Who wants a ‘pink’ sovereign?

[GoldDiggerDave]

That link says shield-back!!!!!!

[LawrenceChard]

5 minutes ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

That link says shield-back!!!!!!

I know it does...

... read on...

This is about the only page on our website where you will find us referring to a shield back sovereign or shield back sovereigns, as opposed to simply saying shield sovereign or shield sovereigns.
... and more!😎

 

[LawrenceChard]

5 hours 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?!  

 

4 hours 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.   

 

4 hours 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?

 

3 hours 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?

 

3 hours 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.

 

 

 

2 hours 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. 🤯

In response to a question about the thickness of gold sovereigns, I posted this on TSF some time ago.

 

It should have got added to @ChardsCoinandBullionDealer as a blog page, along with other stuff about relief heights on coins.

(Another 50+ years, and I'll get there!)😎

 

[LawrenceChard]

2 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

In response to a question about the thickness of gold sovereigns, I posted this on TSF some time ago.

(image)

It should have got added to @ChardsCoinandBullionDealer as a blog page, along with other stuff about relief heights on coins.

(Another 50+ years, and I'll get there!)😎

 

Just found this:

(Although it should say 0.3 / 2 = 0.15mm)

 

[SlowFrog]

Some good info here and completely agree with the op and general sentiment - the pink sovereigns are nasty in comparison. They really don't look like gold and call me cynical, but perhaps that's the intention. Also, I have some rose gold rings that are beautiful in colour yet sovereigns just look different to me - even when compared to other coins with very high copper content. The final result is confusing..

Also, what's with the lacquer, or cling-film/plastic-wrap finish? I can't quite put my finger on it but it's like there's a coating of some sort? 

[LawrenceChard]

50 minutes ago, SlowFrog said:

Some good info here and completely agree with the op and general sentiment - the pink sovereigns are nasty in comparison. They really don't look like gold and call me cynical, but perhaps that's the intention. Also, I have some rose gold rings that are beautiful in colour yet sovereigns just look different to me - even when compared to other coins with very high copper content. The final result is confusing..

Also, what's with the lacquer, or cling-film/plastic-wrap finish? I can't quite put my finger on it but it's like there's a coating of some sort? 

Good to hear the consensus.

I am sure there is no coating on any new sovereigns. what you are seeing is possibly just some kind of surface effect.

 

[SidS]

Yes the coating. They've used it on circulating coinage since about 1998. It's a satin finish or something similar.

My thoughts on it: if you want an UNC coin you can not get one from change as the coins get scuffed so easily, you can only get true UNC condition coins in BU sets. Means more money, also add into this fact that the commemoratives exploded in number around 1997 onwards, the 50p and £2 coins often picking up multiple varieties every year plus many different packaging types, long sets, short sets, birthday, anniversary etc. The list is endless.

I guess sovereigns went the same way.

Edited February 14, 2022 by SidS

[LawrenceChard]

1 hour ago, LawrenceChard said:

Just found this:

(Although it should say 0.3 / 2 = 0.15mm)

 

The new version does have the correction:

Doug monitors me on TSF!

😎

[LawrenceChard]

14 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!!

There was an earlier topic thread on TSF:

I note I added some responses, but I have just started re-reading the old posts.

 

[LawrenceChard]

This Royal Mint image is revealing:

Featuring a beautiful yellow 1817, and 5 modern copper discs.

For some unknown reason, the RM seem to prefer using a lot of magenta in their gold sovereign images, which serves to make them look even worse than the actual coins.

Compare with a very realistic Chards image, below.

😎

Edited February 14, 2022 by LawrenceChard

[LawrenceChard]

Here is a professionally colour balanced and corrected Chards image:

Some of the apparent colour difference may be caused by surface finish and differential reflectivity, but they are all realistic.

[CaptCaveMan]

1 minute ago, LawrenceChard said:

Here is a professionally colour balanced and corrected Chards image:

Some of the apparent colour difference may be caused by surface finish and differential reflectivity, but they are all realistic.

You just need to include the 2016 and that's my current set of grails.

[Britannia47]

A very popular topic again!  I agree with all the comments above, but the red/rose/pink colouring of sovereigns is not as bad as the reality. However, the RM has  done itself no favours by advertising sovereigns as overly 'pink' There must be a way of more accurately depicting their product, as overseas customers may well be deterred from buying, simply because of this artificial pink colour. Its always difficult to photograph gold coin accurately, but come on RM - You can do better than this!

[LawrenceChard]

3 hours ago, Britannia47 said:

A very popular topic again!  I agree with all the comments above, but the red/rose/pink colouring of sovereigns is not as bad as the reality. However, the RM has  done itself no favours by advertising sovereigns as overly 'pink' There must be a way of more accurately depicting their product, as overseas customers may well be deterred from buying, simply because of this artificial pink colour. Its always difficult to photograph gold coin accurately, but come on RM - You can do better than this!

