MATTE? PROOF?

[JJH]

I realized that there are many versions of gold coins that are all based on MATTE, and some of the MATTE are very cute. I don’t have one in my hand, so I plan to get one as a collection.
So does MATTE mean full forst coins,don’t even need to polish the mirror base blank to make?

Edited December 28, 2021 by JJH
Punctuation

[GoldDiggerDave]

Hi JJH

Normally the dies are sandblasted to give the coin the matte granular finish. This technique was adopted by a number of mints around the start of the 1900's.  In 1902 Matte proof currency set was made in the UK, and also around this time 1908 the US mints experimented with the same technique of striking the coins with an un polished die and then sandblasting the the die between strikes. The appearance of the coin can be altered by the fineness of the sand grains used.  

This is where I feel the RM has quality issues with modern matte coins, they are struck with unpolished dies but they are not sand blasted after every strike (I can understand why as this would be very labour intensive and would produce a much lower strike per hour)  This is easy to see where the sandblasting is not 100% consistent and degrades very quickly between strikes and can give the coin what I call a  "dotty"  finish.

Some sovereigns where produced as a matte finish as  specimen coins for the purpose of reference photography, as they were easier to photograph without reflecting the light. The 1937 Matte proof for example. 

I've also seen satin coins that have a beautiful lustre to the appearance of the coin.  Not produced or referenced as "satin" there are some 1960's Sovereigns with an attractive satin finish to the appearance of the coin, this is possibly due the alloy used, something I'm currently investigating.

Cheers

Dave

 

 

 

 

[JJH]

Thank you DAVE, according to your statementThank you DAVE, according to your statement
The understanding I got is (if matte is indeed full forst) the frost part of the mold of the general PROOF also needs to be sandblasted between two strikes? Wow, if this is the case, isn’t it much more difficult, they need to The mirror part of the mold is masked, so that all the costs will be higher than pure matte. But I guess RM they must have not done so.
In this way, it is more difficult to make PROOF according to a rigorous procedure. If it is made according to a simple procedure, the defect rate due to the small forst area of PROOF will be much lower than that of matte.The understanding I got is that the frost part of the mold of the general PROOF also needs to be sandblasted between two taps?

[GoldDiggerDave]

The difference between a Brilliant uncirculated (BU) and a proof sovereign is blurred line.  As they are made and stuck almost identically as a proof.  I have a 2018 BU SOTD sovereign and it’s better than a 2022 proof in terms of strike and quality of fields.   This even confused or caught out the NGC and PCGS as many were graded as PR not MS.  
 

Matte sovereigns were sandblasted between each strike, (I don’t know how many times a 1902 matte was struck. Possibly only once? This would explain why they are not as sharp as other proof sovereigns, would be interesting to see if anyone knows this.  
 

The modern BU matte sovereigns are stuck 4 times……I know this as I’ve stuck my own.  The blanks used for modern matte sovereigns are exactly the same as proof blanks, as I asked this question to the RM operator, and the matte finish is only achieved by the sandblasting of the die. 

[Zhorro]

8 minutes ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

The modern BU matte sovereigns are stuck 4 times……I know this as I’ve stuck my own. 

I have always thought that Matte Brilliant Uncirculated was a contradiction in terms.  I would have thought that a sovereign could be Matte or Brilliant Uncirculated, but I struggle to see how it can be both at the same time!

[GoldDiggerDave]

@Zhorro You are right there are so many blurred lines, I think the RM classed these as a BU to try and differentiate them as a proof. I've never under stood why all the SOTD sovereigns are all classed a BU.  My thoughts were they did not want to effect the mintage figures for proof sovereigns through out the year, but if anyone can answer this I'd be happy to hear it.  

If all matte sovereigns are BU could they make a matte proof look any different/sharper?  Suppose they could try and use a finer sand/glass on the dies.  I think a reverse frosted sovereign would have the potential to look spectacular.  

[JJH]

as i have see like 2017 SOTD  look the photo it seem forst in ST George side but have no forst in queen side

And proof is both mirror&forst.The matte is all forst(Artificial atomization). SOTD between both

BU is both no forst.I just hope that there won’t be another version that is queen forst and the opposite version without processing on the other side.

However, when there are complicated patterns(like 2022), it seems difficult to display on MATTE? Or it is difficult to see clearly

[kimchi]

I haven't seen a matte in hand - the finish is quite different from the frosting on a proof, isn't it?

5 hours ago, JJH said:

The understanding I got is (if matte is indeed full forst) the frost part of the mold of the general PROOF also needs to be sandblasted between two strikes?

I've never heard of the RM doing anything to the dies between strikes for proofs - only cleaning them with air. Once a die is declining in quality it's replaced.

3 hours ago, Zhorro said:

I have always thought that Matte Brilliant Uncirculated was a contradiction in terms.  I would have thought that a sovereign could be Matte or Brilliant Uncirculated, but I struggle to see how it can be both at the same time!

I believe the Mint still define them in the way they are prepared, treated and struck. BUs are machine fed and usually struck 2 or 3 times (it sounds like they've increased these to 4 from Dave for the mattes, possibly because the finish is harder to achieve, possibly because the premium is higher than many BUs and customers expect more, or possibly just 'better safe than sorry' for visitors to the Mint, as they pay a lot for striking these coins themselves!). Proofs are placed by hand and are struck up to 6 times, and longer is spent on the dies.

The confusion must be because of one or more of the following:

1) they are striking or treating BUs (at least the Mattes and Strike on the Days) better than they say they do, so the quality is more similar to proofs.

