Baldwin & Sons
Auction 73 8 May 2012
View prices realized
► Sale information
Find similar lots
THE BENTLEY COLLECTION OF BRITISH MILLED GOLD SOVEREIGNS. Victoria, Sovereign, 1869, die number 60, second larger young head left, WW incuse on truncation without stops, date below, 1 of date flawed, 6 with open curvy top but no bulb, first V, D and last A of legend die flawed to rim, other letters with light flaws between, rev crowned quartered shield of arms within laurel wreath, die number 60 below, emblems below, hairline raised die flaws on some letters, 7.98g (Marsh 53; MCE 529; S 3853). Surface marks and hairlines, extremely fine.
Calendar year mintage 6,441,322
See footnote on lot 191 for a brief synopsis of the 1869 die numbers.
The Second Larger Young Head type Sovereign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901)
Victoria Second Small Young Head Type Currency Sovereign
From 1848 the size of Victoria’s young head bust increases to fill more of the available field and is therefore rendered closer to the legend lettering. This may have been an attempt to prolong the life of the dies, which are subjected to multiple tons of pressure in use, and as conjectured in the footnote for the previous lot after a Royal Mint Commission in this year investigated the die and matrix production. The Chief Engraver, William Wyon was called to give evidence on die production to this commission.
This second larger young head type sovereign was in use from 1848-1855 inclusive and is of the same general design as the previous smaller bust with the engravers initials W.W. raised with stops on the bust. The easiest way to tell the sizes of the bust, particularly when looking at the changeover year of 1848, is too look how close the front hair band fillet is to the legend as it is this point that differs most in the sizing of the busts.
In 1853 there was a slight change on some dies produced and the engravers initials WW are incuse on the truncation without stops and this runs concurrently from 1853-1855 with the first type and then alone from 1856-1870 inclusive. Strangely the 1853 proof has one stop between the letter W’s only on the truncation.
From 1863 until 1874 the reverses of the shield type feature an additional “die” number below the shield. These will be discussed at the relevant point in the cataloguing as they form quite an extensive series.
The Victorian Die Number Series of Gold Sovereigns 1863-1874 at the Royal Mint London
From 1863 to 1874 inclusive, seemingly as a new drive for quality control, the Royal Mint in London added a tiny die number to the reverse die of gold Sovereigns. There were however no Sovereigns issued in, or dated 1867 in this time-frame. This die numbering occurred additionally on gold Half-Sovereigns from 1863 till 1880, and also in the silver coinage, on Shillings from 1864 till 1879, and Sixpences from 1864 till 1879. There is correlation in these denominations all being of a similar size and stature, which may mean similar minting presses being employed and perhaps worked by the same teams of operators. They were now seemingly subject to a stricter regime where work in production could be individually traced back to a worker on a given day. Equally the engravers with their apprentices in their respective department could also be traced from the tiny number on the die they had worked upon. Within the Mint itself in 1865 the vacant post (since 1862) of Resident Engraver is taken up by T J Minton.
This is discussed further by E G V Newman in his essay “The Model of Accuracy” in the “Royal Sovereign 1489-1989” published by the Royal Mint.
One of the serious passions of the owner of the Bentley Collection, for the last twenty years, was the quest to find as many of the known die numbers as possible on the reverse of the Victorian London shield Sovereigns from 1863-1874 inclusive. This has resulted today in a total accumulation of 565 different die number pieces in the whole collection, by far the most ever assembled by a private collector. Only an illustrious few have ever attempted such an undertaking.
For the first five years of attempting this, the best quality was only accepted for the various die numbers, however it became readily apparent that many of the die numbers were just not obtainable in top grade, this being at a time when a collector was doing well to merely obtain a date in top grade. With the sale of the Douro Cargo of gold Sovereigns in November 1996, a sale in which your present writer was one of the principle cataloguers (four different people catalogued Douro as it was such a Herculean task by quantity within the deadline), a massive opportunity arose to obtain many die numbers at one fell swoop, with most well preserved after their time on the seabed of the Bay of Biscay.
The Bentley Collector ended up securing over 130 pieces at once through an agent at this momentous sale, which increased the collection of die numbers at this time to 216 pieces. A further large addition was made in 2001 from a collection of Sovereigns that was previously unsuccessfully offered for sale as one lot at Sotheby, 16-17 November 2000, an “Important Collection of Gold Sovereigns 1816-2000.” This collector had also attempted the die number series and had also bought many in the Douro Cargo auction, managing to amass a total of 195 die numbers. The two collectors eventually were put in touch and a great many Sovereigns changed hands, thus adding many to the Bentley holding.
Since the auction of the Douro Cargo in 1996, other parcels of Douro coins have come to the market, which were groups that were shared out to other individuals involved with the salvaging of the cargo. These have been the richest source for obtaining further die numbers in more recent years, mainly through the auspices of Paul Davies Ltd.
