Today I Received.....

[Charliemouse]

7 minutes ago, James32 said:

How is that even possible after three attempts. Almost convinced this is someone else's return 🤔 

Probably is. There is nothing technically stopping them.

I might dig out my pics of the first set I sent back...

[Agaupl]

4 hours ago, James32 said:

How is that even possible after three attempts. Almost convinced this is someone else's return 🤔 

I have always wondered if they do this or not. 

[motorbikez]

6 hours ago, Charliemouse said:

2024 Tudor Beast Dragon - Proof and Reverse Proof 1oz Silver

We have been here before.

I sent back the first set.  I was almost satisfied with the second set, but they still had a few marks here and there I wasn't happy about.  So I sent them back.  I almost wish I hadn't...

The third set is even worse.  😭

Proof

Reverse Proof

Back they go.

That is simply outrageous  & totally unacceptable, you'd have thought after sending two faulty sets back they'd have made doubly sure to send a perfect set back.

 

[Brit2023]

7 hours ago, James32 said:

How is that even possible after three attempts. Almost convinced this is someone else's return 🤔 

[Petra]

7 hours ago, Charliemouse said:

2024 Tudor Beast Dragon - Proof and Reverse Proof 1oz Silver

We have been here before.

I sent back the first set.  I was almost satisfied with the second set, but they still had a few marks here and there I wasn't happy about.  So I sent them back.  I almost wish I hadn't...

The third set is even worse.  😭

Proof

Reverse Proof

Back they go.

Does it look bad without the magnification 🤔

[Charliemouse]

37 minutes ago, Petra said:

Does it look bad without the magnification 🤔

That's difficult to answer.

The photos are not very magnified.  Probably equivalent to a modest loup.

If you gave the coins to someone who doesn't collect and is only going to glance at them with the naked eye, they look great.  Displayed in a case, cool.

On the other hand, if you pay £100 per oz for proof silver, and you get something with scratches, contact marks and residue splattered on it, is that acceptable?

Paying a significant premium for a brand new product, shouldn't you get something that is as good as it can be?

[TheShinyStuff]

8 hours ago, James32 said:

How is that even possible after three attempts. Almost convinced this is someone else's return 🤔 

I am almost certain that they do this too. The final straw for me was the fist G&D I received. I had an email saying it would be dispatched in late April, so I phoned in early April to politely ask what the hold up was. I was given the scripted reply, but amazingly got another email the next day informing me that my cpin has been dispatched. Happy days.

The coin that arrived a couple of days later was an absolute munter, not only that, but the box was a state as well. It had clearly been opened, presumably rejected by the previous recipient, and duly returned.

The RM obviously thought it was OK to try their luck again with selling it and sent it to me. I returned it - as yoy need to do with many RM purchases. Thankfully the next one I received was good, but it leaves (another) bad taste in the mouth.

I remember a previous thread about posting images of returned coins/CoA to monitor this, maybe we could resurrect it. I expect we would soon have proof that RM do in fact resell substandard returns.

[theman73]

5 minutes ago, TheShinyStuff said:

I expect we would soon have proof that RM do in fact resell substandard returns.

 

[Charliemouse]

1 hour ago, Petra said:

Does it look bad without the magnification 🤔

[DavePa]

Another coppery goodness sent from @arphethean. Thanks very much A !

These will be put to good use later in the year. 

Dave

 

[Aldebaran]

15 minutes ago, Charliemouse said:

I feel that we are all expecting standards from the Royal Mint that they are incapable of achieving.

They should able to fulfil this requirement, but it is possibly the standard of the management on display here in all it’s miserable glory 😑

[Aldebaran]

8 minutes ago, DavePa said:

Another coppery goodness sent from @arphethean. Thanks very much A !

These will be put to good use later in the year. 

Dave

 

I love these copper rounds,  the fact that they have the same standard of detail is fantastic, pity that the gold ones are unavailable 

[TheShinyStuff]

13 minutes ago, DavePa said:

 These will be put to good use later in the year. 

Dave

 

You got some plumbing in mind?!🤣

[Charliemouse]

23 minutes ago, Aldebaran said:

I feel that we are all expecting standards from the Royal Mint that they are incapable of achieving.

