Today I Received.....

[Silverlocks]

2 hours ago, Aldebaran said:

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

I think that with modern CNC die cutting and manufacturing tech, there's really no excuse for every coin not to meet PF70 standards, especially if it's a proof.  All it requires is no defects that are visible at 5x magnification.  I've seen one video where the Munt claim that the re-polish proof dies every 50 impressions.  Setting up process so that handling doesn't damage the proofs shouldn't be an issue, as I understand the proofs are a separate division.  Given that Perth Mint can pretty routinely turn out flawless BU coins I see no reason why the RM can't.  I've never seen munters come out of the U.S. mint or Muenze Osterrich either. 

[Charliemouse]

6 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.

Isn't the point of grading to classify the condition of a coin, old or new, at a point in time?  Lower grades represent wear and tear, damage, deterioration over time, handling, etc.

Isn't it meant to be a certification of condition?  A substitute for complete, ultra-high resolution images, and a way to 'lock in' that assurance by sealing it in a slab.

Shouldn't a brand new, minty fresh coin be the highest grade?

It's an honest question.

And yes, NGC, PCGS and all the mints in the world, each have their own standards.  It is conceivable that 70 grade is higher than the mints consider achievable regularly for proof coins.  Should it be?

I would also say that I am not at all convinced that these coins would achieve 69, since the marks are visible without magnification.  If 70 isn't a reasonable expectation, is 69?  68?

[paulmerton]

5 minutes ago, Silverlocks said:

I think that with modern CNC die cutting and manufacturing tech, there's really no excuse for every coin not to meet PF70 standards, especially if it's a proof.  All it requires is no defects that are visible at 5x magnification.  I've seen one video where the Munt claim that the re-polish proof dies every 50 impressions.  Setting up process so that handling doesn't damage the proofs shouldn't be an issue, as I understand the proofs are a separate division.  Given that Perth Mint can pretty routinely turn out flawless BU coins I see no reason why the RM can't.  I've never seen munters come out of the U.S. mint or Muenze Osterrich either. 

The dies for commemorative proofs are cut by laser these days. The multiple polishing steps are done manually and can take a few hours for something the size of a 1oz silver, depending how complex the design is. Mistakes can happen, but they can be recovered at the cost of time - e.g. if someone accidentally polishes a bit of frosting, it can be restored with masking and sand blasting.

But... I don't think most of the problems occur at either of those two stages.

Most of the issues I've had with RM coins seem to be caused by improperly prepared dies - e.g. small flecks of metal left behind from a previously struck coin adhering to the die and then the next few coins are struck without cleaning it off, leaving tiny strike-throughs in the coin. These stand out like a sore thumb on a proof field at arm's length. It's just lazy.

Other die preparation issues have manifested themselves in coins that have lettering partially missing - again, improperly prepared dies resulting in strike-through errors (either clogged with metal or liquid). These should not be passing QC.

Other issues I've had, like scratches, fingermarks, sneeze deposits(?!) obviously happen as a result of mishandling after the coins have been struck. Conversely, a few of the issues appear to have been caused by improperly handled blanks before they've even been struck, likely touched with bare fingers, with the resultant residue being visible uniformly across letter boundaries.

It's clear to me where the problems need to be fixed. I believe I have made it clear to them, too, but as I've said before, there are enough people out there who will accept these crappy coins without question, resulting in an overall low returns rate that they are very proud of.

[ArgentSmith]

41 minutes ago, Silverlocks said:

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

Point taken and I agree, in reality if every coin produced was perfect there would be no premium to a PF70 which suits me . Not sure what my point is tbh 🤣

[Petra]

4 hours ago, Charliemouse said:

Obviously yet again, lack of proper quality control 🤔

[paulmerton]

29 minutes ago, Charliemouse said:

I would also say that I am not at all convinced that these coins would achieve 69, since the marks are visible without magnification.  If 70 isn't a reasonable expectation, is 69?  68?

RM only guarantee that their proof coins would be at least PF 68 if graded, which seems reasonable to me.

But I think that's a very distinct issue to the quality of a coin, as most of the quality problems we're seeing won't actually have an impact on numerical grading.

The most obvious example is a coin with a few small strike-throughs on it. The coin can still get a PF 70 grade with NGC, but I would strongly argue that the coin has not been "made with the highest care and consideration" that that mint claims to be the case for proof coins.

[Silverlocks]

1 minute ago, ArgentSmith said:

Point taken and I agree, in reality if every coin produced was perfect there would be no premium to a PF70 which suits me . Not sure what my point is tbh 🤣

I can't really get excited about top pop coins.  A nice, new coin is nice but in a lot of ways I like a nice example of a circulated coin.

[ChrisSilver]

Off topic posts hidden 

[TheShinyStuff]

1 hour 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.

Every brand new proof coin sold by the RM, be it silver or gold, £100 or £5000 should be PF70 or equivalent. That is what they are advertising and that is what you are agreeing to buy.

In what world is it fair that if you and I both buy the same coin from the RM, for the same price and yours arrives perfect and mine less so? In the current climate that will affect the value of our new coins massively.

