silvergaga

I too would prefer it if all newly minted bullions coins came without scuffs or other handling marks.
We @ChardsCoinandBullionDealer do discuss production quality with the Royal Mint, and we do state where relevant, that bullion coins we supply may have bagmarks, etc. We have always made efforts to clearly and accurately describe products we offer for sale. As we now receive direct supplies of coins from the Royal Mint, we are under an obligation not to undermine their "brand".
I am sure many of our competitors fail to be as transparent or accurate in their descriptions as we do. I would prefer we did not need to "manage customers' expectations". In some cases, I am sure that some of these have become higher in recent years, possibly partly due to the rise in "slabbing" on the UK market.
Your definitions of bullion are incomplete. Here, we provide more thorough definitions:
https://www.chards.co.uk/guides/what-is-bullion/213
The most important and relevant point is "Bullion, a term used to describe precious metals that are valued for their weight and purity rather than for any collectible or numismatic value."
Of course, it would be preferable if bullion coins could be supplied perfect, without any scuffs, bagmarks, blemishes, etc., rather than simply in "Mint Condition", this last expression could be an interesting topic for debate, because most people use it synonymously with "perfect", which has hardly ever been the case during the 2,500 years of coin production.
Another possible option would be the existence and production of "Brilliant Uncirculated" versions of bullion coins at a slighly higher premium if necessary, and if there was sufficient demand. This does of course somewhat contradict the definition of "bullion"!
I am of course aware that many mints produce proof versions of their "bullion" coins, which get sold at much higher premiums, but again this in itself is arguably an oxymoron.
😎

The simple matter is that a damaged or poorly minted coin has lost the (hefty) premium paid by the purchaser instantly - the coin to most people then becomes 'bullion' and will be considered as a commodity (valued solely on spot price) rather than a coin. How on earth the RM (and others) has managed to persuade people that this is acceptable is beyond me.  
There is always an expectation with a manufactured product that you will receive something of a quality that matches the cost.  In the case of RM  coins sadly, this is often not the case. 
No reasonable person expects perfection with a mass-produced item, but when the premiums are so high, a certain level of quality should be achieved. I guess that the RMs view of acceptable falls well below that of the average purchaser. 
It is unfortunate that, as it stands, dealers (the biggest purchaser from RM) have no incentive to call out the manufacturer when they can simply re-sell the product with a catch-all 'bullion' description. That's why i detest the use of that word when it comes to coins.
 
 
 
 
  
 
 

Probably by the same way companies lead us to believe CDs are better than vinyl and digital cameras are better than film. They wrap inferior products in convenience and we buy because they charge a discouragingly higher price to get what we'd actually prefer. That said, I've not had any real howlers when buying bullion. I probably haven't bought enough of it to get stung yet lol.

But cd,s are better than vinyl and digital camera,s are better than film 

Possibly. But I'm an old stick in the mud and I don't like these new fangled gizmos. They'll never catch on  

It seems a bit OCD to me.  Coins get knocked about. It happens.  Many on the forum have sold proofs that are basically no longer proof and accept a loss of premium without tears. 
The cost to the mint to treat every coin minted as a proof would be huge , and the cost passed on to the customer.  
I'd say if you wanted to avoid paying premium on gold coins then buy bars. 
If you want perfection ( as best as you can hope for ) buy proof coins. 
Wanting the best of both worlds is not going to happen. 
 

At the end of the day, look at the actual mint process. The way they are made, packaged and sold then it is a wonder there is not more damage to ‘bullion’ coins. You pay less for them and they are not studied (usually) under a x5 loupe. Like the coins in your pocket, amazing not more damaged coins! Not seen any type of damage on any bullion coins that I have purchased. Just makes me laugh at people sell ‘proof’ coins that have been handled! All this fuss, why take a proof coin out of it’s capsule?🤔🧐🫢

Probably a crown? Possibly with the King and Queen on?🤔🧐 very souvenir ish design?

