2020 Two Ounce Gold Proof Krugerrand

[LawrenceChard]

I happened to see this recently, and thought I would share the photos:

It does not appear to have been issued for any special occasion, perhaps just because The South African Mint knows it can sell them.

Ad the certificate shows, it is number 258 of a Maximum Mintage and Limited Edition of 400. It is unclear to me why they feel the need to distinguish between "Maximum Mintage" and "Limited Edition".

Nothing special about the obverse.

Nicely boxed.

I will get a serration count photo done later, just for interest.

BTW: Anyone want to try to spot the "Deliberate Error"?

Sorry, no prizes!

😎

 

[vicamy]

I was lucky to see one of these 2020 2oz gold proof Krugerrand a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately it didn’t have COA. Before that I even didn’t know the 2oz size exists😅. It is a beautiful coin!

@LawrenceChard is that ‘deliberate error’ a typo for ‘and’? 😂

[LawrenceChard]

5 minutes ago, vicamy said:

I was lucky to see one of these 2020 2oz gold proof Krugerrand a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately it didn’t have COA. Before that I even didn’t know the 2oz size exists😅. It is a beautiful coin!

@LawrenceChard is that ‘deliberate error’ a typo for ‘and’? 😂

South African Mint (S.A.M.) issued a number of larger and smaller size proof gold Krugerrands, back in 2017, for the 50th Anniversary of the Krugerrand.

No!

😎

 

[vicamy]

5 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

South African Mint (S.A.M.) issued a number of larger and smaller size proof gold Krugerrands, back in 2017, for the 50th Anniversary of the Krugerrand.

No!

😎

 

Is that ‘ Nothing special on the obverse’ then? 😂 The obverse is always the portrait of Paul Kruger. The special mintmark is always on the reverse side. 

[LawrenceChard]

6 minutes ago, vicamy said:

Is that ‘ Nothing special on the obverse’ then? 😂 The obverse is always the portrait of Paul Kruger. The special mintmark is always on the reverse side. 

No! 😎

[vicamy]

@LawrenceChardYes I just realised that too that 2017 version of 1967 dated krugerrand has mint mark on the obverse as well.😅

 

[LawrenceChard]

4 hours ago, vicamy said:

@LawrenceChardYes I just realised that too that 2017 version of 1967 dated krugerrand has mint mark on the obverse as well.😅

 

That's not the D.E.!

🙂

[Roy]

8 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

Ad

Should be 'As'

 

die-sinker in British English

(ˈdaɪˌsɪŋkə  )

NOUN

a person who engraves dies for stamping coins, medals, etc.

 

What a wonderful term, quite new to me!

 

[LawrenceChard]

35 minutes ago, Roy said:

Should be 'As'

 

die-sinker in British English

(ˈdaɪˌsɪŋkə  )

NOUN

a person who engraves dies for stamping coins, medals, etc.

 

What a wonderful term, quite new to me!

 

Nice try, but no!

😎

[CollectForFun]

10 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

Ad the certificate shows, it is number 258 of a Maximum Mintage and Limited Edition of 400. It is unclear to me why they feel the need to distinguish between "Maximum Mintage" and "Limited Edition".

As far as I can tell, there is a difference between those terms if part of the total mintage is sold under some special arrangements such as in a special packaging or in sets. So you may have a coin with mintage of e.g. 100,000, but 10,000 of those are e.g. in a limited edition presentation box.

Maybe the SA Mint usually does this for their other coins so just kept the layout of the COA, even if there are no coins which wouldn't fall under limited edition in this case. That could explain it.

[CollectForFun]

10 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

BTW: Anyone want to try to spot the "Deliberate Error"?

Sorry, no prizes!

😎

 

Your photographer titled the files wrong..! 😆

[LawrenceChard]

22 minutes ago, CollectForFun said:

Your photographer titled the files wrong..! 😆

Correct!

He must have been half asleep at the time!

He is on holiday this week, so the originals might not get renamed until next week, meanwhile I could have renamed my copies, but no real point doing it twice.

😎

[LawrenceChard]

44 minutes ago, CollectForFun said:

As far as I can tell, there is a difference between those terms if part of the total mintage is sold under some special arrangements such as in a special packaging or in sets. So you may have a coin with mintage of e.g. 100,000, but 10,000 of those are e.g. in a limited edition presentation box.

