dicker

Hi @BackyardBullion
I have occasionally looked at the Historic coin section, and have always been left with the feeling that the RM are simply using their reputation to overprice coins. My thoughts are:
1. Many of the coins are not are not historic.  Some are current issues - so why advertise them as historic, or Trial of the Pyx from very recently?
2. All of the coins I have looked at are overpriced.  This can get subjective for hammered coins, I accept but I suspect a hammered expert would agree with me.  Good example is a 1957 Gillick advertised as EF for sale for £575. 
3. Confected sets - RM create historic sets and put them in a nice box and mark have spectacular markups.  
4. Prices are more expensive than buying at auction
5. I don’t have any information on how the RM source coins but I would imagine:
- High end hammered from auctions / dealers
- Most Sovs from trade (I bet they don’t buy from an account called “Royal Mint” - I bet they use some sort of intermediary
- Individuals selling out their coins which are vaulted at the RM
- Coins that the might hold back from new issues….
I no longer buy from the RM - I don’t like their new issues, detest their sales of Trial Pieces for silly money and their two tier customer experience - those with an account manager and those who have to queue.  I do wonder if account managers are selling confected “sets” of “historic” coins to the unwary.  Who in the future will come to sell and be very disappointed.
Best
Dicker
 

@BackyardBullion  make a comparable set and offer it for sale? 
 
 

Very simply, the overpricing of historic coins and ‘sets’ by the RM in recent times is immoral.
It replicates the worst behaviour of the Sunday Magazine rip off companies, but is worse coming from a trusted organisation with unique and privileged access to the back catalogue of British coins.

Hi @BackyardBullion
I have occasionally looked at the Historic coin section, and have always been left with the feeling that the RM are simply using their reputation to overprice coins. My thoughts are:
1. Many of the coins are not are not historic.  Some are current issues - so why advertise them as historic, or Trial of the Pyx from very recently?
2. All of the coins I have looked at are overpriced.  This can get subjective for hammered coins, I accept but I suspect a hammered expert would agree with me.  Good example is a 1957 Gillick advertised as EF for sale for £575. 
3. Confected sets - RM create historic sets and put them in a nice box and mark have spectacular markups.  
4. Prices are more expensive than buying at auction
5. I don’t have any information on how the RM source coins but I would imagine:
- High end hammered from auctions / dealers
- Most Sovs from trade (I bet they don’t buy from an account called “Royal Mint” - I bet they use some sort of intermediary
- Individuals selling out their coins which are vaulted at the RM
- Coins that the might hold back from new issues….
I no longer buy from the RM - I don’t like their new issues, detest their sales of Trial Pieces for silly money and their two tier customer experience - those with an account manager and those who have to queue.  I do wonder if account managers are selling confected “sets” of “historic” coins to the unwary.  Who in the future will come to sell and be very disappointed.
Best
Dicker
 

Quick update on my little investigation.
Had no tangible feedback from The Royal Mint yet on their pricing of this product in particular: 
https://www.royalmint.com/shop/monarch/queen-victoria/victoria-young-head-crown/
£270

I sent the images of this coin off to Sovereign Rarities (Who are recommended on RM's website for historic coin valuations, also RM owns 23.4% stake in Sovereign Rarities).
Anyway, I got a very prompt reply from Sovereign Rarities who put a value of £25 on this coin.
SHOCKING
So, I decided to place an order on RM website for this listing to see what I got. 
Unfortunatley I did not get this dog of a coin. Instead I got a middle of the road version with at least the crown side visible. 
This is the coin I received


Not terrible, but not great either. 
I think we can all agree this is not a £270 version of this coin.
I understand that there is a premium for the display and the fact you are buying from an authenticated source and that is worth something. But when you see comprable coins in similar condition selling for £50 and £64 respectively you have to ask where is the value of the additional £200+ coming from.

Needless to say I have initiated a free return to The Royal Mint for my £270 coin with a note to say that the value of the coin is far less than expected considering its condition. 
Its a shame I didn't get the complete dog of a coin though, that would have been fun.
What I would say is that at very least the RM has no clue what it is doing. Why would you have a picture of a coin like that as the listing image if you have better versions of the coins in stock?
There is only one answer. 
Show the worst image you have then nobody can moan when it arrives, you bought what you see. 
 