Just Seen This - King Charles Coronation Logo

KING CHARLES III
CORONATION 6TH MAY 2023
Looks good to me.
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64599029
King Charles coronation logo created by iPhone designer
It is highly likely to feature on a forthcoming coin.
😎

I noticed when checking the prices of a tube of silver Britannia's. A few days ago it was priced at £641 -- the most competitive on the market, about a pound cheaper than Chards. The following day, the price of silver dropped, so I was eager to see the Atkinson's price now. It became more expensive! Now it was £660 -- almost £20 more expensive than Chards.
I heard that Atkinson's was bought over by an American firm recently, I wonder if this has anything to do with it?
The reason why Atkinson's is so popular is mostly due to their competitive prices, often the best on the market. But if they are now going to be more expensive than others, I think many customers will buy where it is still cheap, like Chards or Tavex.
Any comments? I hope I'm wrong about this.

Are you sure that your 2022 Canadian worker isn't better off than a 1967 one? In terms of general living conditions, purchasing power (other than expressed in silver), public services available... If you agree, couldn't one claim this improvement was made possible by actually removing silver from Canadian coins..?
You see, it's very tempting to connect A and B and claim one influenced the other, but that's just an oversimplified view. Your analysis only proves that purchasing power expressed in silver decreased between 1967 and 2022 without any argument supporting that this decrease was caused by removing silver from Canadian coins.
In fact, it is really not sustainable to have a coin with higher melt value than nominal, so with increasing silver price, it was perfectly understandable to abolish silver coins. If once copper dramatically increases in price and copper coins will be removed from circulation and replaced by e.g. porcelain coins, will you also write in 40 years that this had not benefitted Canadian citizens?