All good points.

When you said "deterred", my mind said "de-turd", possibly because an earlier post mentioned recent sovereigns being brown, the same colour as turds (my thoughts, not those of the earlier poster).

As far as "but come on RM - You can do better than this!"

This could feature in a pantomime, as in:

"Oh no, they can't"

😎

Edited February 14, 2022 by LawrenceChard

[Tortoise]

3 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

"but come on RM - You can do better than this!"

 

Oh yes they can!

Just look at the new FA Cup Gold Proof:  https://www.royalmint.com/our-coins/events/celebrate-150-years-of-the-fa-cup/fa-cup-2022-gold-proof-coin/

It says on there that the alloy is:-   Inner: 22 carat yellow gold. Outer: 22 carat red gold

So they really can do it when they want to!

And doesn't the inner look much better than the outer.  There can be no doubt as it is all done on one photo where colour correction and lighting will not change from one coin to the next.

And I don't like the pink ones either.  I was going to get one 2022 soverign, since I decided to get one a year in the very short time I have been stacking, otherwise I stick to Britannias.  Just not sure if it is worth getting a few more in place of a Britannia due to the 2022 design.  It is a bit of a dilemma.  Can I ask what other people would advise please?

[SlowFrog]

2 minutes ago, Tortoise said:

Oh yes they can!

Just look at the new FA Cup Gold Proof:  https://www.royalmint.com/our-coins/events/celebrate-150-years-of-the-fa-cup/fa-cup-2022-gold-proof-coin/

It says on there that the alloy is:-   Inner: 22 carat yellow gold. Outer: 22 carat red gold

So they really can do it when they want to!

And doesn't the inner look much better than the outer.  There can be no doubt as it is all done on one photo where colour correction and lighting will not change from one coin to the next.

And I don't like the pink ones either.  I was going to get one 2022 soverign, since I decided to get one a year in the very short time I have been stacking, otherwise I stick to Britannias.  Just not sure if it is worth getting a few more in place of a Britannia due to the 2022 design.  It is a bit of a dilemma.  Can I ask what other people would advise please?

I really don't like coins in mixed alloys! Each to their own and all that but I'd put it in the same bracket as coloured/painted coins. Also completely agree regarding their art department/marketing images. Absolutely shocking.

I have a bunch of newer sovereigns that I'll hold on to just because they're gold but I really don't like them. I do however like the oldies and Britannias! I'd swap my new for old if given the opportunity

[Foster88]

On 14/02/2022 at 22:36, Tortoise said:

Just not sure if it is worth getting a few more in place of a Britannia due to the 2022 design.  It is a bit of a dilemma.  Can I ask what other people would advise please?

Just to reply to this part of your comment and this is just my opinion, we are in a historic moment of time.

We’ve never had a monarch on the throne for 70 years, Queen Victoria held the record until 2015 when our present Queen took the title. I don’t think people really understand this.

If HM The Queen does reach 80 years on the throne in 2032 which she might and I truly hope she does, (huge respect for HM The Queen) I still don’t think the 2022 releases will be unwanted.

It’s just my opinion but one thing I have been thinking recently is, do we just take HM the Queen for granted. I say this as for most of us, she’s always been our monarch, you’d have to be apporoximatey 75 and above to remember George VI on the throne. Maybe we do just take her for granted as a ‘constant’ in our lives.

Elizabeth II has, for most of us, always been there on our coins, bank notes, post boxes and even our stamps.

But the monarchy does and will change.

Charles is now the longest serving Prince of Wales, a title that was held for almost a century by the future Edward VII. Charles won’t be on the throne long as his mother has been, we all know that for sure.

HM The Queen has been our monarch for 70 years. We won’t see it again.

Everyone, I mean everyone and most people on the street will be ALL over the Platinum Jubilee in June this year. Most don’t, even now know it’s a Platinum Jubilee year.

Everyone will be all over the Platinum Jubilee in June when we get an extra long Bank Holiday. I’ve realised since being on this forum how ignorant most people are.

Sometimes you really have to go backwards to look forwards.

@Tortoise are you going to live to see another 70th Platinum Jubilee? Many of us won’t.

Buy what you like, but most importantly like what you buy.

 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Foster88

[MikeOxlong]

I have a 22 sovereign and its significantly lighter than early 00's sovereigns I have . I have to say it doesn't look gold at all 

[LawrenceChard]

12 hours ago, Tortoise said:

Oh yes they can!

Just look at the new FA Cup Gold Proof:  https://www.royalmint.com/our-coins/events/celebrate-150-years-of-the-fa-cup/fa-cup-2022-gold-proof-coin/

It says on there that the alloy is:-   Inner: 22 carat yellow gold. Outer: 22 carat red gold

So they really can do it when they want to!

