The Precious Metal Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Go down
Silverlocks
Silverlocks
Posts : 339
Join date : 2022-08-27
Age : 54
Location : The High Weald

And some of my nicer sovs - Part I: Victoria Empty And some of my nicer sovs - Part I: Victoria

Tue Dec 05, 2023 8:28 pm
I think this rounds up most of the interesting photos I've got - this one is just highlights as pics of a load of sovs will get a bit samey.  1855, 1869, 1877, 1887 and 1894.  I haven't got anything pre-Victorian, unfortunately.

And some of my nicer sovs - Part I: Victoria 1855_y10And some of my nicer sovs - Part I: Victoria 1855_y11
And some of my nicer sovs - Part I: Victoria 1869_y10And some of my nicer sovs - Part I: Victoria 1869_y11
And some of my nicer sovs - Part I: Victoria 1877s_13And some of my nicer sovs - Part I: Victoria 1877s_12
And some of my nicer sovs - Part I: Victoria 1887_j12And some of my nicer sovs - Part I: Victoria 1887_j13
And some of my nicer sovs - Part I: Victoria 1894m_11And some of my nicer sovs - Part I: Victoria 1894m_10

Admin, tray, AVG and monkey like this post

Admin
Admin
Admin
Posts : 3485
Join date : 2021-05-08
Location : England UK
https://www.thepreciousmetalforum.com

And some of my nicer sovs - Part I: Victoria Empty Re: And some of my nicer sovs - Part I: Victoria

Wed Dec 06, 2023 9:27 am
The colour difference is what always surprises me.
Silverlocks
Silverlocks
Posts : 339
Join date : 2022-08-27
Age : 54
Location : The High Weald

And some of my nicer sovs - Part I: Victoria Empty Re: And some of my nicer sovs - Part I: Victoria

Wed Dec 06, 2023 9:46 am
Admin wrote:The colour difference is what always surprises me.

It's a bit exaggerated here - when I was shooting those I noticed the colour balance was off halfway through the shoot so I recalibrated the camera, but I couldn't be arsed re-doing the first coins that I hadn't already shot.  Ergo, the 1855 looks a bit redder than it really should.

There are some differences in the formulation of the alloy, though.  It doesn't take a lot of silver in the alloy to lift the colour quite substantially.  Victorian sovs tended to have about 0.3% to 0.4% silver in the alloy, which is enough to change the colour from the rose gold of modern sovs (which have no silver in the alloy) to something much more gold in colour.  If you compare the colour of an AGE (which has about 3% silver) you can see it's got a really pale colour compared to .999 gold cons or even something like a 19th century sov.

Sovs also sometimes accumulate gold sulphide corrosion, much like silver toning, but the process is a lot slower.  This is a sort of brick red colour.

You can see a transition in the alloy with Machin sovs.  If you sit a date run next to each other, they change notably in colour as the mint from an alloy of about 0.3% or so down to 0 silver.

Actually, I rather like the alloy that Gillicks were made in.  It had a little less silver than the 19th century sovs, so it's slightly redder in colour, which makes them look quite warm.

The rose gold colour of modern sovs tends to cause a fair bit of controversy.  However, the legislation only mandates the gold content, but doesn't make any representation about the other metals in the alloy.  Adding 0.3% silver to the alloy would use about 1.5p worth of silver per coin, and even other contemporary manufacturers such as PAMP-MMTC made a point in their literature about the colour of the coins.  The mint has never given a satisfactory explanation about why they don't do it, but I have no doubt they could charge enough extra for the sovs to cover the cost of the silver.

monkey likes this post

Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum