TeaTime

Whilst the Britannia was manufactured in .958 silver the standard of the coins was brilliant uncirculated (they were still sold as bullion) and dealers would get them individually sealed (at least the dealers i used did). To maximise profits the RM changed the manufacturing process with the switch to .999 and, somehow, managed to con people into accepting the new bullion coin definition (zero quality control as opposed to metal content) that is common today.

The BU Britannias now sold by the RM are of the same quality as the old 'bullion' coins of yesterday - but sold with a hefty premium. 😕

I suppose the .958 coins were more for collectors than stackers...

I was half tempted to order the 2oz set but i cannot justify the cost. £560 for two silver proof (albeit 2oz) copy coins is ridiculous. With a regular one ounce proofing selling for £95, and taking into account the additional silver content, these should be for sale at no more than £260. 

The Britannia 2 coin reverse proof sets were £195 with a mintage of 520 as opposed to this mintage of 3250. Take away the flipping aspect of this issue and i just don't get the appeal.

It's the Royal Mint - they may not even produce them this year. The 1/10th ounce silvers seem to be produced completely randomly (i suspect that they are only minted if they receive a big overseas request and then sell the remainders on their website).

Would be nice to have a KC III 2023 issue but it wouldn't surprise me if they don't bother. Logging on to the RM website daily is the only way to know - they tend to appear with no fanfare and very, very quickly sell out. 

Realistically the market for coins with first day covers is not that big. On average though BU £1 coins and £2 coins attached to FDC fetch around a fiver each and £5 coins between £7-£12 each. Anyone buying as a job lot will expect to be paying out half the individual prices or even face value only.

Ironically with the stamps, he would have been better off buying them loose rather than as FDCs - unused modern stamps are worth face value or current postage rates whereas used stamps are pretty much worthless. The days when postmarks where considered to add interest are gone ☹️.

I've been anticipating the two coin set for months but missed it due to work commitments..... Now i've seen it i guess i can live without owning them. The sea-horsey things look well executed but what the hell is wrong with Briannias face and why has she got a wattle ?

My sovereign from Chards arrived last week and was in good order - it was also £25 cheaper (on the day) than buying directly from the RM. It came in a 22.5mm - they didn't have the preferred 22.2 mm - capsule (additional 50p charge).

I'm not a stacker, just wanted an example to keep with the other 2022 sovereign. 

I don't know if gold 'bullion' coins are manufactured with a bit more care than silver, but it is rare to find any significant damage on them. 

Was early March last year, I ordered the two coin set on the 8th (probably the first day of issue). I think i recall receiving the set around May/June time !

I used to order a few every time i made a silver purchase from Golden State Mint - I have a bag of Silver Shield copper rounds somewhere in the hope that they become collectable at some time....

Perhaps it would have been better to ask before attempting to clean the coin. There's no easy answer - you have more than likely reduced the resale value of the coin.. 

Silver coins will tarnish and collectors understand and accept that. What they will not accept is a proof coin which shows any evidence of cleaning or damage. The answer as to continuing to clean the coin depends on how many hairline scratches you have introduced. If none are visible - using a loupe and a strong light whilst carefully turning the coin - then do not attempt any more cleaning. If scratches are visible then you may just as well carry on cleaning and accept the fact that your coin is now worth anywhere between intrinsic value and a 'bullion' coin value.

A Harsh lesson that most collectors learn at some point.

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.

BU is used to describe historic coins that have had no, or limited, circulation. Traditionally a coin was either a proof (made as purely a collector piece) or a circulating strike, there was no 'brilliant uncirculated' striking process. It is a fairly modern contrivance of the Royal Mint to designate three types of striking (a way for them to charge extra for a non-proof coin and a way to excuse their lack of quality control on 'bullion' strikes)

So advertising a coin as BU would be technically correct if it was a circulating (?) coin that was blemish free.....

It's all down to semantics - like everything else. A traditional coin dealer would have no qualms about describing a coin as BU. Another may expect something entirely different from the designation. 

Interesting. So coins bought for re-sale by other companies (i've never seen these offered to individuals) . Some (most) of the figures show that the coins sold in tubes total is higher than those sold directly by the Mint. Must eat into their profit margins.

Interesting. I wonder what 'in tubes' means when referencing the BU coins. Is it coins sold individually 'in tubes' - something i've never heard of for cupronickel BU coins - or number of 'tubes' (whatever a tube is) sold ?

Puzzled.

It's probably an 'old man hobby' because only those with a bit of spare cash (and no worries about owning the latest iPhone etc) can afford it.

People need to place a value on things. Always have and always will. Stamps have no intrinsic value yet it didn't stop collectors from buying them (i am one of the old gits who still collects them).

The fact that something isn't in everyday use is largely irrelevant - what does make a difference is perceived rarity. One could make an argument that as coins become less used (and therefore less common) then the perception is that they are rarer so worth more. 

The reality is that the media largely leads the masses into believing what has value (a good example is the Kew Gardens themed 50p coins). There will always be the next big thing but throughout all the fads coins have maintained a solid collector base. There is something basic about hoarding that i can't see ever going away. At the moment hoarding is still generally considered to be collecting tangible, real assets rather than digital ones. This may change in the future but it will take generations to do so. If it ever happens - there is a reason everyone loves Scrooge McDuck.

