WOW! Reply from ROYAL MINT on a Freedom of information request!

[richatthecroft]

What I don't get is that the RM have released the QB's mintages for all the earlier Bullion Gold & Silver coins, and all denominations.  

From memory- the disclosed mintages were up to and including all up to the Bull 2oz Silver; 1/4 & 1oz Gold; as well as the first 4 or so 10oz QB's?

There's a thread on here that lists them, I think they were published- from memory- by either @JunkBond or @Pampfan (but my memory is poor) following a freedom of information request.   

[5huggy]

28 minutes ago, richatthecroft said:

What I don't get is that the RM have released the QB's mintages for all the earlier Bullion Gold & Silver coins, and all denominations.  

From memory- the disclosed mintages were up to and including all up to the Bull 2oz Silver; 1/4 & 1oz Gold; as well as the first 4 or so 10oz QB's?

There's a thread on here that lists them, I think they were published by @Pampfan following his freedom of information request.   

@richatthecroft - with you there , SO why are they suddenly tightening up releasing bog standard info or being "SLY"! THAT'S MY POINT buddy!

By way of example (Analogy) - - WHY is what we produced 400 years ago (metaphorically) and NO LONGER in production - - SUDDENLY SECRET! ????????????????

[Pampfan]

I remember being ridiculed by forum members about my initial freedom of information request for mintage numbers. I was successful twice in obtaining the queens beast mintages. My third request was shot down the same as the current requests are. 
it is pretty stupid in my opinion not to release the figures. I am sure that when I got the figures and posted them on the forum - it did not change the market value one bit of the coins. 
All of their reasons not to release are bullshit.
They should just come clean and report them.

i think not getting the information was the main reason I stopped collecting the series - that and the piss poor quality control of the coins themselves. 
Anyway - now I’m all riled up - gonna need to take a pamp suisse bath to cool down!

[5huggy]

4 minutes ago, Pampfan said:

I remember being ridiculed by forum members about my initial freedom of information request for mintage numbers. I was successful twice in obtaining the queens beast mintages. My third request was shot down the same as the current requests are. 
it is pretty stupid in my opinion not to release the figures. I am sure that when I got the figures and posted them on the forum - it did not change the market value one bit of the coins. 
All of their reasons not to release are bullshit.
They should just come clean and report them.

i think not getting the information was the main reason I stopped collecting the series - that and the piss poor quality control of the coins themselves. 
Anyway - now I’m all riled up - gonna need to take a

With you 100% Bro! previous and the above comments now!

DONT take this the wrong way! - - I would love to have a (few thousand miles apart albeit) A pamp suisse bath to cool down!

here we go BUDDY!

 

 

[5huggy]

btw   @Pampfan If you still have those figures/Pdf etc  -

any chance you could PM them to me - could LEND big weight to "MY NEXT ARGUMENT" (names etc would not be mentioned)

---

Added 0 minutes later...

16 minutes ago, Pampfan said:

All of their reasons not to release are bullshit.
They should just come clean and report them.

"F" in "A" !!👍

[5huggy]

QUESTION???

Why do members think - that Royal Mint want to hide numbers, when as alluded to above - - The PERTH Mint - dont have a "PROBLEM" at ALL!!!!

[richatthecroft]

Sorry for raking it up- But here's your thread, exemplifying your hard work @Pampfan

 

 

Here's the table you created:

 

[5huggy]

9 minutes ago, richatthecroft said:

Sorry for raking it up- But here's your thread, exemplifying your hard work @Pampfan

WHY ?? @richatthecroft  - That promoted and testament to @Pampfan damn hard work 

Thanks to you for due diligence in being able to search and retrieve this superb Info! Cheers Buddy 👍

Appears we are similar in saving/storing of retrievable Important info as we see it along the way!  🤝

[5huggy]

SO if they (the Royal Mint) CAN release those numbers WTF is wrong with stating 2018 (out of further production) VALIANT figure

I really dont get it! and now I am getting "P"eed  - 

TRUST ME!  you dont want to meet a "P"eed 5huggy! - (bit within teeth!)

