1995 Queen Elizabeth II visit to South Africa coin set with scarce gold Sovereign. 1 1

[ZAR details]

Hello everyone,

 

I have this 1995 commemorative 7-coin set issued by the SA Mint. It was issued to commemorate Queen Elizabeth II's visit to South Africa in 1995.

 

4 of the coins in the set are standard Union of South Africa coins with Queen Elizabeth’s portrait on (so from 1953 to 1960). Most likely the Mint just ordered these coins from a local dealer, as these are quite common here in South Africa.

 

2 of the coins are Crown-sized commemorative coins with identical designs, one in Cupro-nickel and one in silver. Please see the images below.

 

Lastly, there is a gold sovereign dated 1995, with the younger portrait of Queen Elizabeth II on the obverse (the same as on the 1953 to 1960 South African coins), and the iconic design of St George slaying the dragon on the reverse. However, the reverse design looks slightly smaller on the coin than any other sovereigns I have seen before, and there is a SA mintmark to the right of the date.

 

One of the most recently published South African coin price guides (the MTB South African graded coins numismatic pocket guide, 2018) gives this description of the sovereign:

“Proof sovereign in 22crt gold, with a weight 7.988 grams. In 1995, for the Royal visit of Queen Elizabeth II, the SA Mint produced a set of unc coins: ½d, 1d, 2.5s, crown (see QEII series for circulation prices) and a unique gold sovereign, as well as two special commemorative crowns (see NE22 & NE24 above)”

This same catalogue puts the mintage figure at only 30 for the set.

 

My question is, is this set (and in particular the sovereign) a recognised rarity overseas? Even here in South Africa, it is a relatively unknown set. I have not been able to find a single case where one of these sets or even the individual sovereign has ever sold on an overseas auction.

 

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

[Fenntucky Mike]

On 3/22/2024 at 3:42 AM, ZAR details said:

My question is, is this set (and in particular the sovereign) a recognised rarity overseas?

Sure.

South African coinage has a pretty good following, I'm sure this set is know in those circles. The only issue with the three pieces created for the set is that I don't know that they are considered actual legal tender coins, several places that I've seen this set call them out as medals or fantasy pieces which could make them less attractive to some collectors. 

[ZAR details]

On 3/22/2024 at 1:25 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

The only issue with the three pieces created for the set is that I don't know that they are considered actual legal tender coins, several places that I've seen this set call them out as medals or fantasy pieces which could make them less attractive to some collectors. 

Thanks for your comment, in my opinion, those 2 crown-sized coins are most likely medallions, but I don’t think that the sovereign is. I think it is just a commemorative legal tender piece for the following reasons:

1)      It weighs exactly the same as the standard sovereign, and it has the same dimensions. It is also struck in 22-carat gold.

2)      The design on the coin is the same as sovereigns that have been minted in South Africa before (with some minor adjustments on the reverse). Please see the photos below.

 

 

3)      The SA Mint got permission from the Royal Mint to strike the coin. This is the largest indicator for me that this is a legal tender coin, and not a token/fantasy piece.

However, I might still be mistaken.

 

 

[RWB]

The crown-size pieces have no denomination and are properly classed as commemorative medals. Sovereigns (with a few exceptions) are gold bullion pieces with no fixed legal tender value. They are no more coins than any other undenominated bullion. Just an opinion.

[Zebo]

On 3/22/2024 at 9:29 AM, RWB said:

The crown-size pieces have no denomination and are properly classed as commemorative medals. Sovereigns (with a few exceptions) are gold bullion pieces with no fixed legal tender value. They are no more coins than any other undenominated bullion. Just an opinion.

I disagree Roger, the sovereigns do have a standard legal tender value of one pound, but no one would sell them at that price because the gold content value is much higher. Sovereigns circulated as legal tender coins for over a century. That is the modern sovereign and does not count the hammered sovereigns which are much older. Just because a coin does not state a denomination on them, does not make them a token or bullion coin. Sovereigns became bullion in England circa 1917 when they were not released for circulation any longer and were used strictly to pay war debts. They did still circulate outside England for some years after England stopped producing them for circulation. Sovereigns were also legal tender in Portugal even though Portugal was not part of the British empire. The world accepted the sovereign as circulated legal tender coins and later as bullion. 
 

The below book, is an excellent first read on the subject. Many others out here as well:

 

Edited March 22 by Zebo
Added book as a reference

[Zebo]

By the way, welcome to the NGC forum ZAR. Glad to have you here.

[RWB]

Zebo -- I understand the argument and historical context. However, without a statement of nominal value on the piece, it is merely a bullion token and not technically protected from counterfeiting. The same applies to any other coin-like item and is a primary separator of medal/token from coin.

[Zebo]

On 3/22/2024 at 11:53 AM, RWB said:

Zebo -- I understand the argument and historical context. However, without a statement of nominal value on the piece, it is merely a bullion token and not technically protected from counterfeiting. The same applies to any other coin-like item and is a primary separator of medal/token from coin.

I still disagree, nominal value or no nominal value on the coin isn’t relevant to being technically protected from counterfeiting.

[Henri Charriere]

🐓:  What do you make of all this, Q?

