Zebo Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 (edited) What is the difference between these two coins? Both are 1868 Australian (Sydney Mint) sovereigns graded AU50. While there may be a few differences - I'm looking for one that should stand out to you. I'll give the answer a bit later. There is a very obvious difference, but many may overlook it or not consider it. Edited July 11, 2020 by Zebo Added content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physics-fan3.14 Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 Not sure if you're talking about design differences, but the immediately apparent difference to me: the top one is a nice, attractive, original orange gold, the bottom one is a cleaned white gold stripped of all patina. One of these I would want, one of these I would not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zadok Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 far 8 close 8...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeav Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 repunched '1' in the date ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebo Posted July 12, 2020 Author Share Posted July 12, 2020 Only three takers -- but instead of waiting until tomorrow...This was a kind of a trick question. It represents just one of many interesting facts about Australian sovereigns and sovereigns in general. Jason's answer is close and one that I was hoping would be hit upon. Some good eyes out there. The difference I am highlighting is the color or appearance. I picked the darkest and lightest examples in this particular grade on the heritage website to emphasize the point. Most are a little more subtle. The short answer is that the Sydney Mint struck 1868 dated sovereigns using silver as an alloy as they had done from the beginning of production/operations in 1855. The also struck 1868 sovereigns using copper as an alloy - as the British did in all of their sovereigns. This gave the 1868 sovereigns either a yellowish (silver) or a reddish (copper) look depending on which alloy they used. The Sydney Mint struck 1868 dated sovereigns well into 1869. There are no 1869 dated Australian sovereigns. This was the transition year for the Sydney Mint to start using copper as later, in 1870, was dictated by the British that all sovereigns would conform to the British standards. RonnieR131 and 1917 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1917 Posted July 12, 2020 Share Posted July 12, 2020 seems a bit late, but the "6" in the date are different.... the one has a loop that nearly touches the circular bit, while the other is at least a mm or two away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zadok Posted July 12, 2020 Share Posted July 12, 2020 not to worry 1917, it apparently wasn't a serious numismatic inquiry to start with..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebo Posted July 13, 2020 Author Share Posted July 13, 2020 15 hours ago, zadok said: not to worry 1917, it apparently wasn't a serious numismatic inquiry to start with..... Die state analysis and the like will come in a later posts. This first post is merely educational due to the situation of minting the same year using two different alloys. I receive many questions regarding why there is a difference in appearance. When examing like coins - this should be one of the first things you notice if you conduct a side by side comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zadok Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 alloys of coins relatively insignificant...not even an area that any of the third party grading services addresses, e.g. if u followed this line of thought almost all of the gold coins struck by all of the world mints would have different alloys virtually every year, far as I can determine differences in alloys have no bearing on prices or collectability, the responses u received about date placement and repunched date far more pertinent...but to each his own.....thanks for response... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VKurtB Posted July 17, 2020 Share Posted July 17, 2020 With too much cheap beer and some Brussels sprouts,I get a problem with Far 8’s too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebo Posted July 17, 2020 Author Share Posted July 17, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, zadok said: alloys of coins relatively insignificant...not even an area that any of the third party grading services addresses, e.g. if u followed this line of thought almost all of the gold coins struck by all of the world mints would have different alloys virtually every year, far as I can determine differences in alloys have no bearing on prices or collectability, the responses u received about date placement and repunched date far more pertinent...but to each his own.....thanks for response... I agree that different alloys are insignificant and there is little in price difference between them. Comparing gold coins from different world mints is not the same as the example given above. Of course different coins from different mints may use different alloys and may have a different appearance. How many coins were issued from the same mint in the same year using different alloys, however? There is a clear difference that you can see between the two and historically one was favored over the other in certain parts of the world. Totally a different situation than comparing world coins that were issued from different mints and in the same or different years. Like I said - this is educational based upon numerous questions regarding the difference in appearance. Edited July 18, 2020 by Zebo Clarification Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zadok Posted July 18, 2020 Share Posted July 18, 2020 vkurtb......now that's what I call significant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgenn Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 All I can contribute are these pictures RonnieR131 and Alex in PA. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebo Posted July 19, 2020 Author Share Posted July 19, 2020 (edited) Thanks JGenn. The mint originally opened in 1855. Prior to that it was the south wing of the hospital - known as the Rum hospital. The Sydney sovereigns went through a couple of design changes between 1855 and 1870. The Sydney mint used a similar portrait to the British portrait (first) of Queen Victoria in 1855 and 1856, referred to as type one, and the unquie reverse that spelled out Sydney and Australia. This is interesting because at the time, Australia was made up of six separate colonies and did not become the Commonwealth of Australia until 1901. In 1857 through 1870 the mint issued sovereigns, known as type two, with a unique obverse with Victoria wearing a local banksia wreath in her hair along with the unquie reverse. In 1871 all sovereigns were issued using the British standards only. From 1871 trough 1887, the mint issued sovereigns with both the shield and St. George reverses. From 1887 through 1893 the sovereigns were issued with Queen Victoia's Jubilee portrait and from 1893 through 1901 with Victoria's veiled or old head portrait. King Edward VII portrait was used between 1902 through 1910 and King George V's from 1911 through 1926. The mint closed in 1926. During that time some great rarities were minted - each having an interesting story of its own, The Sydney Mint sovereigns were favored in parts of the world because they contained a greater, although very slight, amount of gold compared to those minted in London and used silver as an alloy instead of copper (until 1868). Edited July 19, 2020 by Zebo RonnieR131 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex in PA. Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 Very nice. Thanks for posting this. Always interested in the historical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbbpll Posted July 19, 2020 Share Posted July 19, 2020 8 hours ago, Zebo said: In 1857 through 1870 the mint issued sovereigns, known as type two, with a unique obverse Was Sydney making its own, or were dies shipped from England? Just curious, because on into the 20th century in Canada all the dies came from the Royal Mint. It seems odd that Sydney would get "unique" designs. (I know nothing about Australian coins...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebo Posted July 19, 2020 Author Share Posted July 19, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, kbbpll said: Was Sydney making its own, or were dies shipped from England? Just curious, because on into the 20th century in Canada all the dies came from the Royal Mint. It seems odd that Sydney would get "unique" designs. (I know nothing about Australian coins...) The Sydney Mint sovereigns issued between 1855 and 1870 were designed by James Wyon, cousin of William Wyon of the Royal Mint in England. Their original purpose was to just be used within New South Wales. After adoption by the other colonies, they were accepted in all of Australia and New Zealand. The British made them legal tender and mandated that all sovereigns no matter where they were minted, starting in 1871, would conform the to British standards (design and metal composition). The Royal Mint provided the dies to be used - as they did with the other branch mints that were opened. Edited July 20, 2020 by Zebo Corrected error Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Charriere Posted July 24, 2020 Share Posted July 24, 2020 Hold up, wait a mi-nute... What about Mr. Physics' contention that one appeared to have been improperly cleaned and stripped of its patina, i.e., its [honey golden hue and original mint luster?] I am familiar with change of composition esthetics from my ownership of original and re-strike French 20-franc gold roosters and appreciate the difference but nothing so pronounced. At the risk of jeopardizing my alleged "rank amateur" status, I'm all-in with Physics' on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebo Posted July 25, 2020 Author Share Posted July 25, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said: Hold up, wait a mi-nute... What about Mr. Physics' contention that one appeared to have been improperly cleaned and stripped of its patina, i.e., its [honey golden hue and original mint luster?] I am familiar with change of composition esthetics from my ownership of original and re-strike French 20-franc gold roosters and appreciate the difference but nothing so pronounced. At the risk of jeopardizing my alleged "rank amateur" status, I'm all-in with Physics' on this one. 8.33% silver as opposed to 8.3% copper will change the appearance of the coin. I do not believe it was cleaned and neither does NGC who gave both a straight grade. I have not seen either coin in hand and going off photos is difficult. The examples that I own are similar in appearance, but slightly less pronounced. Edited July 25, 2020 by Zebo Added and then deleted a a sentande - not relevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Charriere Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 5 minutes ago, Zebo said: 8.33% silver as opposed to 8.3% copper will change the appearance of the coin. I do not believe it was cleaned and neither does NGC who gave both a straight grade. I have not seen either coin in hand and going off photos is difficult. The examples that I own are similar in appearance, but slightly less pronounced. Really? I better pipe down before our mutual colleague from the Keystone State sees this. You learn something new everyday... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physics-fan3.14 Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 14 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said: Hold up, wait a mi-nute... What about Mr. Physics' contention that one appeared to have been improperly cleaned and stripped of its patina, i.e., its [honey golden hue and original mint luster?] I am familiar with change of composition esthetics from my ownership of original and re-strike French 20-franc gold roosters and appreciate the difference but nothing so pronounced. At the risk of jeopardizing my alleged "rank amateur" status, I'm all-in with Physics' on this one. I was unaware of the compositional change that Zebo has been talking about. If there was an alloy with a significantly higher silver concentration, then that will produce a whiter gold. I'm fully on board with Zebo's explanation for the color difference (I was assuming they were the same composition). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Charriere Posted July 25, 2020 Share Posted July 25, 2020 What about that "6"?(1917); What about that "repunched 1"? (thebeav); what about "far 8/close 8"? (zadok)... Inquiring minds want to know whether these legitimate concerns have any merit irrespective of the thrust of the original inquiry. Comments, anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
