Defect, Faulty Production or Mint Error — The Queen's Beasts The Griffin Of Edward III 1oz Silver Proof Coin

[songofthunder]

Hey everyone,

I just got this newly ordered coin and noticed a defect on the obverse. I don't have experience with technical details and would love to ask someone here about the shiny mirror-like spot.
Let me know if you think it would impact the coin value.

You can view the coin in the below video:

 

Edited September 21, 2021 by thesongofthunder

[dicker]

A chap at the mint was likely finishing off one of his Benson and Hedges whilst enjoying a cup of PG Tips and a hobnob while reading the racing post.

A bit of fag ash or hobnob was probably swept into the press as he perused the runners and riders at the 2:15 at Chepstow.

In all seriousness, it is one to send back - quite how this passed Kwality Kontrol, is not surprising but disappointing.

Best 

Dicker

[CosmikDebris]

A brand new proof coin should be nigh on flawless. Yes, it would effect value/grade.

[dicker]

It beggars belief that they send a coin like that out, while charging GBP600 for an VF 1959 Gillick.....

One of these businesses that seems to trade off of reputation rather than having a laser focus on quality and customer experience

https://www.royalmint.com/our-coins/ranges/historic-coins/historic-sovereigns/1959-queen-elizabeth-ii-sovereign/

 

[SilverJacks]

It looks like a "struck thru" mint error. It's where a piece of debris, be it solid or liquid, is on the coin during strike. I believe that's the case because I had a similar issue on a bullion coin that, mainly out of curiosity, I sent for grading which came back with a "mint error, struck thru" notation. 

As previously mentioned, it is baffling how a proof coin gets through quality control with this flaw. A bullion coin, fair enough, but proofs should be more stringently checked.

Most people would see that as an unwanted defect. Personally, I would keep it. The coin is not altered or damaged post production. It is in the condition it came when made, making it actually quite unique. I understand anyone's disappointment when seeing it as a defect, which it is. But I like them as they come. They can even add value when particularly prominent, especially if the foreign object is still on the coin, which in this case it isn't, but being centre of the Queens face still has prominence. 

If you sent for grading, you'd likely get the "mint error" notation if you paid the extra fee for it. Although that would mean 69 grade or less, since they do not grant both 70 and mint error on a coin. Once you have "mint error" on the slab, it is collectable, not to everyone's taste, but still collectable to some, including myself. I like it.

[motorbikez]

@dicker Looks like he stubbed his benson & hedges out on the Queens face @thesongofthunder that's the obverse not the reverse.

[songofthunder]

17 hours ago, motorbikez said:

@dicker Looks like he stubbed his benson & hedges out on the Queens face @thesongofthunder that's the obverse not the reverse.

You're right, I have posted this in hurry, I meant obverse! Thanks.

[songofthunder]

20 hours ago, dicker said:

A chap at the mint was likely finishing off one of his Benson and Hedges whilst enjoying a cup of PG Tips and a hobnob while reading the racing post.

A bit of fag ash or hobnob was probably swept into the press as he perused the runners and riders at the 2:15 at Chepstow.

In all seriousness, it is one to send back - quite how this passed Kwality Kontrol, is not surprising but disappointing.

Best 

Dicker

So funny the way you described it. But, I bet something similar has happened. It is disappointing it has passed the Quality Control. Unfortunately, the dealer doesn't have it in stock anymore, so I am thinking to keep it. It may not be a good decision at all .

[songofthunder]

18 hours ago, SilverJacks said:

It looks like a "struck thru" mint error. It's where a piece of debris, be it solid or liquid, is on the coin during strike. I believe that's the case because I had a similar issue on a bullion coin that, mainly out of curiosity, I sent for grading which came back with a "mint error, struck thru" notation. 

As previously mentioned, it is baffling how a proof coin gets through quality control with this flaw. A bullion coin, fair enough, but proofs should be more stringently checked.

