Send Back a 2022 Double Sovereign?

[Kratz]

Hello everyone. This is my first post on this for him and I'm glad I found you guys. I have a question related to the Royal Mint and a double Sovereign which is almost a half ounce of 22 karat gold. It arrived in horrible condition and I am initiating a return. But since they do not disclose mintage information I'm wondering if it's worth the bother. I imagine this coin will only ever be worth what the spot gold prices on any given day. Is there any numismatic reasons to send this coin back to them, knowing air quality is less than Stellar or should I just keep it and expect spot pricing for the coin? Thanks in advance for your comments.

[Stuntman]

Assuming it's a bullion double sovereign, you are probably unlikely to be able to return it for a refund.

I empathise with you regarding the scratches, but many of us on here have probably received newly minted Royal Mint bullion gold coins in similar, or worse, condition.  I know I have!

I suspect that the 2022 bullion double sovereign may command a slight premium over the 2020 and 2021 bullion double sovereigns in a few years' time, but fewer people collect them in the first place so the demand is more limited compared to the sovereign.

If it were my coin, I would either (a) just enjoy it for what it is, or (b) look to sell it at a profit when spot prices are higher than what I paid for the coin and then consider buying a replacement and hoping that it has fewer defects.

For info, I also have a 2022 bullion double sovereign and it is virtually unmarked, so they can get it right sometimes...

[Clockpuncher]

Afraid they will see nothing wrong with this - its a bullion product and they come flying off a machine in to a hopper at the rate of hundreds an hour. Quality is a bit rubbish on it but the Royal Mint's view will be that you go what you paid for - 2 sovs worth of gold. 

It has virtually no nuimismatic value - just stick in in the stack and see it as weight.

[LawrenceChard]

3 hours ago, Kratz said:

Hello everyone. This is my first post on this for him and I'm glad I found you guys. I have a question related to the Royal Mint and a double Sovereign which is almost a half ounce of 22 karat gold. It arrived in horrible condition and I am initiating a return. But since they do not disclose mintage information I'm wondering if it's worth the bother. I imagine this coin will only ever be worth what the spot gold prices on any given day. Is there any numismatic reasons to send this coin back to them, knowing air quality is less than Stellar or should I just keep it and expect spot pricing for the coin? Thanks in advance for your comments.

 

IMO, you should definitely tell them you are disappointed by the quality, and see what they say.

You could post copies of the correspondence here, as I think TSF members would be interested.

 

[paulmerton]

40 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

IMO, you should definitely tell them you are disappointed by the quality, and see what they say.

You could post copies of the correspondence here, as I think TSF members would be interested.

I reckon the Royal Mint would replace it without any quibbles, and you could reasonably expect them to do so because they say their bullion coins "are of a similar standard to Brilliant Uncirculated coins", and you wouldn't put up with a £10 bunc Gruffalo 50p having a scratch like that on it.

[LawrenceChard]

10 hours ago, paulmerton said:

I reckon the Royal Mint would replace it without any quibbles, and you could reasonably expect them to do so because they say their bullion coins "are of a similar standard to Brilliant Uncirculated coins", and you wouldn't put up with a £10 bunc Gruffalo 50p having a scratch like that on it.

Although the RM also use "Brilliant Uncirculated" to denote a higher production quality.

Back in 2000. I criticised the RM for sellling Brilliant Uncirculated gold £5 quintuple sovereigns, as they now do annually, at a high premium, then later issued "bullion" versions at about 5% to 10% premium, and was told by an RM trade manager about the difference.

In addition, I have also seen examples of the RM confusing and conflating bullion sovereigns with Brilliant Uncirculated ones. I have documented some of these examples online at the time.

I hope they do offer to replace the coin, and wonder if they will also reimburse the return postage.

[paulmerton]

1 hour ago, LawrenceChard said:

I hope they do offer to replace the coin, and wonder if they will also reimburse the return postage.

I would expect TRM to cover the cost of return postage in this case, as I think a reasonable person would agree that the coin is not of the expected quality, based on its description.

