Who wants a ‘pink’ sovereign?

[Foster88]

Who wants a ‘pink’ looking Sovereign? 

What will it take for RM to realise that the ‘modern’ sovereign, which I say as post 2000 ish, it is too rose gold or pink looking.

As an example, I showed the 2022 ‘proof’ sovereign to my mum. She said, and I quote “That looks like a copper coin, you’ve been ripped off”.

I know this is a HUGE bug bearer of @LawrenceChard and he’s tried and tried with The Royal Mint.

Personally, I dislike the rose gold colour. But you still get the same amount of gold.

Why won’t RM listen? I fear their ignorance is driven by our demand.

Are we at fault?

Maybe from RM perspective, if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. 

Will they ever change?

I doubt it.

All they have to do is add silver!!

[SidS]

Don't buy them. If you want change you'll have to hit them in the pocket.

So long as you keep buying them, they'll keep making them. You can moan all you like at the mint, but it's counter-productive to say, "I hate these... How many have you got?"

Edited February 14, 2022 by SidS

[Zhorro]

4 hours ago, Foster88 said:

Who wants a ‘pink’ looking Sovereign? 

I thought this was refering to a special SOTD Valentine sovereign!  Oh no, I've just given the RM an idea!

[GoldDiggerDave]

I want modern branch mint sets  I'd buy a set every year,

Britain, Canada, India, Perth......and they could open a shack in Sydney, Melbourne and South Africa to bang out mint mark sovereigns.  

AND 

Die numbered bullion sovereigns.  A die numbers George and the Dragon would be interesting,  they could nail us for a monthly subscription so you get every one?

AND 

Shield back sovereigns using the original dies

 

 

Edited February 14, 2022 by GoldDiggerDave

[LawrenceChard]

6 hours ago, Foster88 said:

Who wants a ‘pink’ looking Sovereign? 

What will it take for RM to realise that the ‘modern’ sovereign, which I say as post 2000 ish, it is too rose gold or pink looking.

As an example, I showed the 2022 ‘proof’ sovereign to my mum. She said, and I quote “That looks like a copper coin, you’ve been ripped off”.

I know this is a HUGE bug bearer of @LawrenceChard and he’s tried and tried with The Royal Mint.

Personally, I dislike the rose gold colour. But you still get the same amount of gold.

Why won’t RM listen? I fear their ignorance is driven by our demand.

Are we at fault?

Maybe from RM perspective, if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. 

Will they ever change?

I doubt it.

All they have to do is add silver!!

They could go down well with the LGBTQI community, but that's about all.

Which reminds me that if you ever drop a gold sovereign at a coin fair, be careful about bending over to pick it up.

I have, as you probably know, written to the Royal Mint about the colour and silver content. They have responded, and indicated that they would consider the suggestion, but the wording did not create the impression that an immiment change was likely. The RM Marketing machine presumably has considerable inertia and momentum, if that's not an oxymoron. They appear to have found a successful formula recently with Great Engravers, and Historic Monarchs, low mintage, large sizes, premium issues at premium prices, with low issue limits. With that success rolling along, there may be little incentive for making what might appear to be a minor change. 

Another point is that because a vocally active RM competitor, a small dealer in Blackpool, has been pushing the idea, the RM might be reluctant to change as this might be seen as admitting they have been getting it wrong for the last 70 years.

One of my propoosals was that we would like a first year exclusive deal, where we take 500 yellow coloured proof sovereigns, and 5000 similar bullion sovereigns, paying slightly extra for the silver content and production costs. It is highly likely that the "Chard" coins would attract more demand, and command a higher secondary market premium than the copper coloured ones, and would provide a clear demonstration that our idea was sound. It would also be a good example of putting our money where our mouth is.

Two-coin sets, one red and one yellow coin, would also be an attractive idea for once.

If the RM were reluctant to run two different production lots of sovereigns, we could suggest that the Perth Mint make them under licence, so we would get a great colour, and solve the QC problem at the same time. Perhaps I had better not mention that to the RM!

