of opinion is quite common and debate is encouraged. But discussions both live and especially in print are always carried out with respect for the other person and courtesy towards their positions. There are plenty of ways to disagree with someone politely, without castigating them. Since this Rodger fellow doesn't have the ability to do that, then I will simply ignore him in the future. There are plenty of polite folks around to have enjoyable and informative conversations with. I'm certainly no expert on coins, and I need all the legitimate advice I can get!

I never object to the truth, when I hear it. And I haven't heard it from you. I was responding to your assumption The coin shows normal die maintenance. The field was polished down a little to remove surface cracks, spalling, or damage Polishing and lapping are certainly different processes. When did I say they weren't? Polishing was not used to remove cracks and spalling. That was die lapping my friend. Metal has to be removed from the die surface, which polishing won't do. A "little" polishing will not alter hardened steel. Try it at home and see for yourself! Since it was so time-consuming to create new dies in those days, dies were frequently lapped multiple times in order to extend die life. Collectors of world coins from the 1840's to 1870's encounter obviously lapped coins rather often, and they never look polished to mirror reflectivity. If that were the case, there would be a huge number of designated "PL" coins from that era rather than just a paltry few. Regarding your assumption that Australian branch mints had no ability to produce "authentic" proofs, why should anyone care what you think? Who made you final judge of what a proof coin is? Spink in "Coins of England & the UK" and Marsh in "The Gold Sovereign" both list gold coins produced by Melbourne and Sydney mints from the 1870s and 1880s as proofs, based on extensive research of the original mint records. I prefer to accept their established expertise rather than your rude bluster that has no basis in fact. If the mint director says they created proofs, then according to their definition the coins were proofs. Do you really think the mint directors would purposely lie in their official records? Seriously? These are the FACTS that you so desperately seem to require. But apparently you ignore facts that don't coincide with your narrow pedestrian point of view. As far as mandatory documentation being required, you are truly laughable. Suppose I have a 1966 SMS set that has been broken up, and the original COA missing. Does this mean the coins are no longer presentation pieces? As long as careful examination shows the characteristics necessary, then it's a presentation coin. A piece of paper does not alter the surface of a coin. 100 years ago, the mints handed out special pieces without formal COAs accompanying them, since they didn't anticipate your objections a century later! Newspapers of the time may show articles detailing these events. But in those days, such special pieces weren't listed separately in mint records. Same holds for modern proofs. Do you need to see the original COA from the mint alongside a coin to determine if it is a proof coin? That says something about your ability to judge coins. If a proof COA is present, how do you determine if the COA was not removed from another coin and married to this MS PL item? And if the COA is accidentally lost, is the coin no longer a proof in your opinion because there is no written evidence pertaining to that individual coin? Mint records saying a certain number of proof coins were produced certainly don't count in your mind, since anyone could pick up any coin of the right date and say "Wow! Proofs were produced in this year, so this is a proof." Gotta have that piece of paper with it, or no way! You are so comical. The features of each individual coin determine what it is. If I see a VF20 coin in a TPG holder that says MS60, does this evidence mean it's MS60? No, actually not. Coins most certainly do exist in a vacuum, since each one must stand on its own observable characteristics and merits, lack of evidence of its existence notwithstanding. Let's take a more recent example that proves how extremely ridiculous your demand for documented FACTS about minted coins is. Move up to the 20th century. Since you fancy yourself to be the world's leading authority on numismatics, surely you've heard of the famous 1913 V nickel. But wait! According to Professor RWB there can't be any such coin, because there are no mint records that such a coin was ever produced. In fact, the real evidence is that Mint Director George H. Roberts sent a letter to Philadelphia Mint Supervisor John H. Landis specifically instructing him NOT to produce any 1913 V nickels. So In your mind, there is no such thing as a 1913 V nickel since there are no official FACTS to verify its existence. How extremely clever you must be, certainly way smarter than the fools that have paid megabucks for those obviously counterfeit coins that don't really even exist in the first place. So your "requirement" that there be records saying a certain number of special "non-circulation strike" coins were made is totally irrelevant. It's the coin itself that determines what it is! If the coin shows distinct evidence of being struck on a highly polished planchet, then it's probably not a normal circulation strike. If mint directors 150 years ago chose to include production of such items under "circulation strikes" for convenience, it's really too late to do anything about that. ** Well, it's been fun chatting with you again, but I have a suggestion to lighten the situation going forward. I will agree never again to make any comment on any post you make, and you agree never again to make any comment on any post that I make. There seems to be an unpleasantness between us that is unhealthy, so let's just pretend that you don't exist to me (since I have no birth certificate proving that you exist) and I don't exist for you (same reason). Do feel free to leave one of your usual rude, banal responses to this post if you care to, and I will let you have the last word. Then, let's never meet again in print, OK? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- One last thing.... I'm extremely curious to see what the world's greatest coin authority actually collects and has registered for competition. But when I look up RWB in the list of registered collectors, it shows an RWB starting in 2005, which matches your profile date, but shows that you only have ONE competition set registered, consisting of only two coins. Have I missed something? Do you truly just lurk around here to troll real collectors and complain about how extremely stupid NGC is, while not actually participating yourself? Or do you compete in PCGS? If so, please leave a link so that all of us can see what you're into. I'm sure others must be as curious as I am. P.S.-- forget about listing the collection link if only on my behalf, since I've just placed your account on my Blocked User list and I won't be able to see it.