No easy answers then - it's a combination of politics / hyperbole and the basic human desire to own something with perceived value. 

Who knows, maybe stamp collecting will once again become a fashionable hobby once no-one bothers using them... The current RM strikes may well prove a windfall for old gits like me

I ordered my 2022 set on the 8th March 2022 - that would have been pretty much when they were first available. From memory it then took around 3 months to be delivered.

The two coin sets sell out pretty quickly so i see no reason for the mint not to produce them next year. 

The 2023 dated Britannias that are currently available are all 'bullion' and bear no relation to the proof coins (except perhaps, they probably share the same quality control department).  

It does seem a bit odd that the Bowie coin features a portrait whereas all the other coins are more emblematic. The trouble with the likes of the Stones (and perhaps the Beatles when their time comes) is one of finding an iconic image that is instantly recognisable - in the case of the Rolling Stones the lips and tongue where probably not available to use. So far, in my opinion, only the Elton John and the Who coins have achieved this.

Nevertheless, i'll be buying one. Can't wait for the Cliff Richard release  😁

On 15/11/2022 at 02:47, RacerCool said:

My opinion is that collector coins that aren't actually made of precious metals are not worth buying.  What are you going to do with them?  They're just going to cost money and take up space.  And for what?  They're very very very likely not going to be worth any more than you paid for them.

But that being said, everyone has their reasons.

Ironically (?) the coins that have increased in value the most for me have all been base metal. If it's low mintage and subsequent issues become popular then the material it's made from makes little difference in the collector world.

Saying that, you need to know what to buy and when to buy/sell them. It's a gamble that can be mitigated with a little knowledge.

The examples in this post i wouldn't touch for one (or more) of the following reasons - RM proof coins generally tank / there are too many of them / highly specialised coins have limited appeal. 

Those marks look like they've come directly off the die rather than poor handling. Maybe that's why the RM wouldn't exchange. I have a couple of Queens Beasts Lion of England coins with something similar - partly obscuring the E of England and, more than likely, caused by swarf on the die. There's probably an awful lot of them out in the wild.

If a coin is sold as 'bullion' then it should cost no more than spot price, manufacturing cost and reasonable profit. Any more than that and i would expect a coin to be in BU condition. Paying £78 over spot (based on todays RM price) probably equates to a £60 profit to the RM. Is that reasonable ?

13 hours ago, AaaGee said:

Anyone know why they are cheaper to buy as sets rather than just the one 1oz coin on its own?

Cant see the logic 🤔

Because it's yet another example of people buying the packaging rather than the contents. According to my sources the issue limit for the single 1oz was 16,000 and the four coin set just shy of 12,000. (which feels right to me - more original demand for the individual coin over the set) How many of each were actually sold though ? 

Issue limits for the 1998 proofs are a quarter of those for the 1997 yet the '98 sets sell for £100 less than the '97 sets. 

Just goes to show that perception (wow, it's the first issue) rather than reality (there's a lot more of them) plays a huge role in determining a coins 'worth'.  

But i digress....

Break it up. The smaller coins carry little premium (i have bought them at spot before) so use them as pocket pieces - I've even soldered a pin onto the 1/10oz before to use as a badge, it always gets people talking (That is actually not true, no-one has ever noticed). You could even get the half ounce coin enamelled or cut. Use the quarter ounce as a fancy golf marker or poker chip.. 

The less 4 coin sets there are the more mine will be worth he he he 

Some modern silver proof coins will increase in value but rarely to the extent that there is a long-term profit to be had from them. An example are the proof Queens Beasts which i now see regularly being sold at RRP or less (and that includes slabbed coins which have cost the owner considerably more than RRP).

Speculators (or short-term owners if you prefer) will always buy a percentage of new releases creating an artificial demand for a coin (British Monarchs the current hot coins). Once the actual demand (from collectors) is met then any remaining extra coins out in the wild get sold to other flippers ad infinitum. Eventually the price will fall in line with collector demand.  Sometimes this process takes months, sometimes years. I believe most people greatly overestimate the number of long-term coin collectors in the UK.

Getting a bit off-track now so i will also add re Royal themed crowns - they are generally poorly designed and, quite frankly, a bit naff !

My experience ?

Royal themed proof silver crowns depreciate like a balloon - with very rare exceptions. The majority will be available on the second-hand market at bullion prices within 5-10 years.

Britannia proof coins will generally hold their value and will increase in line with inflation - exceptions being low mintage issues and those that are visually appealing (beauty is in the eye of the beholder). There are anomalies - i.e. the 1997 single 1oz coin generally selling for more than the 1997 4 coin set (which includes the 1oz). 🙄

Other silver proof coins generally rely on how 'hot' they are - examples being the Beatrix Potter cash-in. Even they can generally be picked up at about 1/2 - 2/3rds of issue price presently.

In summation; RM silver proof coins should only be purchased if you actually like them and are generally a sure-fire loss. Once in a while a low mintage issue which becomes popular will increase in value... sometimes only temporarily. It's a flippers market, not a long-term investment.

Unless, of course, you are in the market for some RM silver proofs. In that case they are the best thing since sliced bread and i can do you a smashing deal.

I paid £12 for mine - so somewhere between £12 & £145 seems to be the going rate !