 

[LawrenceChard]

On 14/02/2022 at 08:22, GoldDiggerDave said:

I want modern branch mint sets  I'd buy a set every year,

Britain, Canada, India, Perth......and they could open a shack in Sydney, Melbourne and South Africa to bang out mint mark sovereigns.  

AND 

Die numbered bullion sovereigns.  A die numbers George and the Dragon would be interesting,  they could nail us for a monthly subscription so you get every one?

AND 

Shield back sovereigns using the original dies

 

I mentioned the idea to Perth Mint years ago, that a traditional St. George sovereign, but with a "P" mintmark, would be popular. The answer was that the Royal Mint would be highly resistant to any other mints using the Royal Mint's Pistrucci design. Yet since then, we have seen "I" mintmark sovereigns.

My Perth Mint suggestion was a part way stage towards a full Mintmark set, as Dave suggests.

Linguistically, "Shield back sovereigns" is tautological, and rather un-numismatic. "Shield reverse sovereigns" would be an improvement, but just "Shield sovereigns" is better. Where else would anyone stick a shield? Definitely "Shield obverse sovereigns" are unlikely to appear, as also are "Shield front sovereigns". (Pedantic bit over for now).

If the Royal Mint made new sovereigns using original Victorian dies, would these be counterfeits?

It's an interesting concept. If any mint made forgeries of its own coins, would they be genuine or forgeries?

😎

 

Edited March 26, 2022 by LawrenceChard

[paulmerton]

11 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

I mentioned the idea to Perth Mint years ago, that a traditional St. George sovereign, but with a "P" mintmark, would be popular.

Something I've always wondered - are Sovereigns with mintmarks every so slightly heavier, or are they still exactly the same weight as "regular" Sovereigns? If they are the same weight, where is the mass of the mintmark subtracted from - are the coins just microscopically thinner overall, or is there something subtly subtracted from the design or the border pattern? Or is the mintmark effectively free gold?!  

[DeepSpace]

Ironically, if they did ditch the 'Pink' gold sovereigns they would probably become highly desirable and skyrocket in price.

[GoldDiggerDave]

@LawrenceChard I'm just down with the kids with "Shield-backs!"  

 

[LawrenceChard]

4 minutes ago, DeepSpace said:

Ironically, if they did ditch the 'Pink' gold sovereigns they would probably become highly desirable and skyrocket in price.

Copper Headines:

Goldman sees copper price “breakout”, risk of “extreme scarcity episode”

Copper price: Global stocks are down to three days’ consumption

A Copper Crisis Threatens The Energy Transition

...

😎

[GoldDiggerDave]

44 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

Something I've always wondered - are Sovereigns with mintmarks every so slightly heavier, or are they still exactly the same weight as "regular" Sovereigns? If they are the same weight, where is the mass of the mintmark subtracted from - are the coins just microscopically thinner overall, or is there something subtly subtracted from the design or the border pattern? Or is the mintmark effectively free gold?!  

The blanks would always be the same mass, the design of the die would not effect the mass of the blank, the diameter would remain the same within the collar, however would this effect the thickness of a coin?  I'd say yes but it would be millionths of microns if that.    But and interesting point.   

[LawrenceChard]

5 minutes ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

@LawrenceChard I'm just down with the kids with "Shield-backs!"  

 

Populist!

😎

[LawrenceChard]

49 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

Something I've always wondered - are Sovereigns with mintmarks every so slightly heavier, or are they still exactly the same weight as "regular" Sovereigns? If they are the same weight, where is the mass of the mintmark subtracted from - are the coins just microscopically thinner overall, or is there something subtly subtracted from the design or the border pattern? Or is the mintmark effectively free gold?!  

The important factor is the weight of the blanks.