[richatthecroft]

1 hour ago, Pampfan said:

I remember being ridiculed by forum members about my initial freedom of information request for mintage numbers. I was successful twice in obtaining the queens beast mintages. My third request was shot down the same as the current requests are. 
it is pretty stupid in my opinion not to release the figures.

I think @Pampfan your FOI Requests were a masterstroke- particularly given they won't at this stage, provide further figures- these might well be out of date now- they might have continued minting earlier ones beyond the shipped coins- after all, the RM have already declared them as an 'unlimited' release.

1 hour ago, Pampfan said:

I am sure that when I got the figures and posted them on the forum - it did not change the market value one bit of the coins. 

No it didn't- in fact they have all had a meteoric rise in value.  

They are pretty coins however, the mintage figures were an influencing factor for me.  Very high prices relative to the mintage figures- I have flipped all of mine, except an odd 1oz Gold Lion and the 10oz Silver QB's I hold.  

I would much rather have a nice YH Victoria Sovereign or one of these higher mintage but Scarce/ Rare Canadians than a QB 1/4oz any day of the week- some of these historic Sovereigns can be bought for not much more premium than a 1/4 QB- each to their own, I guess.

 

 

[richatthecroft]

53 minutes ago, Pampfan said:

i think not getting the information was the main reason I stopped collecting the series - that and the piss poor quality control of the coins themselves. 

The poor quality control put me off too- stick to the PAMP- gorgeous.  

[jultorsk]

It seems to currently be the Finance Director's job to process the internal review investigation requests (i.e., complaints from folks who are not happy with initial responses from the FOI team). I believe the earlier, successful mintage FOI's were facilitated by Mr Chris Howard - the Director of Bullion - who had a much more relaxed stance to divulging this information. After he fell out of grace mid 2017 (see links below), Finance Director Mr Martin McDade slammed the information doors shut.

Their current view of the public interest is that: "The public interest is not necessarily the same as what interests the public."  and they're weighing the public interest against "the probable and adverse commercial impact of such disclosure". 🙄 

I fully support the notion that this information should be available @5huggy - as soon as they have stopped selling a bullion coin there should be no reason to not disclose the actual mintage, just as many other mints are doing (e.g., once per year). What happens on the aftermarket is not in their control anyways.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-mint-executive-chris-howard-123000-salary-claimed-45000-expenses-45p-tissues-a7843426.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/16/royal-mint-chief-ran-45000-expenses-bill-including-50p-packet/

[Martlet]

Think an angle might be to play up on the "industry standard" to release mintages, with list of major mints publishing their bullion mintage figures. 

[jultorsk]

42 minutes ago, Martlet said:

Think an angle might be to play up on the "industry standard" to release mintages, with list of major mints publishing their bullion mintage figures. 

Agreed it is an industry "best practise" however the Royal Mint has chosen to hang onto their way, citing Royal Canadian Mint does not disclose bullion mintages either. RCM I think has not declared the "standard" silver maple mintage since 2015 (?) - that said, they have declared special editions, commemoratives and privy version mintages.

[5huggy]

2 hours ago, jultorsk said:

"The public interest is not necessarily the same as what interests the public."

Quite SO! @jultorsk - which in and of itself is damn stupid-

Every press/stamping machine has a counter! - they must have to have some sort of Quality "PROCEDURES" (BS/ISO) in place otherwise how can they account for silver usage

I.e. - - Input (plain planchet bar) - against a number of "OBJECTS" out!

OK so they make X amount of objects/varieties (SO WHAT!) - WEIGH the mass -WTF this is primary school maths!!

Hard to believe - THEY CANT do elementary "ADD and TAKEAWAY!" and come up with a Gawd damn simple number!

The effort put into writing that email back to me IMHO "SMELLS" of Secrecy and or (more worryingly) "DECEIT" !

A lot of work to just say- - >>>

 

[jultorsk]

Oh, they have all that information all right, they're just choosing not to share it... because of "prejudice of commercial interests"... it's a copy paste letter they're dropping to every mintage FOI request. 🤐

 

 

[5huggy]

3 minutes ago, jultorsk said:

Oh, they have all that information all right, they're just choosing not to share it... because of "prejudice of commercial interests"... it's a copy paste letter they're dropping to every mintage FOI request. 🤐

Cheers @jultorsk buddy - Yeah - I know -

I was just pointing out the "pathetic nature of the excuse " for any member who may be  interested in this kind of "shannagins" 

But may not be as "Well versed as myself " in BS/ISO quality management Procedures!  🤫😉

 

 

"Prejudice the commercial interests" !! 