The entire surface of both sides is highly polished, which can be seen when the coin is rotated in light. No way to present that in this forum with a flat image, so I can understand your mistaken opinion. I believe the process you're talking about is correctly called "die lapping", which this is definitely not a case of. Die lapping actually removes metal from the surface, thus causing a partial loss of shallow details, and there's no evidence of that here that I can see. One of the shallowest raised areas on the obverse is the "kiss curl" in front of her ear, and this shows almost exactly the same level of detail as in the 1885-M proof coin. I've seen examples of plenty of coins struck from both minimally and heavily lapped dies, and they don't show mirroring across the entire surface, as in this case. Not sure where you get the idea that special presentation pieces don't really exist. Have you never heard of the Special Mint Sets produced by the US mint 1965-1967? They were produced from polished dies and planchets, but without being struck multiple times and not polished to the same degree as true proofs. Thus they do not quite match up in appearance. Polishing blanks is rather easy to do, even in the 19th century, so many branch mints would do this in order to strike presentation pieces to give to local officials on special occasions. Prime examples of this would be the Edward VII gold sovereign presentation pieces produced by the Ottawa mint in 1908 and 1909, which are generally known as "Satin Finish" but which TPGs call "Special Presentation". Just different terminology for the same thing, not "gibberish" as you propose. Mint records frequently account for such "special" pieces, which is where the published mintage figures derive from. However, early mint reports frequently misrepresent presentation pieces by including them in the total of normal circulation pieces. Thanks for your comments and opinions, but in the future do try to keep them civil and polite, and not derogatory. Thanks!

The first thing I notice about this coin is that it was struck a bit off-center. The south rim edge is about double the width of the north rim edge. I'm no expert on Morgans, but I'm sure I've personally never seen one like this. Unfortunately, that won't help identify it since the mis-strike could be a feature of just this one single coin, and not a recognized variety.

Agree the coin shown is not strictly proof, since it also doesn't show the usual frosting on the devices. I was thinking it's a Special Presentation (SP) piece struck on polished planchet. The coin in hand shows mirror reflection on both sides, as well as the tell-tale scratchiness in the fields produced by early polishing methods. I've compared it to a picture of NGC graded 1885-M PR64 coming up for sale in May, shown below, and the level of detail seems quite similar. Branch mint proofs rarely match the quality of those produced by the central mint, but they are still classified as proofs since that's how they are listed in the official mint records. My understanding is that in the 19th century, all sovereign dies were produced by the main mint in London and then shipped (literally) to the branch mints. Each branch then punched in its own mintmark on each die received. Planchets were locally produced, especially the case of Australia in order to make efficient use of the huge local supply of precious metals. Edited later as an afterthought, to add a close-up pic of the coin in the PCGS holder. Level of detail is much more apparent, especially in Her Majesty's hair and hair ribbon. Very attractive girl !

