Charliemouse

The small ones are just as good, honestly. Even the 1/20oz is sharp.

Great pics. Better than 95% of what I see online. Sharp. Fills the frame. Good colour. Tripod is so important! Sounds like the most boring thing in the world (probably is), but getting the right pod just makes everything else work.

Wipe clean. Very practical.

Shhh! You want to start a war?

Agreed! It's a nice design. The RAM web site appears to be in a very broken state. I guess we wait before they turn up here.

Not received today on the TIR thread? Chris!!!! 🤣 Wen flip?

Agreed. It's a belter. But a slightly unfair comparison being a much larger coin. I do have the set, so will look at a smaller one.

Here are wider images of the maple and roo for context.

Here's a couple: 2014 1oz Reverse Proof Maple 2014 1/4oz Proof Kangaroo

Difficult to be precise. The closest this lens focuses is about 12mm, which gives a stated magnification of 700x. I take these figures with a bit of a pinch of salt though, and it obviously depends what monitor you view it on. A more useful measure is what distance the image covers on the subject. The image of George's head is about 1.5mm x 1mm.

Here's a couple of Gillicks. First year and last year. Sadly, only bullion. 1958 Bullion Full Sovereign 1968 Bullion Full Sovereign Amazingly, I think there is more definition in these faces than in the 2015 proof above. Of course the finish is not as good with bullion, but it makes you wonder.

Which do you mean? The previous two were Perth and Canada. They are the only proof coins I have with the Pistrucci design, to compare George's head like with like. I am happy to photograph anything I've got with the microscope, but I don't have proofs going further back than the 1980's.

It's always the leprechauns. 🤣

I have no idea. Hopefully someone with more coin minting knowledge can answer. In the meantime, here are some more pics. Including some missing 'frosting'. For scale, those digits are approximately 1.5mm tall. That makes the 'striations' about 50 microns wide.

1999 Perth Mint Bi-Metallic Sovereign 2018 RCM $200 110th Anniversary .99999 This is just weird. Appears to be made with an entirely difference process.

It's a valid point. I do not have any old proof sovereigns, so I cannot go further back. But I can compare modern proof coins from other mints, even if it isn't like-for-like.

Agreed. The frosting gets more 'frosty' as time moves forward (and more holes), but the definition of the face and detail gets worse. What is especially noticeable is that, with the 1984, I could not keep the whole face in focus because the relief was so much higher. The later coins, especially the 2015, are flatter and easily focused.

I think we are now arguing semantics (not where I wanted this thread to go, but there). They are defects only in that they are imperfections, not intended or part of the design, but artefacts of manufacture. Of course no coin is going to be perfect, so by that definition all coins have defects. Other possible definitions of 'defect': It can be seen unaided. It can be seen with a certain magnification (such as graders do). You can see it and care about it. All of these definitions are subjective, as different people have different eyesight, skills and standards. That's why I put the word 'defect' in quotes.

1984 1986 2015

Exactly my point. I am just interested in what these 'defects' are and how they happen.

I do buy 69s because I can get real bargains. But when you grade something new and it comes back 69, it's marginal whether it was worth the time and money. The market only seems to want 70s.

Sadly, the world we live in now is one where visible perfection isn't good enough. It has to be perfect at 5x to get that precious 70 grade. The step down in value to 69 is ridiculous.

Take the image of the Panther's jaw, picture 4. The entire image is about 1.5mm wide by 1mm tall. The frosting hole is just visible to the naked eye if you look for it. In contrast, the Yale's tongue in image 5 is about 1mm long, so that image is about 5x3mm. You can tell it is zoomed out as the frosting appears finer. To be clear, I am not complaining about these. Plenty of other threads for that. None are visible without very close inspection. I am more interested in sharing the images and learning.

I've had these coins for a while now. In some cases, I wish I'd looked at them as closely sooner. They are not returnable any more, but that's really not the point of this thread. I would be very interested to know the likely cause of any of these marks / 'defects'. All the pictures were taken close to minimum distance, approx. 15-20mm. That gives a magnification around 300-500x. Definite signs of a shifting die between impressions. A few typical frosting holes. Not much wrong here. Ripples in the fields I find very attractive, and can sometimes be caught when the angle is just right with the SLR. Again, obvious die shift, plus a strange 'bleeding' effect. Also maybe some milk spotting or minor discolouration on the left. 'Big' gaps in the frosting here. Amazingly, very difficult to spot with the naked eye, this looks quite horrible with the microscope. Almost like the surface is flaking off. These look like very small impact marks not visible to the naked eye. But might be fibres caught in the strike. Also some very fine trails in the fields; I guess a cleaning issue with the die leaving imperfections in the surface. Bit messy here. Looks like foreign bodies in the fields, causing a mark to spread out. Some different type of discolouration here.

I'm certain I have seen it. Will find some interesting examples, and probably create a new thread to discuss.