For a while now you may have seen I have been making comentaries on the seemingly extortionate prices of some of the Royal Mint's Historic Coin pricing. 
Today we see another example of outrageous prices with the Pistrucci 3 coin set. 
The Royal Mint have  valued two silver crowns (1819 and 1821) at a combined value of £600+ 
I am in the process of an investigation and deep dive into this and have reached out the the Royal Mint press office for comments (they have not been great in their replies so far). 
Lots to share in due course and it should be quite telling for the mint when published. 
What I would like from this thread is any community sentiments on this practice by The Royal Mint. 
They need to understand its not just one crazy guy with a YouTube channel that has a problem here. There are deeper issues at play which I feel very strongly about including but not limited to The Royal Mint profiteering from the unsuspecting public that don't know better and who take the valuations from the mint at face value. 
If you have an opinion on this and you would like it to be shared please post here. 
If you would rather remain anonymous please feel free to PM me and sentiments can be shared that way. 
The Royal Mint is in my opinion taking a direction that will ultimately do serious damage to their brand and reputation. My goal is change, but I will settle for consumer awareness for the wider population. If I can save just one person from buying a coin 10x the true value that is my job done. 
Any thoughts/comments and opinions are most welcome.
Remember, this is a public forum and thread and comments may be publiushed on YouTube.

Printing of money and QE has lead to asset prices being so high which has created a massive wealth divide. 

I think this is the rarest one I have. Never seen another bullion 2016 half sovereign knocking about. Marsh has it at fewer than 500 so pretty rare 👍🏼

Honestly not my thing at all.
I presume that “In Pursuit of Perfection” is an acknowledgment that only a few will grade at MS70.  
“We did try but our quality ain’t great”
 

They will buff up okay with a bit of Brasso and wire wool.....🤣

Honestly not my thing at all.
I presume that “In Pursuit of Perfection” is an acknowledgment that only a few will grade at MS70.  
“We did try but our quality ain’t great”
 

The trading section is very good for me personally. Lots of liquidity.  But it’s only 50pct of why I pay.
A well run ad free forum that is maintained and doesn’t look like something from 1995 is not that common.
And mean spirited comments on the whole don’t exist here.  

For me, TSF membership is worth every penny.  Good prices, good people and happy to support a forum that is well run without the agro and abuse that exists on other forums.

And sadly this:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/new-bank-scam-sees-fraudsters-posing-as-police-and-asking-victims-to-buy-gold/ar-BB1igbuS

The trading section is very good for me personally. Lots of liquidity.  But it’s only 50pct of why I pay.
A well run ad free forum that is maintained and doesn’t look like something from 1995 is not that common.
And mean spirited comments on the whole don’t exist here.  

@Organics This forum is worth every single penny of the full membership.  It's cheaper than eBay charges on 1 gold coin. 
I'm please to say I have met 15-20 people in person over the years,  this is a very self policing site where everyone looks after everyone else.   
Ultimately this forum is like anything in life you get out what you put in.  
 
 
 

The trading section is very good for me personally. Lots of liquidity.  But it’s only 50pct of why I pay.
A well run ad free forum that is maintained and doesn’t look like something from 1995 is not that common.
And mean spirited comments on the whole don’t exist here.  

And sadly this:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/new-bank-scam-sees-fraudsters-posing-as-police-and-asking-victims-to-buy-gold/ar-BB1igbuS

I like to see worn dies, there’s some truly worn dies that join almost all the letter on the legend together. 
 
I love the common die break on the 1871 (off the top of the 1 to the neck of Victoria) I have so many of these with the die in various degrees of degradation. 

That links in nicely with another thread the great engravers, GEO III and early GEO IV sovereigns were both the work of Benedetto Pistrucci, he did the original engraving, cut and prepaired the dies himself, he was a perfectionist. The GEO IV laureate head series 1821-1825 contains no notable error sovereigns.

This is a Large 'O' type sovereign, the '6' is misaligned which common on a lot of 1860 sovereigns.
 

Not too sure why people worry about cgt so much so you realise how much gold you would need to have to be liable for cgt? 
Seen people wetting their knickers over three or 4 sovs 
Plus who will actually declare that you have gold cgt and not just flog it here or to one eyed Barry of fat Dave at the pawno