Thanks for the consideration Ali. I do understand you guys are swamped and working in a triage situation now. But, with all due respect, the 4 sets you list require a total of just 37 coins (21 + 4 + 5 + 7), which hardly compares to the 173 coin category I propose. I was really excited by my idea to create a date set awarding the same point value for any legal coin in the slot: "Here’s another idea. The set could be made really interesting by assigning the exact same point value to each coin in the set, no matter how rare or what condition! Just award 100 points to any legal coin in that slot, so the collector who has the most slots filled is the leader. An 1817 PF66 UC coin would get the same points as a 2022 XF40 coin or a 1907 AU Details (Cleaned) coin. I think that a set like this would appeal to a very large number of collectors, since it wouldn’t require a huge budget to participate in, which most of the other categories do. No need to hunt for rare coins, or coins in the highest grade … just get anything with the right date! " Nobody thought that was a cool innovation? If you don't have time to work on it now, maybe put it away to consider at some future date when the backlog clears up. Or maybe use some of my grading fees to hire more workers!

I'm extremely interested to learn this. I wonder if this practice also occurred in Australia in the 19th Cent. I've seen so many coins dated in the 1880's and 1890's from the Melbourne mint that were almost certainly struck on polished planchets, but there's only a few proofs listed for that year, or sometimes no record of Proofs being produced at all. Maybe they only counted the ones that got sold. Here is an image of one example that I personally own, 1884-M gold sovereign. Mint records show a few proofs being produced in 1883 and 1885, but none in 1884. The coin was graded MS63+ by PCGS since they could not verify that any proofs were produced in this year.

I'm distressed at how often I encounter coins with very obvious wear on the high points that have been graded as high as MS61. It's almost like some of the graders are physically blind, and were only hired in order to satisfy some DEI quota. What's really sad is how many times I browse through an online auction and see high bids placed on seriously overgraded coins. There are simply too many people who buy coins based on what it says on the holder, without even bothering to view the coin itself. PCGS is notorious for misidentifying varieties of coins, and I've also seen cases where a very large amount was paid for a coin that had the wrong variety listed, when the true variety sells for a small fraction of that price. I recall that one of the original rationales for TPG was that dealers could purchase coins from each other sight unseen, and be assured of what they would receive. IMO anyone who does that is a total insufficiently_thoughtful_person. I've even seen CAC coins that had such negative eye appeal that I wouldn't want it at any price, so I don't even trust them. [ just noticed that where I used the word "I d i o t" the software changed it to "insufficiently_thougtful_person". Looks like the thought police caught me! ]

Hi Ali, I’d like to propose a new competition category for United Kingdom gold sovereigns. It’s time to have a Date Set (a.k.a. Year Set) consisting of one coin from any mint for each date from 1817 to 2023. Currently this would require a total of 173 coins. That sounds a bit large, however even bigger sets already exist, for example the 192 coin Australia (1855-1931) Complete Circulation Issue, which has 54 sets registered. Gold sovereigns are one of the most popular gold coins being collected, with over 1000 different sets currently registered. Since sovereigns were produced at seven different mints, there would be a great number of possibilities for collectors to choose from for a Date Set. I would suggest that any sovereign bearing the correct date be allowed in each slot. Any variety, any condition, produced by any mint, in mint state or proof would be eligible. Even piedfort coins should be allowed, since they are technically considered to be sovereigns even though they weigh twice as much and contain double the amount of gold. There is also precedent for mixing MS and PF coins together in a set, for example the US $20 Liberty Double Eagle Date Set. It’s highly unlikely that anyone will ever complete this set, since a few of the very early dates are prohibitively rare and expensive, such as 1819, 1828, and 1841. But it would be a fun challenge to see how many slots you could fill. Here’s another idea. The set could be made really interesting by assigning the exact same point value to each coin in the set, no matter how rare or what condition! Just award 100 points to any legal coin in that slot, so the collector who has the most slots filled is the leader. An 1817 PF66 UC coin would get the same points as a 2022 XF40 coin or a 1907 AU Details (Cleaned) coin. I think that a set like this would appeal to a very large number of collectors, since it wouldn’t require a huge budget to participate in, which most of the other categories do. No need to hunt for rare coins, or coins in the highest grade … just get anything with the right date! I think this would be a very interesting and exciting new concept for an NGC category, so I hope you will give it some serious consideration. Here’s a couple of examples of coins that I own that would be acceptable: 2894638-001, 5863117-002, 2114844-030.