A Precious Lesson – A Tale of Canadian Coins
By: Jordan Graveline
 
In July of 1840, the Act of Union was passed which would abolish the legislatures of Lower Canada (Quebec) and Upper Canada (Ontario). The Act of Union was officially proclaimed on February 10th, 1841 and with this new proclamation, a new political area known as the Province of Canada was formed. It would be another 27 years after the Act of Union passed that the new Dominion of Canada would form and thus the birth of the Canadian nation would begin its expanding journey.
In the later years of the Province of Canada’s existence, but before its formation as a country in 1867, it was decided that new coinage would be required for the expanding area. This new coinage would be minted for the Province of Canada by the Royal Mint in England. The first of the new coins would be minted in 1858 and consist of 1 cent, 5 cent, 10 cent, and 20 cent pieces. The following year would see only the 1 cent pieces minted for the Province of Canada. No more new coins would be minted until after the formation of the Dominion of Canada.
The Royal mint resumed minting coins for the newly formed country in 1870. It was decided to make several changes from the previous coins originally minted in 1858. These changes included dropping the 20 cent piece in favour of a 25 cent piece to more closely match the coins of Canada’s nearest trading partner; the United States of America. In addition, a new 50 cent piece was also minted. The Royal Mint would continue minting coins for Canada up to 1907. Canada would have its own minting facility, known as the Ottawa Mint, up and operational by January 2nd of 1908. With this new minting facility, Canada would no longer rely on England to produce any future coinage for the country.
During the time of 1870-1907 when the Royal Mint was responsible for Canada’s coinage and from 1908-1919 when Canada resumed responsibility on its own, the composition of Canadian coins was consistent. The 1 cent piece contained 95.5% copper, 3% tin, and 1.5% zinc while the 5 cent, 10 cent, 25 cent, and 50 cent pieces all contained 92.5% silver and 7.5% copper. However by 1920, Canada’s 1 cent piece was reduced in size by approximately 43% and the rest of the denominations would have their compositions changed from 92.5% silver and 7.5% copper to 80% silver and 20% copper in that same year. Furthermore in 1922, Canada’s 5 cent piece would cease containing silver and would have an entirely new composition consisting of 99% pure nickel (hence were the coin gets its modern day name). In 1935, a 1 dollar coin would be introduced and contain the same composition of 80% silver and 20% copper as the pieces from 1920. These changes would not be the last to Canada’s coins as more developments would continue in the coming decades.
Beginning in 1968, the 10 cent (dime), the 25 cent (quarter), the 50 cent (half dollar), and the 1 dollar coins would all make the transition to 99% (or greater) nickel composition. Present day, none of the modern coins intended for circulation in commerce contains any silver. Even the lesser valued, more abundant nickel metal, has since been replaced by an even cheaper, more abundant metal; steel. Today, most coins have had their composition changed to 92% steel or greater with a mix of small amounts of copper and/or nickel to create specific finishes on Canada’s various coins. The exception to this being the 1 cent coin, often referred to as the penny, which was discontinued after 2012; but not before also undergoing a change in composition from 98% copper (1996) to 98.4% zinc or 94% steel beginning in 2000. In every situation where the coinage underwent a change in composition, it was always away from a more valued metal and towards a cheaper, more abundant metal.
When the silver content was first changed in 1920, rising costs that resulted from WWI were to blame. Silver had gone from a low of $0.51 per ounce in January of 1915 to a high of $1.13 per ounce in January of 1919 which held steady throughout that year. Not long after the reduction of silver in the Canadian coins took place, the cost of silver fell and stabilized down to $0.63 per ounce in January of 1921. However, a return to the higher standard of purity never took place and the silver composition in Canadian coins remained at 80%. The next biggest change would be the total removal of all silver content which was accomplished in 1968.
Leading up to the total removal of silver from the coinage, silver’s price once again began to rise. In January of 1962, silver had climbed over the one dollar mark to reach a 42 year high of $1.09 per ounce. The following January, it was higher still at $1.29 per ounce. From January of 1963 until April of 1967, silver fluctuated a bit; ranging from a low of $1.29 to a high of $1.31 per ounce. During that time, the United States of America had passed the Coinage Act of 1965 which effectively removed all silver from circulating coins and authorized the production of clad coins. Canada followed suit in 1968 and was one of the last countries to have any silver content in circulating coins. The rising cost of silver seems to be the reason for its abolishment from Canadian coinage and all one needs to do is look at the final year in which Canadian coins contained silver to understand this concept.
The Canadian dollar in 1967 had a silver composition of 80% and a coin weight of 23.3 grams. This meant that a silver dollar from 1967 contained approximately 0.6 ounces of silver. At the beginning of 1967 when silver was valued at $1.29 per ounce, a Canadian dollar would have had a melt value of $0.774 due to the silver content of the coin. This is of course, less than the one dollar face value of the coin. However, by December of 1967, silver rose to $2.25 per ounce which would make the silver content in the coin now valued at $1.35. This is a 174.4% gain in silver melt value in one year. The silver value now being greater than the face value of the dollar coin posed a problem; the coins of all denominations containing silver would be very tempting to melt down and profit from the sale of their silver content. This is undoubtedly one of the prime reasons why silver was fully removed from coinage; it was considered too valuable to use as money. To understand whether or not the removal of silver was beneficial to the Canadian citizens, a comparison should be made involving the average salary of 1967 and the average salary from 2022.
According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, in 1967, the average Canadian salary for a person in manufacturing was $7,419. Assuming for a moment that this person had an affinity to silver coinage over the paper dollar counterpart, the silver contained within those 7,419 silver dollars would be equal to 4,451.4 ounces of silver. At the end of December 1967, with silver being valued at $2.25 per ounce, 4,451.4 ounces of silver would have a melt value of $10,015.65. Fast forward to modern day Canadian circulation coins, they do not contain any silver. Therefore, the melt value of modern day circulation coins cannot be used for direct comparison. Rather, the average salary in manufacturing in 2022 could be compared to the average salary in manufacturing in 1967 through the number of silver ounces that can be bought with that salary. According to Statistics Canada, in 2022, the average Canadian salary in manufacturing was $60,531. Since silver finished 2022 valued at $32.52 per ounce, this individual could only afford to buy 1,861.3 ounces of silver with their salary. To give a different perspective, if this individual in 2022 was paid the same salary from 1967 of $7,419 using only the same 1967 silver dollars containing 4,451.4 ounces of silver, then the silver content at $32.52 per ounce would have a melt value of $144,759.53. As seen through these comparisons, removing silver from Canadian coins did not benefit the Canadian citizens. The average person in a manufacturing job in 2022 is only making approximately 41.8% of the salary that the average person in 1967 made in a manufacturing job when viewing the value of the coinage through the lens of silver.
 