When you hit the blanks with a few tonnes of pressure between hardened steel dies, the gold blanks melt or soften enough for the metal to flow from background or incuse areas into the raised relief areas, so no, you don't get any extra gold with mintmark sovereigns.

(You do get extra silver though!)

😎

[paulmerton]

2 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

The important factor is the weight of the blanks.

When you hit the blanks with a few tonnes of pressure between hardened steel dies, the gold blanks melt or soften enough for the metal to flow from background or incuse areas into the raised relief areas, so no, you don't get any extra gold with mintmark sovereigns.

(You do get extra silver though!)

😎

So where does the mintmark gold come from then? Is the coin microscopically thinner as a result, or is part of the design modified to subtract an equivalent amount of volume and maintain the precise thickness?

[LawrenceChard]

6 minutes ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

The blanks would always be the same mass, the design of the die would not effect the mass of the blank, the diameter would remain the same within the collar, however would this effect the thickness of a coin?  I'd say yes but it would be millionths of microns if that.    But and interesting point.   

I would have accused you of copying my answer, but you hit "submit" before me!

[LawrenceChard]

6 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

So where does the mintmark gold come from then? Is the coin microscopically thinner as a result, or is part of the design modified to subtract an equivalent amount of volume and maintain the precise thickness?

@GoldDiggerDave has already answered that, but as I say "from background or incuse areas into the raised relief areas". 

... or...

It starts out as part of the blank, and gold gets squeezed from one place to another.

It is not necessary to adjust the thickness of the design.

The relative thickness of various parts of the finished product is a function of the depth of relief of the die engravings.

If the striking pressure was insufficient, then there would be partial filling of the relief parts, such as the weak strikes common on some George V branch mint sovereigns. If too high, extra metal would try to flow out of the collar, leaving sharp "flash" lines protruding from the raised milled edges. This can be seen on some older sovereigns.

If the striking pressure was too great, it would probably result in premature die breakage, or damage to the coining presses. This pressure would be regulated by varying the amount of travel or "throw" of the dies.

Does this help?

[paulmerton]

1 minute ago, LawrenceChard said:

@GoldDiggerDave has already answered that, but as I say "from background or incuse areas into the raised relief areas". 

... or...

It starts out as part of the blank, and gold gets squeezed from one place to another.

It is not necessary to adjust the thickness of the design.

The relative thickness of various parts of the finished product is a function of the depth of relief of the die engravings.

If the striking pressure was insufficient, then there would be partial filling of the relief parts, such as the weak strikes common on some George V branch mint sovereigns. If too high, extra metal would try to flow out of the collar, leaving sharp "flash" lines protruding from the raised milled edges. This can be seen on some older sovereigns.

If the striking pressure was too great, it would probably result in premature die breakage, or damage to the coining presses. This pressure would be regulated by varying the amount of travel or "throw" of the dies.

Does this help?

I understand how coins are struck - I've even done one myself (if pressing a button counts!) - but if the resultant thickness is the same, then I am still unclear whether you mean:

• the rest of the face just doesn't get filled up as much as it should do on a Sovereign that has a mint mark (would that make them ever so slightly less detailed than a mark-less Sovereign?)
• or whether the design on a mint marked die is deliberately different to offset the missing volume on the remainder of the coin face such that it maintains optimal detail.

I know mint marks are pretty small, but that volume of gold has to be subtracted from some other part of the coin. If it is struck to the same detail, then the coin would have to be slightly thinner; if it is struck to the same thickness, then something would have to literally be missing from somewhere.

 

 

[paulmerton]

1 hour ago, LawrenceChard said:

@GoldDiggerDave has already answered that, but as I say "from background or incuse areas into the raised relief areas". 

... or...

It starts out as part of the blank, and gold gets squeezed from one place to another.

It is not necessary to adjust the thickness of the design.

The relative thickness of various parts of the finished product is a function of the depth of relief of the die engravings.