1817? No problem at all. 1819? Um... well... hope you are Buddhist, because I think you'll be saving for a couple of lifetimes.

P.S. -- I really admired you in "Ben Hur". It was a wonderful performance!

Outstanding and informative post, in all respects. And I'm delighted to meet another who collects world gold. Since you're obviously well-acquainted with the PCGS registry, my assumption about how ridiculously simple-minded their scoring system is must be correct. And of course, I understand how you got entrapped there if most of the available coins you wanted were in PCGS holders. I'm admittedly a novice collecting gold sovereigns, but I'm a quick learner (i.e. extremely old) and I've found that about 80% of the encapsulated coins listed on auction sites all over the world for that denomination are in NGC holders. I'm not really sure why that is. Several possible explanations come to mind. I first thought that maybe others noticed the same thing I did, that PCGS frequently over-grades sovereigns. But in that case, I'd imagine everyone would WANT to send their raw coins to PCGS to get the highest grade possible. Not very ethical IMO, but financially sound. Another possibility is that the turn-around time for grading world gold is about 1/3 as long for NGC as for PCGS, and that would naturally draw people to submit here. This would be especially true for coin dealers, who don't want to wait longer than necessary to get inventory posted online for sale. I've also read that PCGS holders are more fragile than NGC holders -- there are tales of them being left in hot vehicles and partially melting! Whatever the case, I guess I'm lucky that the majority of coins I'm interested in are either NGC or raw. Sorry to hear you are done collecting. Why not start on a new series that's interesting and not too expensive. There are so many possibilities. Even though I've only been collecting full British sovereigns for a year now, I've already decided to dabble in the coin that immediately preceded them, namely the gold Guinea. Although quite old, the later dated ones of King George III are not actually very expensive, relatively speaking, and seem to be plentiful enough. And, as I know you are aware , I recently acquired my very first half-sovereign -- not because I have any interest in tackling that difficult series but because I simply couldn't resist owning an R7 rarity coin of any kind. I hope my heirs appreciate all of the interesting treasures I will be leaving them with!

In response to the symmetrically-challenged Lord Arrius, I would say that 100 to 200 years ago, the Brits liked to keep things balanced in their artistic designs. So placing anything even as tiny as a mintmark off to one side would never occur to them in this particular case. Apparently the elder Brits lacked self-respect, since all coin designs were created by artists in London, and in fact I believe all working dies in those days were produced at The Royal Mint in London and then sent to the colony on ships. This odd arrangement of shipping the dies half-way around the world was the direct cause of one of the most famous overdates of any Australian gold sovereign, the 1872 over 1 coin produced at the new mint in Melbourne, when the vessel carrying the first shipment of dies sank. The Reverse of this 1891 coin, designed by the famous engraver Joseph Edgar Boehm, displays the Ensigns Armorial within a garnished shield surmounted by an imperial crown, which was a well-known emblem and not subject to alteration. However, I see your point and don't really disagree with your complaint. If I'd been Director of The Royal Mint in 1887, I would have required that the shield on the reverse be reduced in size by about 5% and raised up, such that the lower reaches no longer protruded into the area of the date, whereby the four numerals could be spaced together properly and not divided. Symmetry would have been maintained, and still leave a pleasing design IMO. The previous design for the Reverse of the full sovereign was wonderfully balanced to include the mintmark, which I show here on an 1881-S coin. As for the mintmark for the Aussies, I would have specified that it be placed on the Obverse, unobtrusively nestled in the bodice of Her Majesty, just at the lower truncation of the portrait, almost exactly in the center of the design (directly south of her pearl earring). I hope you would agree with that redesign.