 The Devaluation of Canadian Coins throughout the Decades
 
1858 - 1859
1876 - 1920
1920 - 1941
1942 - 1977
1978 - 1996
1997 - 1999
2000 - 2012
2000 - 2012
2013 - present
 
1 Cent
(large) *last produced in 1920
95% copper, 4% tin, 1% zinc
95.5% copper, 3% tin, 1.5% zinc
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 Cent
(small) *first produced in 1920
 
 
95.5% copper, 3% tin, 1.5% zinc
98% copper, 0.5% tin, 1.5% zinc
98% copper, 1.75% tin, 0.25% zinc
98.4% zinc, 1.6% copper plating
94% steel, 1.5% nickel, 4.5% copper plating (magnetic)
98.4% zinc, 1.6% copper plating (Non-magnetic)
dis-continued
 
 
 
1858, 1870 - 1919
1920 - 1921
1922 - 1942
1942 - 1943
1944 - 1945
1946 - 1951
1951 - 1954
1955 - 1981
1982 - 1999
2000 - present
5 Cent
92.5% silver, 7.5% copper
80% silver, 20% copper
99% nickel
88% copper, 12% zinc (tombac)
chrome plated steel
99.9% nickel
chrome plated steel
99.9% nickel
75% copper, 25% nickel
94.5% steel, 3.5% copper, 2% nickel plating
 
 
1858, 1870 - 1919
1920 - 1967
1968 - 1999
2000 - present
 
 
 
 
 
 
10 Cent
92.5% silver, 7.5% copper
80% silver, 20% copper
99.9% nickel
92% steel, 5.5% copper, 2.5% nickel
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1858
1870 - 1919
1920 - 1967
1968 - 1999
2000 - present
 
 
 
 
 
20 Cent
*replaced by the 25 cent piece
92.5% silver, 7.5% copper
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
25 Cent
 
92.5% silver, 7.5% copper
80% silver, 20% copper
99.9% nickel
94% steel, 3.8% copper, 2.2% nickel
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1870 - 1919
1920 - 1967
1968 - 1999
2000 - present
 
 
 
 
 
 
50 Cent
92.5% silver, 7.5% copper
80% silver, 20% copper
99% nickel (minimum)
93.15% steel, 4.75% copper, 2.1% nickel plating
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1935 - 1967
1968 - 1982
1982 - 1986
1987 - 2012
2012 - present
 
 
 
 
 
1 Dollar
80% silver, 20% copper
99.9% nickel
99% nickel (minimum)
91.5% nickel, 8.5% bronze plating
multi-ply brass plated steel
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1996 - 2012
2012 - present
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 Dollar
outer ring: 99% nickel
 
 insert: 92% copper, 6% aluminum, 2% nickel
outer ring: multi-ply nickel plated steel
 
insert: multi-ply brass plated aluminum bronze
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

In 1983 a total of 6,840 gold bars were stolen from a high security vault in Heathrow in what is still considered to be ‘the crime of the century’.
40 years on and the gold heist is still the biggest single-theft of gold in history. What’s incredible is that the perpetrators never even expected to steal any gold. They were instead expecting to find around £3 million in cash. 
After failing to get into the targeted vault the armed robbers discovered three tons of gold bullion as well as diamonds and cash. Recorded testimony of one of the security guards recalls the delight of one of the robbers when he realises some previously looked over grey boxes contain gold bars that are ‘four nines!’ the purest of gold bullion bars. 
This weekend sees the release of the six-part drama The Gold, in the UK. The series is based on the infamous 1983 Brinks Mat heist that saw six-armed men steal over £26 million of gold bullion from the security depot at Heathrow. Today that same gold would be worth over £100 million. 
Accidental Treasure Hunting
What was supposed to be a quick smash and grab involving a few bags to help carry away £3 million in cash, soon turned into a protracted, drawn out operation. The operation ended up taking over two hours and catapulted the six men into history books as the perpetrators of the ‘crime of the century’. In many ways, the crime is still ongoing. Only half of the gold has ever been recovered. 
In total 6,840 gold bars were stolen along with cash and diamonds worth £113,000. Of course, the tale doesn’t end there. It is very difficult to make gold just ‘disappear’ and convert into far more easily hidden cash.
A trail of death and violence has followed the Brinks Mat gold for the last forty years. The gang ended up roping in a number of nefarious individuals to help them smelt and disperse the gold in order to realise some of its cash value. The proceeds from the robbery are thought to have fuelled the London Docklands property boom as well as the UK cocaine market. 
Worried about the integrity of the London Gold Market, the Bank of England had to step in and rescue the gold’s owners, the banking and gold-trading arm of Johnson Matthey, when they collapsed less than a year later. 
Our Obsession with Gold
The trailers for the BBC series have prompted many viewers to recall back to the time when the robbery had just happened. It’s fixed in many peoples’ memories; it was such a significant theft. But I wonder if a standard robbery of cash would have had the same lasting effect? I suspect not. 
There is something about gold that grabs most people’s attention. Take the robbers who stole the gold, for example. There is nothing to suggest that these were men familiar with the spot price of gold, no indication that they saw those 6,000 bars of gold and knew how much it was worth. But, they did know it was worth making the extra effort to steal, instead of trying to get at the planned £3 million in cash. 
Gold is one of the few things we have in common with ancestors from long ago. We desired it 1,000 years ago, 500 years ago, 100 years ago, and (clearly) forty years ago. Just as we do today. There are few things we instinctively know about finance and investments, but the need to own gold is one of them. 
Why Gareth Soloway is “unbelievably bullish” on gold and silver
 