They should able to fulfil this requirement, but it is possibly the standard of the management on display here in all it’s miserable glory 😑

I think the problem is twofold.

One, they have a reputation, however old, for excellence.  Which starts to sound rather hollow these days.

Two, they can, and do, produce (near) perfect coins.  I would still say 40% of the coins I receive from them are PF70 or equivalent.  However, sometimes those Swiss cheese holes line up, and you get a run of bad luck.  Like this.

Therefore, I believe they are capable of doing better.  And that's why it is frustrating.

[DavePa]

23 minutes ago, TheShinyStuff said:

You got some plumbing in mind?!🤣

No. I'm going to plate my gillicks so that they are a more modern colour. 

 

 

[TheShinyStuff]

4 minutes ago, Charliemouse said:

However, sometimes those Swiss cheese holes line up, and you get a run of bad luck.  Like this.

Therefore, I believe they are capable of doing better.  And that's why it is frustrating.

I mostly agree. But it's not bad luck. Its bad production, bad QC and ultimately shyte service from our friends at RM, who as you say, are living off a name and reputation created by their forebears - which they are currently destroying.

[BanjoJeff]

3 minutes ago, TheShinyStuff said:

I mostly agree. But it's not bad luck. Its bad production, bad QC and ultimately shyte service from our friends at RM, who as you say, are living off a name and reputation created by their forebears - which they are currently destroying.

Sounds exactly like Boeing. At least the Royal Mint products aren't so safety critical!

[TheShinyStuff]

4 minutes ago, BanjoJeff said:

Sounds exactly like Boeing. At least the Royal Mint products aren't so safety critical!

Also I'd never be able to fit a 787 in my deposit box!

[Charliemouse]

Just now, TheShinyStuff said:

I mostly agree. But it's not bad luck. Its bad production, bad QC and ultimately shyte service from our friends at RM, who as you say, are living off a name and reputation created by their forebears - which they are currently destroying.

Oh I agree.  I didn't mean luck for them, I meant luck for us.  If their processes are currently only capable of producing acceptable coins 40% of the time, then it's a matter of luck whether a consumer receives a good coin or not.

My guess, from outside the system, is that they are working to perverse incentives.  They are rewarded based on x% of rejects vs what goes out the door and (maybe) y% being returned. So it benefits them to let things go out the door to a lower standard, and accept that only a very small percentage of customers will examine them and reject them.  Financially that makes far more sense, short term.  From our perspective, the QC department should be incentivised on how much they reject, in order to protect their reputation in the long term.  But someone has deemed that too expensive.

[Charliemouse]

2 minutes ago, TheShinyStuff said:

Also I'd never be able to fit a 787 in my deposit box!

What's the SD on that?

[Brit2023]

48 minutes ago, Charliemouse said:

What's the SD on that?

Need to check the weight.

51 minutes ago, TheShinyStuff said:

Also I'd never be able to fit a 787 in my deposit box!

Does it come with doors?

Edited May 16 by Brit2023
grammar

[TheShinyStuff]

48 minutes ago, Charliemouse said:

What's the SD on that?

Depends on legroom/meal options.

[motorbikez]

Another double just arrived, thanks @SVcollector

 

[ArgentSmith]

3 hours ago, Charliemouse said:

Paying a significant premium for a brand new product, shouldn't you get something that is as good as it can be?

Apologies for being disagreeable but am conflicted on RM expectations. Im with you, obviously no one want poor quality coin all scratched up then sneezed on! however if RM got their terrible together and delivered perfect PF70 examples would that not defeat the point of grading? certainly lower the premium for a PF70 if most graded that well.

[Silverlocks]

2 minutes ago, ArgentSmith said:

Apologies for being disagreeable but am conflicted on RM expectations. Im with you, obviously no one want poor quality coin all scratched up then sneezed on! however if RM got their terrible together and delivered perfect PF70 examples would that not defeat the point of grading? certainly lower the premium for a PF70 if most graded that well.

Defeat the point of grading - in what way is this a bad thing?