LawrenceChard

Good. I was (mainly) joking! 😎

Thank you. Do you fancy a job as a researcher / numismatist? 😎

"Might be worth seeing if Chards have any 'minty' ones on the special VAT scheme that can work out cheaper." Brand new ones actually! 😎

Some people / buyers don't appreciate a good deal when they see one. "as bars seem to be more desirable" - absolute nonsense! 😎

I hope it was not a hernia suffered through lifting monster boxes of one kilo silver coins. I posted this recently: £879 does sound expensive, but... https://www.chards.co.uk/2022-koala-silver-one-kilogram-coin-perth-mint/15153 £724 plus postage as I am writing this. Of course, the kilo silver coin at Atkinsons does include "Free UK Delivery". Does this make it worth £155 more? @ChardsCoinandBullionDealer do have other Australian kilo silver coins in stock, and did have a proof panda some time ago. 😎

I notice that what I labelled as a kantharos or cantharus is described as a tripod, which it undoubtedly is, but... ... can they be one and the same thing? It does not necessarily follow that "my" coin was minted at Kolophon, as Numista does not state or explain. Perhaps the tripod denotes having been produced at the Kolophon mint, but that is partly why I said I need to do some homework. Similar coins were also minted at Pella, and probably other mints.

How do you know that?

Ah, yes, I remember it well! 😎

Some of what you say is similar to "Fractional Reserve Banking". I won't attempt to explain it, may TSF members will have heard about it, and if not, it's easy to Google it. This 250:1 ratio you quote is not necessarily "leverage". 😎

Oh no! ... or perhaps... Oh no I haven't! 😎 I was simply asking a few questions! 😎

Fabulous Coin - Ancient Greek Gold Stater Philip II of Macedon I was shown this coin recently, and we got photos of it. I got more excited seeing this fairly small coin than I get when I see most one kilo gold coins. It is sensational! Having just uploaded the obverse photo, I have started seeing features which I did not notice when looking at the actual coin. Charioteer driving a biga (two horse chariot), with ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΥ below. The device under the horses' front feet is a kantharos or cantharus. (Correction: It is a tripod, although it could be a three-legged kantharos). I will need to do some homework to completely identify this coin, including the mint. Almost as an afterthought, I Niton tested it: 42.504 cts = 8.5008 grams. My "GP suspect" note is because the tester showed this. I don't believe it! 😎

I think I would rather be with Lauren (if that's her name). I understood your post as meaning you agreed with me, which is nice in its own way, but... I did not actually express any view, merely asked a few questions! 😎

What price was silver when you looked / commented on Tuesday? I just took a quick look, and saw a price of £15.26 It is now £15.96 Is it really going down? Was it actually going down? Will someone please remind me to do my "pedantic" bit about "going down"?, and I don't mean in the @HerefordBullyun sense! (Sorry Bully). 😎

Thanks for your observation, I had not looked at the frosting or lack of it, and had been concentrating on the fields which look quite good. When you said "but I’m sure the RM would ‘fess’ up to a mistake on the initial label", were you being satirical, or di you mean to say "but I’m sure the RM would NOT ‘fess’ up to a mistake on the initial label"? 😎 What do you think so far? 😎