This has something to do with the fact that the yellow metal has stood the test of time. Some psychologists have also postulated that we are attracted to precious metals and stones because they shine and sparkle.
Much like the reflection of the sun on the water, the most necessary resource that the human brain is designed to spot and identify. This might be one of the reasons, but I think it’s because we know that the gold our multiple-great grandfather dug up and wore proudly round his neck or exchanged for livestock and land, still exists today.
Gold is timeless. As we see from the disaster that was the aftermath of the Brinks-Mat robbery, it is near-impossible to disappear. 
In fact, it is rumoured that much of the unrecovered gold has made its way back into the gold market through various ways and means. It’s still pure gold and arguably back in its rightful place. 
Small fry in today’s money
What’s really fascinating though is that the theft of over (in today’s money) £100 million of gold was the crime of the century but of the 20th century. Because there is no way that it compares in any way to the ongoing theft that we are currently experiencing in the 21st century. 
I am, of course, referring to the inflationary efforts of central banks. 
The Bank of England inflation calculator shows that £10 in 1983 (the year of Brinks Mat robbery) would now be worth £29.95. That’s not because interest rates have been so generous or because your money has been so wisely invested. It’s because the pound is now worth three times less than it would have been worth, then. Something that cost you £10 then, would now cost you nearly £30. 
For the US Dollar, an item that cost you $10 would today cost you $29.33. A similar rate of depreciation that has occurred to the GBP. 
It’s a similar story in the Eurozone, since its launch in 1999, €10 is now worth €16.40. 
That gold today might have gone up over 5 times in price (and so arguably outperformed inflation), but we’re still talking about the same amount of gold. The thieves haven’t managed to make more gold. Instead, as time passed, gold has hugely increased in price relative to the British pound, dollar, etc. But, more importantly, it has held its value. 
Whoever has been holding onto that gold since 1983 will have stolen something that was worth around £280 per ounce, and today is worth £1,560 per ounce (at the time of writing).
 
They have the same amount of gold and it has the same amount of value, just an increased price. Yet the £3 million in cash they wanted to steal would be worth significantly less, three times less. 
When we admire how much the price of gold has gone up since the Brinks Mat robbery, we’re actually grave dancing. Because what we’re celebrating is the theft of value from fiat currencies or a loss of wealth for those who have been saving in cash and cash-based assets.
That is why the central banking antics of the 21st century will be the biggest theft of the century and we’re not even a quarter of the way through it yet. 
Looking forward to watching The Gold but no access to the BBC? It’s due out in the US later in the year, but in the meantime check out our gold short for a bit more Gold drama. 
 

They’re relying on you now though!🤔 I just feed birds every day. What started off as half a dozen sparrows is now a flock of 30 or 40! Top up the bird bath and food twice a day!

Got them with the other half's nectar points Technically cheaper than tubes. as they cost me nothing. And I helped employ a 7 year old in China. They get to eat. I have capsules and the other half get to have 8 wardrobes of cr&p she'll never wear. 

Lion around £1660
Yale around £1640
 

I thought this might be of interest here on the forum, for those who haven’t seen the adverts, a new drama starts next Sunday called The Gold about a 1983 robbery of three tonnes of gold in London.
Some of you might even remember it at the time. Here’s the trailer and no I don’t work for the BBC. 😆
I just thought it might be of interest to my fellow TSF members as it does look like it could be a good series.
Now, what would you do with three tonnes of gold….
 

