1983 Isle of Man Sovereign

7Jaguars

7Jaguars

Oops, well here's the obverse:

BillDugan1959

I understand why you posted this up (it's not listed in the SCWC), but even as a 22 karat Gold widget it's still part if a vast flood of dubious NCLT from a private producer. Still, one can't just throw away a Gold widget.

PatAR

Did not know about this one! Did you get it recently?

Bill, I have to admit that I generally share your perspective regarding a lot of modern NCLT. However, the small initials "FM" in exergue on obverse are intriguing to myself and, apparently, a good number of other folks.

The over marketed Franklin Mint medals and other collectibles that I remember tossing in junk bins 30 years ago have seen a small (very small) resurgence of interest. However, some of the government issued coins that the Franklin Mint produced in the 1970s and 1980s are now rather hard to find in gem condition and sought by a growing number of collectors. I'm not certain why others like them, but for myself it is an odd fascination with the history of the company and my belief that the zenith of the Franklin Mint's efforts are represented by these often overlooked legal tender coins.

I actually prefer the designs of the coins they produced for the Caribbean countries, but I'm always interested in seeing nice examples or little known issues of these.

coinkat

I like it... I share the fascination others have with some modern issues... Including the Franklin Mint. The surviving population of certain issues seems to be a modern mystery that adds to the fun to the search.

BillDugan1959

Those initials are NOT "FM" but are rather "PM", or "Pobjoy Mint" which is/ was a small private minter. There is website that is not too clear about their current organization; Wikipedia also has an article which details its beginnings. Besides NCLT for a few places, Pobjoy Mint was a great producer of regalia and militaria/ insignia for Middle Eastern countries. Probably still around in some corporate format/ capacity. I wondered if they still have their own coin/medal production facilities or if they contract out their work, but Wikipedia seems to think that they still strike their own stuff.

This "coin" is NOT Franklin Mint! The art and die work of old Franklin Mint was much superior to most Pobjoy product. And despite the superiority, Franklin Mint still gets melted everyday.

The Franklin Mint typically used a modern, highly stylized "F" as its Mint mark (apparently this is a "F" with a stretched "M" as the crossbar).

You can't throw away a Gold Widget, but it is still a widget.

7Jaguars

Well, got this in a British auction about a year ago. My mother's side of the family is mostly Scandinavian & discovered these in the 1980s. I've given many as gifts that were greatly appreciated, and some as jewelry! This is quite a large blowup with admittedly inferior engraving to the Franklin Mint products but love it anyway.
This one is quite rare, and even though the Population at PCGS says there is another at "65", I'm not sure if that is not the other sovereign issued in this year that featured towns/regions of the Isle of Man. This is the first that I have seen published.
Some are quite rare, and these are now seeming to generally rise in value, which I like to see but I am a collector. PM me for a copy of pages from the book that catalogs which types are available.

As far as the Franklin Mint, I also like some of the bits struck for different countries and as Bill has said some are rising up quite a bit past original issue price. The execution and craftsmanship is really superior, and the reader may note that some of the engravers came from the US Mint and others went back over to the US mint (i.e. Dan Everhart who is due to retire soon) and assumed very high positions on staff.

Before we consign these to widget status and move on, I would just like to say that many products of the US Mint are far, far worse with obscene prices. One example is seen if you look at Legend's advertising and see that a THREE CENT PIECE just sold for $58,000! Now that IMO is outrageous for an UGLY superwidget. And besides, collecting is collecting. I can't stand all the BS that the FM sold (like not just all the gold-plated medals, but the dolls, fake jewelry, model cars, etc.) and their pallor seems to affect people's opinions of the numismatic coin products they struck for countries.

Actually, I like this to some degree as it keeps prices way down for what are many times beautiful and very scarce coins. Unfortunately, many are rising up from the mists; one example is the January sale of the Richard Stuart Panama collection where a 1982 Unc. (U) 100 Balboas sold for $3,600! Anyway, I welcome discussion and also as an avid collector will respond to PMs as well.

BillDugan1959

Sometime in the 1980s, Franklin Mint underwent a corporate reorganization, probably after a period of financial distress. The new owners moved well beyond coins, medals small metal sculptures and fancy books into more diverse collectibles. There is a disconnect between the early and later products of The Franklin Mint in terms of diversity and perhaps quality.

This gold widget is just a private Mint knock-off of Benedetto Pistrucci's St. George and the Dragon design for the reverse of the British Gold sovereign of 1817 and later. The "PM" mintmark is even placed in the exact spot where the British sovereign sports the designer's initials "B.P." Did the Vikings have horses? If they did, did they ride them? What is the lump on the ground under the horse (where the dragon lies on a British sovereign)? Is it mountains in the distance, or a dead body? This design is just a weak pastiche of a British sovereign.

If there are 65 of these in existence, well you have to find 66 people who want one to get things going. For jewelry purposes, there are earlier dates that would substitute just as readily.

It's desirable as a piece of gold. Beyond that, meh.

Anything that is listed in the Red Book has jumped an important hurdle, nicely done, poorly done, cheap or expensive. Life isn't fair and it doesn't always make sense.

7Jaguars

Quite valid perspective, but if you can find the other 1983s, I would definitely be a buyer at bullion! Actually, what I meant to say was that this is the only one published to my knowledge and that the other one in the PCGS pop is graded as "Proof 65".
Not here to disagree with the assessment that the British sov was chosen as the model - the ground is likely a chunk of slate or granite.
Speaking of Franklin Mint, did you see my post on the specimen 1984 Jamaica Ten Dollars? Nice, simple design. I've also posted some other FM finds of interest like Barbados & Panama.

BillDugan1959

I will go and look at it again, my memory is fuzzy - I wasn't near my books when I first looked at that post.

I have one or two crowns that were made by the Franklin Mint in both silver and copper nickel and because the pieces are prooflike and highly reflective it is hard to tell the metal by eyesight alone.

Exbrit

Very nice - hard to find

7Jaguars

Thanks! Not that it matters, but not sure how this only got a "67" as it looks fairly blemish-free to my eyes.

Allegedly, the 1987 cupronickel one pound coin was struck in gold & possibly platinum but have not seen other that the silver proof and silver piedfort proof versions, which are scarcer than authorised mintage IMO. However, this version which evidently comes from a legend on Man is quite unpleasant looking!

BillDugan1959

The Isle of Man is for the restless and bored domestic holiday-maker who has too much money for Blackpool and not enough money for Portugal. 4 days/ 3 nights and drunk out-of-your-gourd on the second afternoon.

Gold widget, dicey NCLT.

PatAR

My apologies for the confusion. My eyesight is apparently worse than I realized and my mind incorrectly associated it with the actual FM issue 7Jaguars also posted in another thread recently. My mistake.

That said, I stand by my sentiments regarding the FM issues.