G.S.R.? https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/GSR 😎

Is that for gold sovereigns or silver sovereigns? 😎

The outside is definitely wrong, as the 1915 is not a proof. There are no known proofs for 1915 London Mint sovereigns. At a quick look, the 2015 could be proof, but as @Britannia47 has correctly pointed out, the relief is not frosted, which would be normal for a modern proof. Perhaps the 2015 is a "Brilliant Uncirculated", in which case, both inner and outer parts of the Certificate would be wrong. It would always be possible for the original purchaser to request a refund (most things are possible), but I suspect this would be denied or strongly resisted by the RM. Third parties such as subsequent owners would have no contractual rights against the Mint. They could argue that they were mislead when they bought the set, by the title claiming it as a proof set. The RM could of course attempt to redefine the word "proof". As far as I know, there is no legal definition of what constitutes a proof coin. In the UK, numismatists have come to expect proof to mean a coin struck using polished dies, polished blanks, frosted relief, and a superior strike. This was not always the case. Sometimes so-called reverse proofs are issued. The 1902 coronation proof sets had a matt finish. Until 1970, I think, British proof coin sets were labelled as "Specimen Sets", although most dealers and experts refer to them as "Proof Sets". The "Specimen Set" label does cause some confusion. Originally, "proof" coins were simply coins made as samples for purposes of checking quality and design, and for approval by officials or possibly the Monarch. This is similar to "proof" copies of books. I am sure it was nevr specified that these proof (coins) had to have any special features, but of course, mint production workers and management would probably want to ensure that their proofs were approved, and would probably therefore try to ensure they were as good as practically possible, almost certainly better than the subsequent production strikings. A common woorking practice is to make a few sample strikes in lead, or some other soft metal, to test dies and their set up in the coining presses. In one sense, these were also "proofs", but modern collectors would be unlikley to recognise or acknowledge this description. Any legal action against the RM would possibly be subject to statutory time limits. This is not the first Royal Mint factual error I have seen, and I am sure it will not be the last. The Issue Limit stated was 150. I wonder how many, if any, of the original buyers ever noticed the inconsistency, or queried it. We will probably never know. I should probably have chosen a different title for this topic / thread. 😎

1915 - 2015 Gold Sovereigns from the Royal Mint - Proof or Bullion - Confused? - Misleading? - Mystery? Also - Pick Your Colour I have previously commented on many occasions about silver content in gold sovereigns giving an attractive yellow colour, and its absence causing a less pleasing coppery red-pink colour. I just came across an example which I will highlight here: These were from a two-coin set marketed in 2015 by the Royal Mint: First World War Centenary 1915 Sovereign & 2015 Sovereign Set "Gold Proof Coin Set" according to the fron of the RM Certificate, but... Both stated as "Bullion" on the inside of the Cert. Strange! At this point, I need to admit that I have only seen the photos, and not the actual coins. If the 1915-L London Mint sovereign is a proof, it is extremely rare, but it clearly is not a proof. I assumed from the photo that the 2015-L (Llantrisant Mint) sovereign is proof, but perhaps it's the photo making it look better than it is. Tomorrow I will be taking a look, with great interest, at the two coins. I will also ask for obverse photos. All comments welcome! 😎 Edit 29th July 2022: Having looked at the actual coins, it is clear the the 2015 is not a proof, so I think we can conclude that its designation as "bullion" on the certificate is correct.

The Nikon Coolpix P900 is a bridge camera, not a DSLR. It was only introduced in 2015, and would be unsuitable for macro work. Our FinePix S1 Pro, introduced in 2000, was a DSLR, with interchangeable lenses. I don't remember off-hand the model of the Nikon we replaced it with, but it also was a DSLR, probably a D100. To do good quality macro photography requires a dedicated macro lens. Although the Coolpix P900 has an 83x zoom factor, this means it would not be optimised for most of that range. It is not a matter of whether "said camera exists", but whether the lens exists for the job in hand. If you want a lower cost solution, I would suggest Canon EF-S lenses on a Canon APS-C type camera body. The Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM is a good quality macro lens. Other manufacturers also make comparable systems. I prefer Canon.

Have you got a contact number? 😎

Making resin prints of shiny things like coins? 😎

Did you work out what % premium that is? I reckon about 30%, so it's not exactly cheap, or a bargain. Also, the ones I can read are dated 2019! There are some Minty ones here: https://www.chards.co.uk/minty-tenth-ounce-gold-britannias/14490 at lower prices, date "Our choice" I think. Somebody on TSF might be a better deal for you. 😎

I guess you are a pro photographer, but your studio / workshop also suggests engineer. Multi-talented? 😎

Doug a.k.a. @SemolinaPilchard researched it and made his own prototype for our use, then made the improved Chard branded version in our guide. He did use to fabricate and sell them until he got a new toy. He is currently outsourcing a small production batch which will probably be Chard branded, then we will offer them for sale, soon. He is also in process of writing a brief guide to go on the chards.co.uk website, showing How We Photograph Coins, which should be published in the next few days. It looks like we might have tough competition from DrDave though! 😎

I'm very impressed by the speed, and it looks good for a prototype.