Q.A.:  I don't know... Would an official government mint facility produce a token or fantasy piece to honor British royalty?  Would such pieces be holdered in a deluxe commemorative presentation case? Would such a set hew to authentic specifications in terms of weight and fineness of gold?  Would such pieces be limited to a run of only 30 pieces? (That sounds "truly rare" to me.)  Lastly, what does Author Clancy have to say about this in his book, "A History of the Sovereign?" 

[ZAR details]

On 3/22/2024 at 4:21 PM, Zebo said:

 

The below book, is an excellent first read on the subject. Many others out here as well:

 

Thanks Zebo, will definitely order one of these books. 

[ZAR details]

On 3/22/2024 at 11:57 PM, Henri Charriere said:

🐓:  What do you make of all this, Q?

Q.A.:  I don't know... Would an official government mint facility produce a token or fantasy piece to honor British royalty?  Would such pieces be holdered in a deluxe commemorative presentation case? Would such a set hew to authentic specifications in terms of weight and fineness of gold?  Would such pieces be limited to a run of only 30 pieces? (That sounds "truly rare" to me.)  Lastly, what does Author Clancy have to say about this in his book, "A History of the Sovereign?" 

According to a former SA Mint official, the Mint presented one of these sets to the Queen during her visit. It is my understanding that they were not offered for sale to general collectors, probably only to people attending a special function or event. But I would need to do more research into this to be able to say for sure.

[Henri Charriere]

Everything about these coins scream LEGITIMATE. I secretly hope you uncover the evidence to support my hasty conclusion.  

[Fenntucky Mike]

On 3/22/2024 at 8:30 AM, ZAR details said:

Thanks for your comment, in my opinion, those 2 crown-sized coins are most likely medallions, but I don’t think that the sovereign is. I think it is just a commemorative legal tender piece for the following reasons:

1)      It weighs exactly the same as the standard sovereign, and it has the same dimensions. It is also struck in 22-carat gold.

2)      The design on the coin is the same as sovereigns that have been minted in South Africa before (with some minor adjustments on the reverse). Please see the photos below.

 

 

3)      The SA Mint got permission from the Royal Mint to strike the coin. This is the largest indicator for me that this is a legal tender coin, and not a token/fantasy piece.

However, I might still be mistaken.

Someone will have to prove that these were authorized pieces produced with government approval and monetized. Seeking permission from the RM proves little, the SAM could have been looking for permission to replicate the design, who knows, that does not mean that this is a LT coin. The piece having the same weight, dimensions, composition, etc., also has little meaning as "Fantasy" pieces are produced all the time that closely match real coins.

Here is my take on this piece. The Gillick portrait is used on the obverse, this portrait was in use until 1968 and then retired, the reverse is dated 1995 which should have been paired with the Maklouf obv. There is no documentation that any government approved and/or monetized this piece, this most likely would have required that a law be passed or an amendment to existing law. While the sovereign is still LT in England I don't know that it is anywhere else, South Africa ceased being a commonwealth long before this piece was made and I doubt that a sovereign is on the books as being LT in that country or tied to any current denomination. To me this is a fantasy piece/medal, that's not to say that it is not rare or desirable to collectors, it probably is.

Edited March 23 by Fenntucky Mike
Spelling

[ZAR details]

On 3/23/2024 at 3:22 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

While the sovereign is still LT in England I don't know that it is anywhere else, South Africa ceased being a commonwealth long before this piece was made and I doubt that a sovereign is on the books as being LT in that country or tied to any current denomination. To me this is a fantasy piece/medal, that's not to say that it is not rare or desirable to collectors, it probably is.

South Africa left the Commonwealth in 1961 but rejoined in 1994 after the end of Apartheid. Part of the reason for Queen Elizabeth's visit in 1995 was to commemorate this. 

[Fenntucky Mike]

On 3/23/2024 at 10:16 AM, ZAR details said:

South Africa left the Commonwealth in 1961 but rejoined in 1994 after the end of Apartheid. Part of the reason for Queen Elizabeth's visit in 1995 was to commemorate this. 

Noted, I stand corrected, even more of a reason that the obv and rev parings should have matched the coinage of that date imo. 

I did some more checking on this piece after my post this morning and it appears that NGC will authenticate these but they have been labeling them as fantasy pieces, I'm not sure if that is still the case though. 

[Henri Charriere]

Very often special commemorative sets like these come with printed inserts detailing specs.  Did such an insert accompany this set and, if so, what did it read?  How was this set described?

[ZAR details]

On 3/23/2024 at 4:36 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

I did some more checking on this piece after my post this morning and it appears that NGC will authenticate these but they have been labeling them as fantasy pieces, I'm not sure if that is still the case though. 

Here is a photo of this coin that I found on a WhatsApp coin group. I did not know that NGC considers them fantasy pieces as that is not mentioned on the holder.  

[ZAR details]

On 3/23/2024 at 11:02 PM, Henri Charriere said:

Very often special commemorative sets like these come with printed inserts detailing specs.  Did such an insert accompany this set and, if so, what did it read?  How was this set described?

The early SA coin sets unfortunately didn't include those inserts, but now all the SA sets have them. I'm not sure when they started including them. My set didn't have one when I bought it.