2022 Platinum Jubilee SOTD Sovereign

[Mtaybar]

10 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

I was also disappointed by the quality of the brown outer box this time. I wonder if they would replace that too!

I was disappointed by the royal mail van that it was sent in.... It should've came in a horse drawn carriage and presented on a gold tasseled cushion. They really need to pick up their game and do things properly!!

[paulmerton]

1 minute ago, Mtaybar said:

I was disappointed by the royal mail van that it was sent in.... It should've came in a horse drawn carriage and presented on a gold tasseled cushion. They really need to pick up their game and do things properly!!

I was disappointed by the weather that prevented it arriving yesterday. It's unacceptable that the Royal Mint allows bad weather to keep happening.

[Foster88]

28 minutes ago, blackadder said:

Seems it's all higher numbers with bad marks,Not just abit of frosting etc.

Like they started rushing or left metal fragments all over everything and just hammered them into the later coins lol.

Yes seems so.

I’m missing the frosting on the first 2 in the date and mine is a 600 and something COA.

But my 2022 proof half sovereign COA is under 100 and that is stunningly perfect so maybe there is some truth in it.

[blackadder]

2 minutes ago, Foster88 said:

I’m missing the frosting on the first 2 in the date and mine is a 600 and something COA.

But my 2022 proof half sovereign COA is under 100 and that is stunningly perfect so maybe there is some truth in it.

On yours it's just the frosting around the 2 right? nothing else is really wrong correct?

The higher numbers seem to have dings or scratches.

[Zhorro]

42 minutes ago, James32 said:

So are we in agreement that the first 600 were struck by royal mint on the day, then the rest likely struck by royal mail on route ?

Or they may drink a shot every 100 coins!

[Foster88]

2 hours ago, blackadder said:

On yours it's just the frosting around the 2 right? nothing else is really wrong correct?

The higher numbers seem to have dings or scratches.

Yeah it’s just the frosting on the first 2.

There doesn’t seem to be any scratches on either side.

[James32]

3 minutes ago, Foster88 said:

Yeah it’s just the frosting on the first 2.

There doesn’t seem to be any scratches on either side.

Check out @Aran Post about damaged sotd sovs.....quite interesting examples and achieved ms70.

 

[SovereignBishop]

4 hours ago, blackadder said:

Looks fine here,head side has marks and little dent lol.

I can't be bothered to make it stand out more seems the higher the coa number the more the problems.

I may however just keep it.

Mine is fine at coa 1120. I honestly doubt the coa is any correlation to the order of mintage. 

[paulmerton]

7 minutes ago, SovereignBishop said:

Mine is fine at coa 1120. I honestly doubt the coa is any correlation to the order of mintage. 

Plus aren't they supposed to clean and repolish the die after 100 or so coins?

[James32]

1 minute ago, paulmerton said:

Plus aren't they supposed to clean and repolish the die after 100 or so coins?

Yes but with the dreadful inflation, they now use baby oil to polish...hazardous stuff. 

[GoldDiggerDave]

I’d expect them to re sandblast the dies. 

6 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

Plus aren't they supposed to clean and repolish the die after 100 or so coins?

[JeffM]

2 hours ago, SovereignBishop said:

Mine is fine at coa 1120. I honestly doubt the coa is any correlation to the order of mintage. 

Correct.  The COA numbers have no correlation to the order of mintage.  It’s possible that the lowest number COA is assigned to one of the last coins minted.

[blackadder]

7 hours ago, Foster88 said:

Yeah it’s just the frosting on the first 2.

There doesn’t seem to be any scratches on either side.

So you going to send it back or keep it?

[Foster88]

1 hour ago, blackadder said:

So you going to send it back or keep it?

I’m going to keep it.

Its barely visible with the naked eye, I can barely see it but my eyesight is good.

It is visible under a 10x loupe (as my photos were on this thread) but if I ever sent it for grading I think it would be discounted as a mint flaw.

I just don’t have any confidence that it would be replaced for a better coin, let alone be replaced at all.

There are no other scratches or dings or frosting missing.

Have you decided what to do with yours?

[Foster88]

5 hours ago, JeffM said:

Correct.  The COA numbers have no correlation to the order of mintage.  It’s possible that the lowest number COA is assigned to one of the last coins minted.