Most people would see that as an unwanted defect. Personally, I would keep it. The coin is not altered or damaged post production. It is in the condition it came when made, making it actually quite unique. I understand anyone's disappointment when seeing it as a defect, which it is. But I like them as they come. They can even add value when particularly prominent, especially if the foreign object is still on the coin, which in this case it isn't, but being centre of the Queens face still has prominence. 

If you sent for grading, you'd likely get the "mint error" notation if you paid the extra fee for it. Although that would mean 69 grade or less, since they do not grant both 70 and mint error on a coin. Once you have "mint error" on the slab, it is collectable, not to everyone's taste, but still collectable to some, including myself. I like it.

I am disappointed as well, I wanted to send it back but unfortunately there is none available in stock to change it with, so I decided to keep it. Like you, I think I am going to consider it a struck error and I may send it for grading. Thanks for taking your time @SilverJacks to explain all this, appreciated!

Edited September 21, 2021 by thesongofthunder
typos

[LawrenceChard]

20 hours ago, dicker said:

A chap at the mint was likely finishing off one of his Benson and Hedges whilst enjoying a cup of PG Tips and a hobnob while reading the racing post.

A bit of fag ash or hobnob was probably swept into the press as he perused the runners and riders at the 2:15 at Chepstow.

In all seriousness, it is one to send back - quite how this passed Kwality Kontrol, is not surprising but disappointing.

Best 

Dicker

It's great to get such a high precision analysis, but isn't that just a trifle harsh on the RM. A few observations:

I think as a workplace, smoking is not permitted.

I don't think they get PG Tips, only Mint Tea.

Hobnobbing (from wiktionary.org):

hobnobbing (plural hobnobbings)

A friendly, informal session of talking or drinking.
his hobnobbings with the crowned heads of Europe

So you were right, he got some of his hobnob on the crowned head.

Is the Racing Post still running? If so, it's like the last horse I backed.

Kwality Kontrol is probably still WFH, so it's unfair to pin it in them.

😎

[TeaTime]

I have a couple of 2oz bullion Lion of England coins with the E of England partially struck - I believe some swarf stuck to the die when they were being minted. I kept them as curiosities and because it does not detract from the coin as a whole..

I don't believe they will ever increase in value and will probably command a bit of a loss over a perfectly struck coin if i ever come to sell them. Although there are people who collect die faults etc on modern coins, there are a lot more people who want minty examples.

If that coin came from the secondary market then i would be pretty annoyed with the dealer and would be sending it back. The defect is not one that could potentially command a premium like a die crack or mis-aligned coin would. It looks like someone has given it a bash and reminds me of the many coins on Ebay sold as mint errors which are, in fact, abused post production. 😐

[SilverJacks]

@TeaTimeOnly a professional grader would confirm whether it is post production or not.

Personally I’m quite confident it’s a mint error. If had taken a bash, you’d see more obvious impact marks.

If the coin came at a high premium then maybe a refund is best. If it was RRP, I’d keep it, slab it and enjoy ownership of it. If it did come back as impact damaged, only then would I be disappointed.

Once it’s slabbed mint error there will be people out there that may well pay good money for it. Plus you never know how the future market goes. People buy the slab as much as the coin these days. Who’s to tell if mint error slabs become more popular in future…

@songofthunderif you do grade it, send it with NGC. Since PCGS are quite fussy with mint errors, so I hear anyway. 

here’s the example I refer to when believing it’s a mint error. I know, many people will laugh that I slabbed it. I was already submitting other coins and threw it in out of curiosity. Since it came back with the mint error notation, I have become quite fond of it and would happily own more, particularly nice proof coins such as the one in question. It’s all rather subjective really.

 

[TeaTime]

I am wholly ignorant of the appeal of defective slabbed coins so will defer to your greater knowledge.

I wasn't implying that the damage on songofthunders coin was made post-production, simply that it looks like it could have happened that way. We've all seen 'mint error' coins for sale that have obviously been defaced in an effort to increase the appeal to error collectors.

The fact that the coin passed RM QC and, potentially a secondary market QC (it was never stated where the coin was purchased from) is shocking. Missing frosting is one thing, a bloody gert dent is something else entirely. 😁