 

FORD has not gone bust due to stating HOW MANY "MODEL "T"'s were produced!

[StackemHigh]

Maybe a template for the e-mail could be posted here and when they recieve a barrage of requests which they would have to reply to might change their minds! 

[5huggy]

3 minutes ago, StackemHigh said:

Maybe a template for the e-mail could be posted here and when they recieve a barrage of requests which they would have to reply to might change their minds! 

Awesome - well spotted @StackemHigh👍

Exactly what I and @ittle5huggy are putting together and having thoroughly checked by a "Compliance Expert"

At the very least - " a barrage" would mean that there IS PUBLIC INTEREST! that they could not deny!

So "Follow" this thread for template appearance! 😉

 

[Pampfan]

This was my initial request Sent back in 2017 - we can use this as a starting point!

Comment: I am writing to you under the freedom of information act of 2000. I would like to know the exact mintages and sales for the queens beast series of coins issued by the mint through April 30, 2017. Included should be details of the various gold bullion and proof versions of each coin and silver as well. If this information can not be provided please let me know what specific exemption this information would fall under the act. Please let me know if you have any questions.

[Melon]

I don't see anything wrong with their response. Seems reasonable and measured. In my opinion if you want mintage numbers then pick coins where the mintage numbers are released. 

[Melon]

10 hours ago, Pampfan said:

...

Why confused? (referring to your reaction on above post)

If you're buying a bullion product that doesn't give mintage numbers, why would you feel entitled to the information retrospectively? Their rational makes perfect sense, just put yourself in their shoes. What nefarious reason could they have to conceal the mintage numbers on bullion coins?

Isn't it unfair to people who purchased these coins if they retrospectively publish mintage numbers after saying they wouldn't at the time of sale? If mintage numbers are much higher than anticipated it may cause the value of peoples coins to go down. 

Seems to me some folk are looking at this from a very one sided viewpoint. This really isn't a public interest item, it's of commercial interest to a very small number of people. 

Or at least that's my humble opinion! 

 

[goldking]

6 minutes ago, Melon said:

Why confused? (referring to your reaction on above post)

If you're buying a bullion product that doesn't give mintage numbers, why would you feel entitled to the information retrospectively? Their rational makes perfect sense, just put yourself in their shoes. What nefarious reason could they have to conceal the mintage numbers on bullion coins?

Isn't it unfair to people who purchased these coins if they retrospectively publish mintage numbers after saying they wouldn't at the time of sale? If mintage numbers are much higher than anticipated it may cause the value of peoples coins to go down. 

Seems to me some folk are looking at this from a very one sided viewpoint. This really isn't a public interest item, it's of commercial interest to a very small number of people. 

Or at least that's my humble opinion! 

 

Excellent points imo and what I was trying to get across in my OP on the other page.

[Serendipity]

Contrary to what The Royal Mint says, most Mints actually do declare mintage figures for their bullion coins which doesn’t in any way negatively impact their business. It’s pretty obvious to the majority of bullion buyers that bullion coins are not minted in the zillions like cupronickel coins because of the rarity of precious metals. I’ve just recently purchased a gold bullion coin with a mintage figure of 2,000 but which sells for the same price as a standard gold Britannia. There’s not some kind of mad stampede of people buying up the coin.

It’s disingenuous for the The Royal Mint to use the Queen’s Beasts as an example of bullion coins which are sold primarily on their intrinsic precious metal content when the Lions and Griffins are sold at a much higher price than the Yales and White Lions. I’m puzzled by the mention of sovereigns because their mintages, both bullion and numismatic, have been available for many years. It’s worth pointing out that bullion coins are bought primarily but not exclusively for their intrinsic precious metal content.

[5huggy]

Thats what "grips my nickers " @Serendipity - or more poignantly - troubles me - as to why such a simple thing (in their eyes) cannot be divulged!

SUSPICIOUS or what!?