Is today an all time high?

Having had a few weeks to try out @DrDave's axial lighting box (ALB) I thought I would share the results here in the form of a photo-rich review so you can see what it does, how easy it is to use, and what the results are like.
What is the axial lighting box?
So firstly, the premise is a simple kit to enable you to photograph coins with axial lighting - that means light that is coming from the same direction as you are shooting from, which means no shadows across the coin and all features evenly lit without reflections. Of course this is impossible with a normal camera as you cannot have a light source where the lens is, but this piece of kit uses a sheet of glass to reflect light from the source down onto the coin and you photograph through the glass.
The advantage of this is that you can photograph the coin straight on so the coin appears round, and not cast a shadow with your camera. Your light source is out of the way at right angles.
 
Out of the box
DrDave put together this simple 3D printed kit for this. It consists of the glass-holding unit with a cut out to put the coin in, and a baffle to prevent the light source shining directly onto the coin, the sheet of glass and a translucent diffuser sheet.


The price was £24.99 posted and this unit was not provided for review purposes by DrDave.
First impressions are good. It's a well designed and executed holder made of 2mm thick plastic which seems sturdy. The glass itself has sharp edges and corners so care must be taken. The glass just rests on the holder at 45°.
Useful to know is that the height of the kit from the coin to the top edge of the glass is 12cm. It is possiblbe to get a phone to around 10cm from the coin as it is a bit smaller in width but that leaves no room to rotate, so 12cm to be safe. Also with DSLR lenses etc. you need to factor in the length of these. I believe minimum lens focus distance is measured to the sensor which is at the back of the DSLR body so to achieve macro focus there is a lot in the way. 
 
Set up
The set up is simple. I used my anglepoise desk lamp fitted with a 10W LED bulb and took photos with my Samsung S10 mobile phone on 2x zoom, so no special kit whatsoever. I propped the ALB on a small box so as to put it more in line with the light source. I also used a black book propped up to the right of the ALB to prevent reflections coming off the top of the glass.

 
Results
So on to the results. I photographed a variety of coins to show how they appear under different lighting conditions and show the differences in the results.
Firstly a large shiny coin - a 1oz silver panda. The coin in the capsule fits into the coin opening with a couple of mm to spare all round. The opening will allow coins up to 47mm diameter so perfect for all 1oz coins but too small for e.g. 2oz silver Lunars.
This is photographed without the ALB with the light off to the left

 
Using the ALB without the diffuser results in a strange reflection of the light source.

 
Using the ALB with the diffuser makes the lighting more even and eliminates the strange reflections. 
Comparing with the image taken without, it is a much more "clean" image without the harsh contrast, however, the milking on the coin does not show, nor does the contrast between frosted and mirrored surfaces or the fine texture on the frosted areas. It may be more suited to a "stock" image as it shows off the design effectively and TBH makes the coin look better than it is!

 
Now a 1oz Matte finish coin - ASE
Without the ALB
Note many areas either have overexposed highlights or no definition. Camera is not straight on to the coin so there is a focus gradient

 
With the ALB, no diffuser
Really makes the image pop. Some surfaces are quite dark however.

 
With the diffuser the whole lighting becomes much more even though loses the "pop" of the previous image

 
 
An 1830 polished gold sovereign
WITHOUT the ALB
Lighting to the left. Note how prominently the scratches perpendicular to the light source show.

 
Light source in line with the coin almost overhead. Camera straight on to preserve focus across the coin (well, in theory - I see the right side is pretty soft). 
Note horizontal scratches now show more. Also note uneven lighting with the top half being overexposed in areas and the bottom half a bit dull.

 
This photo with lighting directly reflecting off the coin, so the camera is not straight on, resulting in out of focus areas at the top and bottom of the coin, also a yellow cast caused by the bright reflection making the camera adjust the white balance.

 
With the ALB. No diffuser
Soft focus notwithstanding (my bad), the coin is evenly lit, the surface shows well (although hairline scratches disappear) and focus is flat across the coin as it's taken straight on.

 
With the diffuser, the light is too even and all contrast disappears. The diffuser is not suited for this scenario.

 

Now a Morgan Dollar
Without the ALB
Lighting off to the left in this shot, there are strong highlights and other areas lacking definition.