If the striking pressure was insufficient, then there would be partial filling of the relief parts, such as the weak strikes common on some George V branch mint sovereigns. If too high, extra metal would try to flow out of the collar, leaving sharp "flash" lines protruding from the raised milled edges. This can be seen on some older sovereigns.

If the striking pressure was too great, it would probably result in premature die breakage, or damage to the coining presses. This pressure would be regulated by varying the amount of travel or "throw" of the dies.

Does this help?

Or to explain pictorially with a cross section view with an exaggerated mint mark, is this what happens?

(I've made it pink to stay topical)

 

[LawrenceChard]

2 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

Or to explain pictorially with a cross section view with an exaggerated mint mark, is this what happens?

(I've made it pink to stay topical)

 

You have got it!

I just looove the pink!

😎

[LawrenceChard]

35 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

I understand how coins are struck - I've even done one myself (if pressing a button counts!) - but if the resultant thickness is the same, then I am still unclear whether you mean:

• the rest of the face just doesn't get filled up as much as it should do on a Sovereign that has a mint mark (would that make them ever so slightly less detailed than a mark-less Sovereign?)
• or whether the design on a mint marked die is deliberately different to offset the missing volume on the remainder of the coin face such that it maintains optimal detail.

I know mint marks are pretty small, but that volume of gold has to be subtracted from some other part of the coin. If it is struck to the same detail, then the coin would have to be slightly thinner; if it is struck to the same thickness, then something would have to literally be missing from somewhere.

 

 

I was struggling to find a graphic example, an image we created last year:

#2 is the relevant dimension, and is where most of the variation would occur.

 

[paulmerton]

3 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

I was struggling to find a graphic example, an image we created last year:

#2 is the relevant dimension, and is where most of the variation would occur.

 

The more I think about it, the more it blows my mind that a 2021 Sovereign must be thicker in the middle than a 2020 Sovereign just due to the different year written on it. 🤯

[LawrenceChard]

1 hour ago, paulmerton said:

The more I think about it, the more it blows my mind that a 2021 Sovereign must be thicker in the middle than a 2020 Sovereign just due to the different year written on it. 🤯

... and whoever left the silver out of 2022 gold sovereigns must be thicker in the middle (and elsewhere) than whoever made the 1817 ones!

😎

Edited February 14, 2022 by LawrenceChard

[ilovesilverireallydo]

Interestingly, Some 2000-2007 sovs I have, when exposed to prolonged sunlight do become more "yellow". Will see if I can dig out a couple of the examples I have. 

[GoldDiggerDave]

If you take a SA mint mark sovereign there will be a reasonable amount of mass in the 2 letters.  So either the coin is fractions thinner or this material is divide out across everything is in relief on both sides of the coin (slightly lower relief)  

So this could mean a London brach mint (no mint mark) could possibly be in higher relief than an SA branch minted sovereign if the thickness of the coins remained constant. 

There's numerous other factors but interesting and thanks @paulmerton  

 

 

[LawrenceChard]

5 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

I mentioned the idea to Perth Mint years ago, that a traditional St. George sovereign, but with a "P" mintmark, would be popular. The answer was that the Royal Mint would be highly resistant to any other mints using the Royal Mint's Pistrucci design. Yet since then, we have seen "I" mintmark sovereigns.

My Perth Mint suggestion was a part way stage towards a full Mintmark setm as Dave suggests.

Linguistically, "Shield back sovereigns" is tautological, and rather un-numismatic. "Shield reverse sovereigns" would be an improvement, but just "Shield sovereigns" is better. Where else would anyone stick a shield? Definitely "Shield obverse sovereigns" are unlikely to appear, as also are "Shield front sovereigns". (Pedantic bit over for now).

If the Royal Mint made new soveriegns using original Victorian dies, would these be counterfeits?

It's an interesting concept. If any mint made forgeries of its own coins, would they be genuine or forgeries?

😎

 

https://www.chards.co.uk/blog/shield-back-sovereigns/191/3225

😎