1915 - 2015 Gold Sovereigns from the Royal Mint - Proof or Bullion - Confused? - Misleading? - Mystery?

[LawrenceChard]

1915 - 2015 Gold Sovereigns from the Royal Mint - Proof or Bullion - Confused? - Misleading? - Mystery?

Also - Pick Your Colour

I have previously commented on many occasions about silver content in gold sovereigns giving an attractive yellow colour, and its absence causing a less pleasing coppery red-pink colour.

I just came across an example which I will highlight here:

These were from a two-coin set marketed in 2015 by the Royal Mint:

First World War Centenary 1915 Sovereign & 2015 Sovereign Set

"Gold Proof Coin Set" according to the fron of the RM Certificate, but...

Both stated as "Bullion" on the inside of the Cert.

Strange!

At this point, I need to admit that I have only seen the photos, and not the actual coins.

If the 1915-L London Mint sovereign is a proof, it is extremely rare, but it clearly is not a proof.

I assumed from the photo that the 2015-L (Llantrisant Mint) sovereign is proof, but perhaps it's the photo making it look better than it is.

Tomorrow I will be taking a look, with great interest, at the two coins.

I will also ask for obverse photos.

All comments welcome!

😎

Edit 29th July 2022:

Having looked at the actual coins, it is clear the the 2015 is not a proof, so I think we can conclude that its designation as "bullion" on the certificate is correct.

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by LawrenceChard

[Bruce06]

Then either outside or inside of the cert is wrong....in case someone purchase such a set, is it possible to request for refund years after due to misrepresentation?

[Britannia47]

Fairly certain these our both bullion!  No frosting on the 2015 relief for a start. This is not a proof set - Well done RM!

I like the idea of a refund etc, but I’m sure the RM would ‘fess’ up to a mistake on the initial label….

 

[Orpster]

Following to get updates as interested in the outcome  

[LawrenceChard]

9 hours ago, Bruce06 said:

Then either outside or inside of the cert is wrong....in case someone purchase such a set, is it possible to request for refund years after due to misrepresentation?

The outside is definitely wrong, as the 1915 is not a proof. There are no known proofs for 1915 London Mint sovereigns.

At a quick look, the 2015 could be proof, but as @Britannia47 has correctly pointed out, the relief is not frosted, which would be normal for a modern proof.

Perhaps the 2015 is a "Brilliant Uncirculated", in which case, both inner and outer parts of the Certificate would be wrong.

It would always be possible for the original purchaser to request a refund (most things are possible), but I suspect this would be denied or strongly resisted by the RM. Third parties such as subsequent owners would have no contractual rights against the Mint. They could argue that they were mislead when they bought the set, by the title claiming it as a proof set.

The RM could of course attempt to redefine the word "proof". As far as I know, there is no legal definition of what constitutes a proof coin. In the UK, numismatists have come to expect proof to mean a coin struck using polished dies, polished blanks, frosted relief, and a superior strike. This was not always the case. Sometimes so-called reverse proofs are issued. The 1902 coronation proof sets had a matt finish.

Until 1970, I think, British proof coin sets were labelled as "Specimen Sets", although most dealers and experts refer to them as "Proof Sets". The "Specimen Set" label does cause some confusion.

Originally, "proof" coins were simply coins made as samples for purposes of checking quality and design, and for approval by officials or possibly the Monarch. This is similar to "proof" copies of books. I am sure it was nevr specified that these proof (coins) had to have any special features, but of course, mint production workers and management would probably want to ensure that their proofs were approved, and would probably therefore try to ensure they were as good as practically possible, almost certainly better than the subsequent production strikings.

A common woorking practice is to make a few sample strikes in lead, or some other soft metal, to test dies and their set up in the coining presses. In one sense, these were also "proofs", but modern collectors would be unlikley to recognise or acknowledge this description.

Any legal action against the RM would possibly be subject to statutory time limits.

This is not the first Royal Mint factual error I have seen, and I am sure it will not be the last.

The Issue Limit stated was 150. I wonder how many, if any, of the original buyers ever noticed the inconsistency, or queried it. We will probably never know.