I just joined PCGS at the beginning of this year in order to get some coins graded. At the time, it seemed to me that they had a bit stronger cachet than NGC. After a couple of months I decided it would be fun to list my budding US Double Eagle collection online, but found that they would not accept NGC coins, which comprised about 30% of my set. So I wandered over here to NGC and found that they would allow both NGC and PCGS coins, and decided this was the best home for my collection. What a great decision! Unfortunately, I then switched direction completely, and started collecting British gold sovereigns, and NGC will NOT allow PCGS coins in competition. Well, can't blame them (See previous post). Regarding the set registry for competition, the rules established by NGC are a million times better than those of PCGS. I don't actually have any PCGS sets registered, however I've examined quite a few and my understanding is that the scores are entirely based on the grades of the coins, with absolutely no consideration given to relative rarities. This works fine for ranking when both entries have complete sets, but for comparing partially complete sets that may contain different dates, it fails miserably. For example, if you have a coin in AU50 condition where only 10 of them are known to exist, and somebody else has a very common coin in MS63 condition where thousands are known to exist, you get a lower set score! This is completely preposterous! [NOTE: If I've mis-interpreted how PCGS scores, someone feel free to correct me.] NGC, on the other hand, assigns point values (based on some arcane mysterious algorithm) to each coin and grade based on rarity. So here, in the above example, the AU50 coin might get a score of 9000 and the MS63 coin a score of 1100. This is logically how it should be! The thought of ever listing a set with PCGS is incomprehensible to me. Personally, I'm mostly interested in acquiring coins with the best eye appeal, and that means I tend to prefer AU55 to AU58 coins over very baggy and unpleasant looking MS60 to MS62 coins. So for competition purposes, my sets would rank near the bottom of every category with PCGS. I'm very excited to see that the current #1 top scoring set of another collector of gold sovereigns in one particular category contains mainly older AU graded coins, so this fellow thinks the way I do and he's been rewarded handsomely by NGC. I do have one MAJOR complaint, however, and this is in regard to coins for which several different varieties are known. For some bizarre reason, the scoring committee at NGC just decided to save time and they assign precisely the same score to all of the varieties as they do for the basic date/miint, for all grades. In many cases, some of the varieties are hundreds of times rarer than the basic coin, and really deserve a much higher score. I do hope that some day NGC will get around to re-examining this obvious mistake and assign new grades to these varieties. But, all things considered NGC set registry >>> PCGS set registry.

Be happy you collect US coins Walkerfan. I'm working on gold sovereigns of the British Empire (1817 - 2022) and the rascals at NGC will NOT allow PCGS coins to be used for competition. They are OK for Custom Sets. Normally I would file a case with the Supreme Court to get this decision overturned, however ... in all honesty I have to agree with NGC on this one. Although I've only been collecting this denomination for a very short time, I've noticed a HUGE number of examples where I feel PCGS seriously over-graded sovereigns. I've also seen WAY too many cases where they assign the completely wrong variety to coins. Sometimes the varieties are hard to distinguish, but in some cases they are easily distinguished by eye and there's simply no excuse. So for now, any time I find a very rare coin in a PCGS holder that I want in my collection, I study it VERY closely to decide if NGC will cross it over to their holder at the same grade or not. So far my success rate is 80%, which to me means that NGC graders and I are basically on the same page. Sadly, I've had to reject buying at last 3 dozen PGCS coins that I would love to have owned, but they would obviously be downgraded by NGC. Too bad.