Michael Marsh has been the only author to attempt to record as many of the die numbers as possible, presumably from those either seen by him or reported to him in commerce or in institutional records or collections, and these are listed in his book.
With the Bentley Collection we have produced a never before attempted tabulation of all the die numbers against their respective dates. Those that are not recorded by Marsh are highlighted, and the gaps in the collection that Marsh claims exist are denoted as “M”.
A copy of this table is available in the printed edition of the catalogue for The Bentley Collection and online at www.baldwin.co.uk/auction-73.
In the table all the Bentley die numbers are ticked and the ones Marsh records additionally as “known” are marked with a red M. On some occasions the Bentley collection contains a die number not recorded in Marsh. These are marked with a red tick. It is interesting to note patterns in this table, of what runs of numbers exist for which date side by side with other adjacent dates. Looking at the end of the period where the numbers run to over 100 in a given year, it is interesting to see there is no die number 107 in the Bentley Collection for 1871 or 1872, but there is for 1873. Marsh claims it should exist for 1871, but we wonder if perhaps it was intended to be used for 1871 originally but ended up being stored until use for 1873 dated coins, perhaps the Mint record reflects this and is where Marsh obtained information about it being for 1871 originally as he also records it for 1873.
It should be noted that the Bentley Collector supplied information on die numbers in this collection to Marsh for publication in the latest edition of the book in 2002. If the 2002 edition is compared to the edition before it will be seen how many die numbers have been added! However this cataloguer cannot help but feel that there are a few inaccuracies in the Marsh listings of die numbers in his book “The Gold Sovereign”, not only because he recorded numbers given to him in correspondence from others which are always open to misinterpretation without Mr Marsh seeing the reported coin for himself; but also because it seems that some consecutive runs of numbers listed as “known” just do not seem to turn up on the marketplace. This is demonstrated where the Bentley Collector has taken 20 years, without finding a single die number in a consecutive sequence, for a date like 1870 from die 2 until 79 inclusive which Marsh claims all exist. Knowing that some of the mintage figures in Marsh’s tabulations have typographic errors, it follows that the listings of die numbers could be flawed also. Mr Marsh was in touch with the Royal Mint at times so it may be that records there will show which numbers should exist and perhaps this sort of information was incorporated in the listings. These anomalies remain to be proven with continued research, but it should be noted that with these tiny die numbers, it is notoriously easy to mistake a 5 for a 3 and vice versa. Human error will always creep in though it is hoped the physical recording of the Bentley die numbers herewith are 100% accurate.
The Reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901)
House of Hanover
Born: 24 May 1819
Accession: 20 June 1837
Married: Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, 10 February 1840
Coronation: Thursday 28 June 1838
Children: four sons, five daughters
Died: 22 January 1901, aged 81
Estimate: £350-450
Calendar year mintage 6,441,322
See footnote on lot 191 for a brief synopsis of the 1869 die numbers.
The Second Larger Young Head type Sovereign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901)
Victoria Second Small Young Head Type Currency Sovereign
From 1848 the size of Victoria’s young head bust increases to fill more of the available field and is therefore rendered closer to the legend lettering. This may have been an attempt to prolong the life of the dies, which are subjected to multiple tons of pressure in use, and as conjectured in the footnote for the previous lot after a Royal Mint Commission in this year investigated the die and matrix production. The Chief Engraver, William Wyon was called to give evidence on die production to this commission.
This second larger young head type sovereign was in use from 1848-1855 inclusive and is of the same general design as the previous smaller bust with the engravers initials W.W. raised with stops on the bust. The easiest way to tell the sizes of the bust, particularly when looking at the changeover year of 1848, is too look how close the front hair band fillet is to the legend as it is this point that differs most in the sizing of the busts.
In 1853 there was a slight change on some dies produced and the engravers initials WW are incuse on the truncation without stops and this runs concurrently from 1853-1855 with the first type and then alone from 1856-1870 inclusive. Strangely the 1853 proof has one stop between the letter W’s only on the truncation.
From 1863 until 1874 the reverses of the shield type feature an additional “die” number below the shield. These will be discussed at the relevant point in the cataloguing as they form quite an extensive series.
The Victorian Die Number Series of Gold Sovereigns 1863-1874 at the Royal Mint London
From 1863 to 1874 inclusive, seemingly as a new drive for quality control, the Royal Mint in London added a tiny die number to the reverse die of gold Sovereigns. There were however no Sovereigns issued in, or dated 1867 in this time-frame. This die numbering occurred additionally on gold Half-Sovereigns from 1863 till 1880, and also in the silver coinage, on Shillings from 1864 till 1879, and Sixpences from 1864 till 1879. There is correlation in these denominations all being of a similar size and stature, which may mean similar minting presses being employed and perhaps worked by the same teams of operators. They were now seemingly subject to a stricter regime where work in production could be individually traced back to a worker on a given day. Equally the engravers with their apprentices in their respective department could also be traced from the tiny number on the die they had worked upon. Within the Mint itself in 1865 the vacant post (since 1862) of Resident Engraver is taken up by T J Minton.