And doesn't the inner look much better than the outer.  There can be no doubt as it is all done on one photo where colour correction and lighting will not change from one coin to the next.

And I don't like the pink ones either.  I was going to get one 2022 soverign, since I decided to get one a year in the very short time I have been stacking, otherwise I stick to Britannias.  Just not sure if it is worth getting a few more in place of a Britannia due to the 2022 design.  It is a bit of a dilemma.  Can I ask what other people would advise please?

Slight mis-attribution there:

It was you not me who said "but come on RM - You can do better than this!"

I then quoted you, and added mainly in jest:

This could feature in a pantomime, as in:

"Oh no, they can't"

😎

Yes, the RM have been turning our some bi-metallic gold proof version of bi-metallic base metal coins. The first, as I recall, was a gold proof version of a bi-metallic £2 (1997?). It would be silly to produce a single coloured gold version of a bi-metallic base coin. 

Gold sovereigns are different, because they are not bi-metallic.

I feel sure I quote their response in an earlier post, but basically they seem reluctant to alter ther colour and composition of their "flagship coin".

What I can't get through to RM is they they have altered the colour and composition through a process of "drift", where they may have initially not realised they were making a change. Now that the change is established, they are reluctant to go back and correct it.

 

 

 

[LawrenceChard]

I just found an RM response from September 2021:

"As the Sovereign is our flagship brand, we need to ensure consistency, so any colour change would need to be across the board, rather than bespoke for an order. As part of our ongoing customer research with our customer base  we are in the process of review the market opinion on the colour of the Sovereign, and make an informed decision on this for future launches.

 We are too late to change the 2022 Sovereign, as this is launching in a few weeks, but we will look to include any customer views as we develop ranges going forwards, and will be back in touch if make any changes to our Sovereign range."

There is hope!

🙂

[paulmerton]

26 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

I just found an RM response from September 2021:

"As the Sovereign is our flagship brand, we need to ensure consistency, so any colour change would need to be across the board, rather than bespoke for an order. As part of our ongoing customer research with our customer base  we are in the process of review the market opinion on the colour of the Sovereign, and make an informed decision on this for future launches.

 We are too late to change the 2022 Sovereign, as this is launching in a few weeks, but we will look to include any customer views as we develop ranges going forwards, and will be back in touch if make any changes to our Sovereign range."

There is hope!

🙂

I hope this isn't delayed by more pressing matters, like investigating the major scandal barry uncovered which the royal mint are taking very seriously.

[sovereignsteve]

18 hours ago, Tortoise said:

It says on there that the alloy is:-   Inner: 22 carat yellow gold. Outer: 22 carat red gold

So they are using some silver in this one then? Shows you they know how😉

[Tortoise]

10 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

Slight mis-attribution there:

It was you not me who said "but come on RM - You can do better than this!"

I then quoted you, and added mainly in jest:

This could feature in a pantomime, as in:

"Oh no, they can't"

😎

Yes, the RM have been turning our some bi-metallic gold proof version of bi-metallic base metal coins. The first, as I recall, was a gold proof version of a bi-metallic £2 (1997?). It would be silly to produce a single coloured gold version of a bi-metallic base coin. 

Gold sovereigns are different, because they are not bi-metallic.

I feel sure I quote their response in an earlier post, but basically they seem reluctant to alter ther colour and composition of their "flagship coin".

What I can't get through to RM is they they have altered the colour and composition through a process of "drift", where they may have initially not realised they were making a change. Now that the change is established, they are reluctant to go back and correct it.

 

 

 

Ah, got carried away in my editting down of the longer conversation, my apolgies @LawrenceChard.

Exactly as @sovereignsteve says it does show they know how.

@DeepSpace also says too:  "Ironically, if they did ditch the 'Pink' gold sovereigns they would probably become highly desirable and skyrocket in price. "    - The more I think about that the funnier it gets. 

I may send the Royal Mint an email asking for them to change them to their original gold colour.

 

@Foster88  thanks for the advice, I do follow that line of thinking. 

 

 

 

[LawrenceChard]

33 minutes ago, Tortoise said:

Ah, got carried away in my editting down of the longer conversation, my apolgies @LawrenceChard.

Exactly as @sovereignsteve says it does show they know how.

@DeepSpace also says too:  "Ironically, if they did ditch the 'Pink' gold sovereigns they would probably become highly desirable and skyrocket in price. "    - The more I think about that the funnier it gets. 

I may send the Royal Mint an email asking for them to change them to their original gold colour.

 

@Foster88  thanks for the advice, I do follow that line of thinking. 

 

That's OK.

We do appear to be in broad agreement.

[DeepSpace]

On 14/02/2022 at 11:40, LawrenceChard said:

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

...

😎

Sold all my copper got stung.