Indeed, I remember seeing a YouTube video of someone returning a scratched silver bullion coin to The Royal Mint not too long ago, and they were given a prepaid Royal Mail label for the return, so there was no up front cost to the consumer and it looked like a fairly streamlined process.

What would Chards do if they had sold the above coin and the customer asked to return it? I did note that your 2022 Gold Sovereign Bullion Coin page says, "They may have some slight bag and/or production marks, which is perfectly normal for bullion coins," but without further qualification of what counts as a slight production mark, I have no idea whether that text would preclude a return.

If quality mattered, I would feel most confident buying directly from The Royal Mint than from certain other "but it's only bullion go away" dealers, so it would be helpful to know the Chards view as you're often cheaper  

[TeaTime]

The RM used to sell Britannias boxed and labelled as bullion when they were .958 silver - these coins were BU in quality. No-one would have accepted a damaged/scratched coin at that point. The term bullion was used to denote that it was precious metal.  

Then, with the introduction of the .999 coins and the plethora of dented and scratched product (don't even mention milk spots) the term bullion was changed to mean poor quality. 

Sorry, got a bit off-track;

When you purchase from the RM you are buying a manufactured product not a lump of metal. As with all manufactured products, the buyer has every right to expect it to be in good condition.

 

 

[LawrenceChard]

1 hour ago, paulmerton said:

I would expect TRM to cover the cost of return postage in this case, as I think a reasonable person would agree that the coin is not of the expected quality, based on its description.

Indeed, I remember seeing a YouTube video of someone returning a scratched silver bullion coin to The Royal Mint not too long ago, and they were given a prepaid Royal Mail label for the return, so there was no up front cost to the consumer and it looked like a fairly streamlined process.

What would Chards do if they had sold the above coin and the customer asked to return it? I did note that your 2022 Gold Sovereign Bullion Coin page says, "They may have some slight bag and/or production marks, which is perfectly normal for bullion coins," but without further qualification of what counts as a slight production mark, I have no idea whether that text would preclude a return.

If quality mattered, I would feel most confident buying directly from The Royal Mint than from certain other "but it's only bullion go away" dealers, so it would be helpful to know the Chards view as you're often cheaper  

"I would expect TRM to cover the cost of return postage in this case, as I think a reasonable person would agree that the coin is not of the expected quality, based on its description."

I agree, but this is the RM, and not a "reasonable person". It tends to be its own judge and jury on matters of quality and more.

When we notice worse than expected quality on incoming coins, we would take some action on it.

This would include checking more, possibly all, of the batch, and trying to get them replaced. This is never quick and easy, and we never get our postage costs refunded. We would usually take photos and publish them somewhere, possibly on TSF. It is was only a single coin, we might demote it to "Grade C", and offer it out at a discount. 

Otherwise, we would treat each case on its own merits, while trying to be fair and reasonable.

Sometimes our transparency can produce undesirable results. For example I recently noticed someone commenting, possibly on TSF or YouTube, to the effect that Chards say some of their (new RM bullion) coins "may have some slight bag and/or production marks, which is perfectly normal for bullion coins,"., or similar. While @paulmerton has quoted it here positively and in context, I got the impression that the commentator was implying "so buy elsewhere if you want perfect coins". I am aware that this has happened in the past, and am sure it will happen again in the future. It is frustrating, but there is little we can do about it.

😎

 

[Stuntman]

I think it's reasonable to expect that a mass-produced precious metal bullion coin may on occasion have the odd scratch, particularly if it is priced at a low premium to the intrinsic precious metal content.

Most sovereigns are very keenly priced by most bullion dealers and distributors.  Some of these coins will have small defects, even when new.

The double sovereign is not quite as keenly priced as sovereigns are, by most dealers and distributors at least - but it's a mass-produced, bullion coin and I've seen far worse from the RM.  

As others have said above, the Brilliant Uncirculated coins are produced to a higher standard of quality and this tends to be reflected in their initial price.