This is discussed further by E G V Newman in his essay “The Model of Accuracy” in the “Royal Sovereign 1489-1989” published by the Royal Mint.
One of the serious passions of the owner of the Bentley Collection, for the last twenty years, was the quest to find as many of the known die numbers as possible on the reverse of the Victorian London shield Sovereigns from 1863-1874 inclusive. This has resulted today in a total accumulation of 565 different die number pieces in the whole collection, by far the most ever assembled by a private collector. Only an illustrious few have ever attempted such an undertaking.
For the first five years of attempting this, the best quality was only accepted for the various die numbers, however it became readily apparent that many of the die numbers were just not obtainable in top grade, this being at a time when a collector was doing well to merely obtain a date in top grade. With the sale of the Douro Cargo of gold Sovereigns in November 1996, a sale in which your present writer was one of the principle cataloguers (four different people catalogued Douro as it was such a Herculean task by quantity within the deadline), a massive opportunity arose to obtain many die numbers at one fell swoop, with most well preserved after their time on the seabed of the Bay of Biscay.
The Bentley Collector ended up securing over 130 pieces at once through an agent at this momentous sale, which increased the collection of die numbers at this time to 216 pieces. A further large addition was made in 2001 from a collection of Sovereigns that was previously unsuccessfully offered for sale as one lot at Sotheby, 16-17 November 2000, an “Important Collection of Gold Sovereigns 1816-2000.” This collector had also attempted the die number series and had also bought many in the Douro Cargo auction, managing to amass a total of 195 die numbers. The two collectors eventually were put in touch and a great many Sovereigns changed hands, thus adding many to the Bentley holding.
Since the auction of the Douro Cargo in 1996, other parcels of Douro coins have come to the market, which were groups that were shared out to other individuals involved with the salvaging of the cargo. These have been the richest source for obtaining further die numbers in more recent years, mainly through the auspices of Paul Davies Ltd.
Michael Marsh has been the only author to attempt to record as many of the die numbers as possible, presumably from those either seen by him or reported to him in commerce or in institutional records or collections, and these are listed in his book.
With the Bentley Collection we have produced a never before attempted tabulation of all the die numbers against their respective dates. Those that are not recorded by Marsh are highlighted, and the gaps in the collection that Marsh claims exist are denoted as “M”.
A copy of this table is available in the printed edition of the catalogue for The Bentley Collection and online at www.baldwin.co.uk/auction-73.
In the table all the Bentley die numbers are ticked and the ones Marsh records additionally as “known” are marked with a red M. On some occasions the Bentley collection contains a die number not recorded in Marsh. These are marked with a red tick. It is interesting to note patterns in this table, of what runs of numbers exist for which date side by side with other adjacent dates. Looking at the end of the period where the numbers run to over 100 in a given year, it is interesting to see there is no die number 107 in the Bentley Collection for 1871 or 1872, but there is for 1873. Marsh claims it should exist for 1871, but we wonder if perhaps it was intended to be used for 1871 originally but ended up being stored until use for 1873 dated coins, perhaps the Mint record reflects this and is where Marsh obtained information about it being for 1871 originally as he also records it for 1873.
It should be noted that the Bentley Collector supplied information on die numbers in this collection to Marsh for publication in the latest edition of the book in 2002. If the 2002 edition is compared to the edition before it will be seen how many die numbers have been added! However this cataloguer cannot help but feel that there are a few inaccuracies in the Marsh listings of die numbers in his book “The Gold Sovereign”, not only because he recorded numbers given to him in correspondence from others which are always open to misinterpretation without Mr Marsh seeing the reported coin for himself; but also because it seems that some consecutive runs of numbers listed as “known” just do not seem to turn up on the marketplace. This is demonstrated where the Bentley Collector has taken 20 years, without finding a single die number in a consecutive sequence, for a date like 1870 from die 2 until 79 inclusive which Marsh claims all exist. Knowing that some of the mintage figures in Marsh’s tabulations have typographic errors, it follows that the listings of die numbers could be flawed also. Mr Marsh was in touch with the Royal Mint at times so it may be that records there will show which numbers should exist and perhaps this sort of information was incorporated in the listings. These anomalies remain to be proven with continued research, but it should be noted that with these tiny die numbers, it is notoriously easy to mistake a 5 for a 3 and vice versa. Human error will always creep in though it is hoped the physical recording of the Bentley die numbers herewith are 100% accurate.
The Reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901)
House of Hanover
Born: 24 May 1819
Accession: 20 June 1837
Married: Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, 10 February 1840
Coronation: Thursday 28 June 1838
Children: four sons, five daughters
Died: 22 January 1901, aged 81
Estimate: £350-450