 
Reflection directly off the coin in attempt to make lighting more even results again in focus gradient.

 
With the ALB (no diffuser)
A much more professional looking photo that shows off the details really well but does disguise some of the scratches on the cheek shown in photos above.
Note the optical illusion that makes the letters appear incuse rather than relief!

 
With the diffuser, there is no contrast and many features vanish.

 
 
A shiny quarter dollar
Without ALB and lighting off to the left shows off the coin well and with it being a small coin focus is fine.

 
With the ALB, some reflections and dust on the glass start to become a nuisance. Glass must be kept clean, and the rest of the room needs to be dark. A large black surface opposite the light source is a must.
However, the coin is shown off at its best here and hairline scratches are hidden.

 
Don't use the diffuser for anything other than proof mirror-fields....

 
 
Last coin, a very small platinum panda
No ALB
Mirror fields go black as they are reflecting the dark room, and contrast nicely with the frosted surfaces.

 
ALB with no diffuser.
This being a graded coin means there is a plastic surface in front of the coin which reflects the light back at you resulting in the ghost image of the light source. No good.

 
With diffuser, we can now see the coin much better although I am missing the mirror/frosted contrast again. No ALB seems to be the best in this scenario.

 
Conclusions: 
I think this is a good product which in the right situations can make a coin look superb, although often at the expense of total disclosure of the condition. You can understand why dealers and auction houses love using it  
It seems to work especially well with bullion or circulation coins with an even matte texture such as the ASE, but also crowns, Morgan dollars and similar.
Proof coins present difficulties but I find just using a dark background and a bit of zoom to get close to "straight on" work best. The ALB removes the frosted/mirrored contrast which in my opinion is a loss.
For smaller coins this kit is not so useful for me using a mobile as I have to use excessive zoom to fill the frame with the coin. With a proper camera with macro/zoom lens this will likely be less of an issue as the minimum focus distance is anyway larger. The closest I can get my phone to the coin is about 9cm which is perfect for 40mm coins but 20mm coin photos will need to be heavily cropped. A smaller format "phone version" with a ~5cm minimum focus distance would be ideal for my use.
If I would make a suggestion to improve the useability of the product it would be to have the glass slot in to a rail like the diffuser. This would prevent cuts on the glass, and make it easier to store it and move it around without the glass falling off. However, it is a good product for using axial lighting for coins and I found it pretty straightforward to use.
 
Thanks for checking out my review. I'd love to know all your thoughts:
Which scenario do you think the ALB really comes into its own?
Which is my best photo in this thread?

Steering the topic away from Sovereigns for a moment, I'm surprised the mint website still doesn't have the Rolling Stones bullion coin on it yet.
The 1oz silver is a limited edition of 25,000 and it's been available here for about a week: https://www.silvertrader.uk/product/2022-the-rolling-stones-music-legends-1-oz-silver-bullion-coin/

The Royal Mint have a collection of World Coins for sale.
https://www.royalmint.com/shop/coin-sets/Flagship-Coins-of-the-World-1oz-Silver-Bullion-Coin-Set/

Welcome 

No standard definition, but for the UK, it really means coins not minted in any of the normal places you'd normally buy from, but still minted locally as coins in their country of origin.  Mexican coins would probably qualify as 'world gold', and most South American coins certainly would.  U.S. or Canadian coins probably wouldn't be viewed that way here.
Not sure the Somali Elephant would qualify as world gold, as it's minted by an outfit in Germany that's spun a deal with the Somali government and predominantly sold as bullion.  They were never intended to be issued as circulated currency in Somalia, although they are technically legal tender in the way that Britannias are here.

Well we all know that many mints produce their own coins and they can be classed as world coins. Yet which ones truly are?
Yes, the Britannia, ASE, Maple Leaf, Kangaroo and Panda will fit in no probs but others, when does the line end?
I should think the Noah's Ark, Philharmonic and Krugerrand must count. 
What of the Niue Turtle and Owl, or the Somalian Elephant, of indeed the Kook, Koala, Canada's wildlife or the Royal Arms and Valiant? Do they count?
Over to you and type about this for a bit.🙂

Try the coin cabinet, they currently have a 45 sovereign set on offer for £39,500! 🤔🧐🧐