I’d love to be a fly on the wall at RM in the production room, for the purposes of this thread, just on 6th February 2022. 😆

[JeffM]

43 minutes ago, Foster88 said:

I’d love to be a fly on the wall at RM in the production room, for the purposes of this thread, just on 6th February 2022. 😆

You’d probably have a lot of company at the RM.  I’m sure there are lots of flies on the wall (and everywhere else).

[BiigT]

It says on the CoA a max of 1210 coins minted so am I being thick here in thinking that they can only replace 10 maximum and the rest will just be swapped from returned batches?

My point being that I bought this accepting to keep it in whatever condition it arrived. Obviously I want a pristine coin, but RM quality issues are par for the course. I'd grade mine, but I don't know if specs of missing frosting go against the grading process 

[Zhorro]

16 minutes ago, BiigT said:

It says on the CoA a max of 1210 coins minted so am I being thick here in thinking that they can only replace 10 maximum and the rest will just be swapped from returned batches?

My point being that I bought this accepting to keep it in whatever condition it arrived. Obviously I want a pristine coin, but RM quality issues are par for the course. I'd grade mine, but I don't know if specs of missing frosting go against the grading process 

I would have thought those 10 would be kept for the Trial of the Pyx, so whether it just means they can't be sold (but could be swapped), I don't know.

[paulmerton]

On 19/02/2022 at 00:19, James32 said:

Don't know what happened but they are all blurred out now.

Was able to screenshot the first just.

Notably, another review includes a similar sentiment on numbers over quality:

Quote

If you enjoy pressure and stress then this is the place of work for you!
Targets, targets, targets - don’t worry about quality....that is until item gets returned and your qc number is on there and your in for a shock!

So maybe one way of effecting a positive and lasting change would be to remove the numbered QC sticker when you return anything.

It would force them to consider the process as a whole rather than blaming an individual and not actually solving what appears to be the root cause of it all.

You could argue that it might avoid a truly bad employee from being identified, but I believe they should handle that by doing QC on their own QC (e.g. by double checking random samples) rather than relying on us to do it.

Edited February 20, 2022 by paulmerton
missed out a word

[MancunianStacker]

8 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

Notably, another review includes a similar sentiment on numbers over quality:

So maybe one way of effecting a positive and lasting change would be to remove the numbered QC sticker when you return anything.

It would force them to consider the process as a whole rather than blaming an individual and not actually solving what appears to be the root cause of it all.

You could argue that it might avoid a truly bad employee from being identified, but I believe they should handle that by doing QC on their own QC (e.g. by double checking random samples) rather than relying on us to do it.

AI could easily solve this, they don’t want to.

[Mtaybar]

On 19/02/2022 at 01:25, Foster88 said:

It’s 10x magnification through a loupe that I took these photos through. It can’t be seen with the naked eye. The rest of the coin is stunning.

Maybe I’m being too fussy.

Regardless, I do like this and I feel it is truly unique as to the occasion it marks.

I’d still stand by my comment earlier in this thread. If there was a SOTD sovereign to own I feel that this is it.

If you like the coin and can live with such a small imperfection then I'd say keep it. If you like the coin but that tiny imperfection is doing your nutt in then return it and wait for a graded one to hit the market. I know what I'd do lol. I wouldn't be paying to have one in a slab.... That to me is a bigger eyesore then a tiny speck that's not noticeable until it's under a magnifier. 

[blackadder]

10 hours ago, Foster88 said:

I’m going to keep it.

Its barely visible with the naked eye, I can barely see it but my eyesight is good.

It is visible under a 10x loupe (as my photos were on this thread) but if I ever sent it for grading I think it would be discounted as a mint flaw.

I just don’t have any confidence that it would be replaced for a better coin, let alone be replaced at all.

There are no other scratches or dings or frosting missing.

Have you decided what to do with yours?

mine has a tiny ding,but is great apart from that   I'm going to just keep it i think As i can see hundreds of these having large or small problems.

There were afew on ebay looking far worse lol.

Guess it's not a proof coin either at the end of the day,However it becomes a problem when bullion coins turn up in better nick then a £670 coin

 

[coinory]

Who is sending their coin for grading ? I am Gonna post mine tomorrow for grading, Hopefully will be able to receive it when I comes back from traveling  

Edited February 22, 2022 by coinory

[SovereignBishop]

So has anyone returned theirs and if so, what was the result ? 

[Alz111]

14 hours ago, coinory said:

Who is sending their coin for grading ? I am Gonna post mine tomorrow for grading, Hopefully will be able to receive it when I comes back from traveling  

Sending mine tomorrow hopefully