Charliemouse

Just for interest, the quarter uses a font called Albertus (Identifont - Albertus). It has a stem on the capital U, which does make it look lower case.

Perhaps this version... (It's not real. But I'd buy it if it was.)

It's art, init.

2024 1oz Silver Britannia and Liberty

This is what I mean by number 2 above. It has nothing to do with 'faults', which is number 3. It is about depth and intricacy of the design. Every individual coin for each year will be about the same.

In an effort to get this thread back on track, and move the 'quality' discussion somewhere else...

People mean lots of different things when they talk about quality. Probably not an exhaustive list, but here is how I would break it down. Intricacy and fineness of the design. This is a factor of the time and skill invested into the design and 'mastering'. Constant across all individual coins of the same design. Depth and detail in the coin. This is a factor of the capability of the machines, and the ambition of the design. Could vary between first and last strike. Chance of individual coins having acceptable levels of faults. This is a factor of the quality and maintenance of the machines and raw materials, the quality of handling, the ability and willingness of the QC process to find issues. Varies coin to coin. Number 1 is going to be very subjective. RM release a lot more designs each year than they used to, and whether one is better than another varies with personal opinion. Number 2, the relief and detail inherent in the designs, have clearly worsened. e.g. In bullion, it is obvious to see the newer sovereigns are flatter and more 'jelly' like than they used to be. I don't think that is disputable. And with the albeit limited sample of microscope photos I have taken, you can clearly see the detail in proof sovereigns has diminished over the last e.g. 30 years. And there is an obvious trade off in the real world. A highly ambitious design will probably cost more, be harder to mint, and will generate more faulty coins. Before this is a 100% Royal Mint bashing exercise, I would say that I saw similar reduction in detail with Perth Mint coins across the same time period. Whether 3 has become worse in absolute terms, I honestly don't know. From all the voices on the forum, clearly it has. But I haven't been collecting long enough, and I don't own enough 'older' proof coins to see that objectively. Coin for coin, I have no idea what the return rates used to be. I think the return rates for everything, from cars to lightbulbs, is much higher than it used to be (for all sorts of reasons), so again that is very difficult to compare. I know that people are now able to scrutinise coins in far more detail. I also know that people on this forum are far more discerning than the average punter. My personal experience buying proof coins from RM is that the first time I receive a proof it probably has a 70% chance of having unacceptable levels of faults. I will send it back and the second time it will have maybe a 20% chance of having unacceptable faults. This has happened multiple times. The difference between those numbers is too large to be a coincidence. So... one must conclude that RM has a systemic bias, either intentional or not, between the first release of coins and later fulfilling of returns. I am sure conspiracy theories abound. To be explicit, an example of an unintentional bias could be that the returns are fulfilled with later runs, where they have learned about the characteristics of the coin, are producing lower numbers, and therefore the chance of coins having errors is reduced. And example of an intentional bias could be that they believe the majority of their sales will be to people who don't scrutinise the coins closely, so they hold back the higher quality coins for those that bother to complain. Discuss.

My understanding is that it is created by laser etching, sand or bead blasting the surface of the die with various materials. Because it forms a very fine 'detailed' surface, it is very fragile, and tends to go missing on sharp edges and bends in the design. Plus it can break off.

2007 1/4oz Gold Proof Britannia Another one back from grading.

Not when they've both got MS70. They can stay imprisoned. 🤣

Picked up a nice haul from @GoldDiggerDave that had gone off to be graded a while ago. First up, a lovely pair of SOTD sovereigns from 2019, both top pop. (Photos from before entombment.)

Lovely coins. Well done.

Congrats

Pure aesthetics, probably PAMP Fortuna. I have seen silver and gold in various sizes of that. The Geigers look really nice, but I haven't seen their gold, only silver. Looks good from the photo.

Very much. Full sovs often fetch prices equal to or even above the doubles.

2024 Tudor Beast Dragon 1oz Silver Proof and Reverse Proof Set OK, here are some zoomed out microscope shots. I really do like the design. The dragon is mediaeval, so it is ugly by modern standards. But it does look like the statues at Hampton Court. You can hopefully see the road rash near the edge and some of the marks that meant I have to return them.

Lovely doubles. Best value of all the sov sizes, and big enough to see.

Don't get me wrong, both are gorgeous coins. I love the lettering on the 89. But I appreciate the fineness of the EIC. Neither coin is going to sell me on the obverse, though. 🙄

Figured you'd like that. And honestly it's true. The design itself has more detail, and the execution is better.

2024 Tudor Beast Dragon 1oz Silver Proof and Reverse Proof Set Let the RM bashing continue. Disappointed with the latest arrival. The RP came with some road rash, and the proof had a collection of dings. All easily visible with the naked eye. These are actually lovely coins, but I didn't bother to take 'proper' photos of them, as they are going straight back in the post.

So what are the differences? Frankly, not a lot between the two grades. Example: The PF69 has this fine line on one of the lions. where the PR70 doesn't. But I don't believe that would make a difference. I don't think it is visible even under a loupe. What does stand out is that the 2021 is much finer. Sure, it's 32 years newer, and the design is slightly different, but it is clearly more detailed.

Agreed. Having taken a lot of microscope photos as well as macro, dust and fibres are everywhere. Unless the mint is in a clean room, like an electronics fab, you will never be rid of them. And the moment you take off the top of the capsule to photograph it, it will be covered. Not to mention the micro plastics that shed from the capsules themselves. With the microscope, even slabbed coins are covered in tiny dust particles. Air dusters are useful (don't use the canned stuff), and there are some electrostatic options, but you won't ever get rid of all of it.

I am comparing 3 coins here. 1989 Proof Double Sovereign - PF69UCAM (NGC) 1989 Proof Double Sovereign - PR70DCAM (PCGS) 2021 Proof £2 St Helena (EIC) - PF70UCAM (NGC) I will try to highlight any differences I find, especially between the two coins with different grades. Will keep to the above order with photos. I will post more pictures of zoomed in areas of the coins further down the thread. Feel free to ask questions and put in requests.