Maybe the SA Mint usually does this for their other coins so just kept the layout of the COA, even if there are no coins which wouldn't fall under limited edition in this case. That could explain it.

You are probably right, but "Limited Edition" on its own is rather brainless!

"Limited Edition Presentation" would make some sense.

[LawrenceChard]

On 19/04/2022 at 10:16, LawrenceChard said:

2020 Two Ounce Gold Proof Krugerrand

I happened to see this recently, and thought I would share the photos:

It does not appear to have been issued for any special occasion, perhaps just because The South African Mint knows it can sell them.

Ad the certificate shows, it is number 258 of a Maximum Mintage and Limited Edition of 400. It is unclear to me why they feel the need to distinguish between "Maximum Mintage" and "Limited Edition".

Nothing special about the obverse.

Nicely boxed.

I will get a serration count photo done later, just for interest.

 

For those interested in these things, we got around to doing a serration count:

Which shows 230 edge serrations.

Edited April 25, 2022 by LawrenceChard

[GreatCoins4U]

I would love to try and get a nice 2 ounce coin, you know, just as an example 🙂. It says it has got a 40mm diameter, does that mean that it is alot thicker, or about the same as a normal Krugerrand, do you know approx, I only ask out of interest as I do like the size and thickness of a normal Krugerrand?

[LawrenceChard]

9 minutes ago, GreatCoins4U said:

I would love to try and get a nice 2 ounce coin, you know, just as an example 🙂. It says it has got a 40mm diameter, does that mean that it is alot thicker, or about the same as a normal Krugerrand, do you know approx, I only ask out of interest as I do like the size and thickness of a normal Krugerrand?

I have not checked the thickness, which can be rather arbitrary and subjective. It depends where you measure.

And, I don't really want to touch a proof coin with a gauge.

Anyone care to do the maths on the ratio of the diameters, to estimate whether it should be thicker, and if so, by how much?

😎

[GreatCoins4U]

No, I can't work out how to do it, is it sumthing to do with maths or sumthink? 😢

I divided the weight by the diameter and vice versa, but do not seem to be able to get the thickness, even when knowing the thickness if the normal Krugerrand I cannot work it out... Doh!

[LawrenceChard]

On 25/04/2022 at 18:23, GreatCoins4U said:

No, I can't work out how to do it, is it sumthing to do with maths or sumthink? 😢

I divided the weight by the diameter and vice versa, but do not seem to be able to get the thickness, even when knowing the thickness if the normal Krugerrand I cannot work it out... Doh!

Well, most of us know from school maths lessons that:

Area = pi x radius squared, or

Area = pi x diameter squared divided by 4

It is easier to measure the diameter, so I would use that formula.

Area A2 = pi x diameter D2 squared divided by 4

Area A1 = pi x diameter D1 squared divided by 4

pi and divided by 4 all cancel out, so:

Area A2 = 40 squared / 32.77 squared x A1

=1600 / 1.4899342370964 (approx 1.5) (3/2) x A1

But Mass M2 = 2 x M1

So, by inspection, Thickness T2 = 4/3

or 33.333% thicker.

It was actually about 100 times quicker to work it out than to try to explain it, especially as I could not find a quick, easy to write mathematical notation.

If anyone cares to demonstrate it, please feel free.

😎

Edited April 27, 2022 by LawrenceChard

[GreatCoins4U]

Yeah so

1 hour ago, LawrenceChard said:

Well, most of us know from school maths lessons that:

Area = pi x radius squared, or

Area = pi x diameter squared divided by 4

It is easier to measure the diameter, so I would use that formula.

Area A2 = pi x diameter D2 squared divided by 4

Area A1 = pi x diameter D1 squared divided by 4

pi and divided by 4 all cancel out, so:

Area A2 = 40 squared / 32.77 squared x A1

=1600 / 1.4899342370964 (approx 1.5) (3/2) x A1

But Mass M2 = 2 x M1

So, by inspection, Thickness T2 = 4/3

or 33.333% thicker.

It was actually about 100 times quicker to work it out than to try to explain it, especially as I could not find a quick, easy to write mathematical notation.

If anyone cares to demonstate it, please feel free.

😎

 

Alright cheers good buddy, so approx 1/3 thicker than a normal Krugerrand, that sounds about right. A nice big chunky coin, I will have to save up a little bit.