If the point of grading new coins were defeated I would not be unhappy. It is far too subjective. Grading old coins I have no issues with, its as good a system as any to categorise how close to new a coin is. But to make winners and losers out people who have paid high premiums for new proofs - thats a different matter.

 

[Fishface220]

At £26.25 an oz it would have been rude not to!! 

[James32]

Big thanks to @arphethean

[Charliemouse]

1 hour ago, paulmerton said:

RM only guarantee that their proof coins would be at least PF 68 if graded, which seems reasonable to me.

That is pretty shocking.

Although considering one can return (almost) anything within 2 weeks, for any reason, bought remotely, it is almost irrelevant.

1 hour ago, paulmerton said:

But I think that's a very distinct issue to the quality of a coin, as most of the quality problems we're seeing won't actually have an impact on numerical grading.

The most obvious example is a coin with a few small strike-throughs on it. The coin can still get a PF 70 grade with NGC, but I would strongly argue that the coin has not been "made with the highest care and consideration" that that mint claims to be the case for proof coins.

I am not as fussy as some.  I am happy buying PF69 coins, and OK receiving PF69 grades when I can see the issues with magnification.

The list of issues that I have returned new coins for:

• Impacts, either single point holes or scratches, visible without magnification.
• Large numbers of hairlines, visible with some magnification.
• Large areas of missing frosting, visible to the naked eye.
• Milk spotting.
• Large amounts of 'residue' across the surface - small areas might be removable, but larger areas will risk damaging the coin to remove.

I will continue to return coins if I don't think they are at an acceptable standard.  It is the only practical form of feedback a company is likely to regard.

Edited May 16 by Charliemouse

[paulmerton]

14 minutes ago, Charliemouse said:

That is pretty shocking.

Although considering one can return (almost) anything within 2 weeks, for any reason, bought remotely, it is almost irrelevant.

I am not as fussy as some.  I am happy buying PF69 coins, and OK receiving PF69 grades when I can see the issues with magnification.

The list of issues that I have returned new coins for:

• Impacts, either single point holes or scratches, visible without magnification.
• Large numbers of hairlines, visible with some magnification.
• Large areas of missing frosting, visible to the naked eye.
• Milk spotting.
• Large amounts of 'residue' across the surface - small areas might be removable, but larger areas will risk damaging the coin to remove.

I will continue to return coins if I don't think they are at an acceptable standard.  It is the only practical form of feedback a company is likely to regard.

Make sure they make up for all the hassle! They might be more likely to regard it then.

[iacabu]

It seems to be a @BackyardBullionsort of week! Perhaps a weekend auction for this amazing piece of art 😍

 

[AaaGee]

2 minutes ago, iacabu said:

It seems to be a @BackyardBullionsort of week! Perhaps a weekend auction for this amazing piece of art 😍

 

Mad looking thing, i like it 😎

[DavePa]

19 minutes ago, iacabu said:

It seems to be a @BackyardBullionsort of week! Perhaps a weekend auction for this amazing piece of art 😍

 

Love that piece. As long as it is not as pricey as the one on ebay ! 

How many ounces of make up this £200 piece ? 🤔

[iacabu]

10 minutes ago, DavePa said:

Love that piece. As long as it is not as pricey as the one on ebay ! 

How many ounces of make up this £200 piece ? 🤔

Just shy of 41oz. Certainly a touch more than £200

[DavePa]

25 minutes ago, iacabu said:

Just shy of 41oz. Certainly a touch more than £200

Cool thank you. I was, of course, kidding about the 200 quid. Hope that was obvious as I meant no offense. 

Dave

[James32]

28 minutes ago, iacabu said:

Just shy of 41oz. Certainly a touch more than £200

£210 to start. 

[Brit2023]

2 minutes ago, DavePa said:

Cool thank you. I was, of course, kidding about the 200 quid. Hope that was obvious as I meant no offense. 

Dave

 

[Thelonerangershorse]

I can see what it looks like, but I'm not going to say outside the NBS.

 

[Fishface220]

1 hour ago, iacabu said:

It seems to be a @BackyardBullionsort of week! Perhaps a weekend auction for this amazing piece of art 😍

 

Glad to see the deal went ok. The seller looked hard work to me.

how long did it take you to put all the pieces in place? 

[iacabu]

5 minutes ago, Fishface220 said:

Glad to see the deal went ok. The seller looked hard work to me.

how long did it take you to put all the pieces in place? 

No comment 😂

Took a few attempts! I might have resorted to using a picture off BYB's Instagram as reference 😂 only to find it wasn't exactly the same so I still get some credit

[Orpster]

Todays arrival, low grade but bought for spot posted, less than I could trade it for with Tavex at the moment
It is also the rare version with short tale and no BP (marsh 77A)
Decision on whether to jailbreak pending  

 

[TheShinyStuff]

49 minutes ago, Orpster said:

Todays arrival, low grade but bought for spot posted, less than I could trade it for with Tavex at the moment
It is also the rare version with short tale and no BP (marsh 77A)
Decision on whether to jailbreak pending  

 

Set it free!!!