2) they are not striking proofs as carefully as they should be (so again quality is similar). This must be recent as I haven't seen it on any proofs up to 2018 (when I stopped buying them) but @GoldDiggerDave says his 2022 Proof is poor and worse than a 2018 SotD. Again I haven't seen later examples but the 2017 and 2018 SotD were exceptional quality. The 2018 Sapphire Coronation my dealer at the time even told me 'it's a proof!' but that's not the way the Mint see it. The 2017 was sent out with a Proof CoA and graded as one initially by both NGC and PCGS until the Mint advertised its mistake and recalled the 'error' CoAs.

3) The extra strikes on a proof are not making a significant difference on modern coins.

3 hours ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

I've never under stood why all the SOTD sovereigns are all classed a BU.  My thoughts were they did not want to effect the mintage figures for proof sovereigns through out the year, but if anyone can answer this I'd be happy to hear it.

I don't think it's mintage as much as differentiating products and keeping the proof sov distinct as a 'brand'.

1 hour ago, JJH said:

as i have see like 2017 SOTD  look the photo it seem forst in ST George side but have no forst in queen side

The 2017 is frosted both sides.

[JJH]

9 hours ago, kimchi said:

I haven't seen a matte in hand - the finish is quite different from the frosting on a proof, isn't it?

Haha because I don’t have any MATTE to compare. I always look at the pictures on the Internet. Maybe it’s because I don’t have enough experience to tell the difference. Maybe my eyes are old.🤣🤣🤣 But after watching several versions of MATTE, I still can’t tell the difference between forst and forst.....

[kimchi]

8 hours ago, JJH said:

Haha because I don’t have any MATTE to compare. I always look at the pictures on the Internet. Maybe it’s because I don’t have enough experience to tell the difference. Maybe my eyes are old.🤣🤣🤣 But after watching several versions of MATTE, I still can’t tell the difference between forst and forst.....

Yes me too, it looks like a different finish to me to the frosting on a Proof or BU (?).

[kimchi]

8 hours ago, JJH said:

Haha because I don’t have any MATTE to compare. I always look at the pictures on the Internet. Maybe it’s because I don’t have enough experience to tell the difference. Maybe my eyes are old.🤣🤣🤣 But after watching several versions of MATTE, I still can’t tell the difference between forst and forst.....

To add:

That's one thing I hope to be educated on, I'm disappointed there hasn't been any follow-up to my post, because there is certainly stuff in there to be argued/debated!

I look forward to your 'forst' collection with some interest, I do hope you'll let us see photos.

[JJH]

2 hours ago, kimchi said:

To add:

That's one thing I hope to be educated on, I'm disappointed there hasn't been any follow-up to my post, because there is certainly stuff in there to be argued/debated!

I look forward to your 'forst' collection with some interest, I do hope you'll let us see photos.

Haha, I started my coin collection in the past two years. I don’t have a lot of gb coins. I have a set of 2017 britannia positive and negative refined silver coins(😢However, due to the severe wear and tear of many FORST parts, I really rarely show them for viewing.

). I started directly with 1989😂. At present, I put 5sov somewhere else and sealed it and only have 2sov in my hand, but the phone is not great. I got 1/2sov from another place last month, but I haven’t got it yet. I’m planning to use it later. Exchange matte and the rest is Japanese gold coins and nothing else  

I also hope that more people will share what they understand has enabled me to go deeper

Edited December 29, 2021 by JJH
PHOTO

[kimchi]

@JJH a lovely Japanese coin, thanks for sharing!

Well, I'm surprised! I had no interest in the modern Matt sovereigns until now, but looking into it thanks to this thread I find it all fascinating.

From my research so far (I am happy and would like to be corrected where I'm wrong):

1) The 1902 Proof Matt finish was very subtle compared to the new Brilliant Uncirculated ones. This could be due to a fewer number of strikes for each coin (as Dave suggests), or the die technology of the time, or the technology of the Mint in general.

2) From looking at video comparisons (which are still different to seeing a coin in person), the finish on the new Matts is much closer to the frosted areas of a Proof than I expected. The finish looks a little flatter to me, and less shiny or reflective. Both the Matts (the whole die) and the Proofs (certain areas) are sandblasted. Is the difference only because the Brilliant Uncirculated is struck fewer times (?) or is it a slight difference in treatment (for example the fineness of the sand, and as a second example the Royal Mint say Proofs are also treated with micro glass beads)?

3) I've found no reference that the 1902 Matt Proof dies were sandblasted between each strike, where is this from please @GoldDiggerDave?

4) Proof dies are not sandblasted or treated between strikes, until they need re-polishing after 300-400 strikes. They are only cleaned with air.

My hypothesis on the 'missing Matt finish' spots on these modern coins is that:

1) The Matt finish is much deeper than the 1902, and so both harder to achieve perfectly, and easier for small areas to be knocked off if not handled in the same way as Proofs.

2) As they are struck as Brilliant Uncirculated and not Proof there is less attention to perfection.

3) Highly speculative - as there are no areas to be re-polished they may be used for an entire run of 600 coins, or sandblasted again once or twice (unlike Proofs, and which may introduce its own problems).

Main source:

 

[JJH]

I think DAVE originally meant to express "it should have been" but the Mint didn't think they should. Even I think this is too difficult to achieve. If this is the case, it will take about a year in advance to release the reservation before there is time to make it.
But MATTE mold uses 600 coins too much...