I should probably have chosen a different title for this topic / thread.

😎

[LawrenceChard]

3 hours ago, Britannia47 said:

Fairly certain these our both bullion!  No frosting on the 2015 relief for a start. This is not a proof set - Well done RM!

I like the idea of a refund etc, but I’m sure the RM would ‘fess’ up to a mistake on the initial label….

 

Thanks for your observation, I had not looked at the frosting or lack of it, and had been concentrating on the fields which look quite good.

When you said "but I’m sure the RM would ‘fess’ up to a mistake on the initial label", were you being satirical, or di you mean to say "but I’m sure the RM would NOT ‘fess’ up to a mistake on the initial label"?

😎

2 hours ago, Orpster said:

Following to get updates as interested in the outcome  

What do you think so far?

😎

[Orpster]

18 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

What do you think so far?

I think RM, who should be the leading authority on all things sovereign related, aren't .  I think their quality control is lacking on more than just their coins.  Some interesting stuff on the definition of 'proof', but whatever definition they are using it is clearly not consistently applied to descriptions.  Great info though as usual 👍

[Britannia47]

Usually I am satirical (or cynical even) when it comes to the RM, but here I felt  they would have no choice but to admit they made a mistake with the wording ‘Proof Set’ 

I suspect this was another ‘What shall we commemorate next?’ Issue, done on the hurry up in order to sell off 300 sovereigns!.

1915 was a relatively inconspicuous year in WW1. We know it started in 1914. In 1916 was the Battle of the Somme. 1917 was Passchendaele and 1918 was the end/ Armistice. Historical military coin designs have been well represented in the past by the RM. This was simply a 100 years since 1915. I found the original blurb on the RM website to find out the issues price without success. However, to put the icing on the cake, 2015 ..”was IRBs last year on the obverse!” Wow. Now I’m being cynical!🫵😸

[Oddjob]

^^^^^^^

Yep RM web site has info on the set, including commentary that the 2015 sov is "bullion" grade.

https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/news/first-world-war-sov-1915-and-2015/

[Britannia47]

1 hour ago, LawrenceChard said:

Thanks for your observation, I had not looked at the frosting or lack of it, and had been concentrating on the fields which look quite good.

When you said "but I’m sure the RM would ‘fess’ up to a mistake on the initial label", were you being satirical, or di you mean to say "but I’m sure the RM would NOT ‘fess’ up to a mistake on the initial label"?

😎

What do you think so far?

😎

Sorry, made a mistake. See above!

[LawrenceChard]

23 hours ago, Britannia47 said:

Usually I am satirical (or cynical even) when it comes to the RM, but here I felt  they would have no choice but to admit they made a mistake with the wording ‘Proof Set’ 

I suspect this was another ‘What shall we commemorate next?’ Issue, done on the hurry up in order to sell off 300 sovereigns!.

1915 was a relatively inconspicuous year in WW1. We know it started in 1914. In 1916 was the Battle of the Somme. 1917 was Passchendaele and 1918 was the end/ Armistice. Historical military coin designs have been well represented in the past by the RM. This was simply a 100 years since 1915. I found the original blurb on the RM website to find out the issues price without success. However, to put the icing on the cake, 2015 ..”was IRBs last year on the obverse!” Wow. Now I’m being cynical!🫵😸

I seem to think that they made similar "sets" in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018., in which case it is highly likely that the 1914 - 2014 sets had the same mistakes on them; the 1915 - 2015 errors would have just been replicated rom the previous year's sets. The later sets may also have continued the error.

In time, we should get to see sets of the other years, and it will be interesting to compare.

😎

[LawrenceChard]

Juliana Chard sent me this comment:

"Don't forget that this set will not have come (to us) direct from the mint, customers sometimes change coins around. You can't say the mint have got the proof coin wrong etc unless you defo know. We went to get a proof 2014 Kruger set out the other day and one of the coins was 2015 or vice versa."

She made a good point, but the certificate itself is self-contradictory, although it tends to confirm my suspicions the the set we have is as supplied by the Mint.

 

[LawrenceChard]

On 27/07/2022 at 23:34, LawrenceChard said:

1915 - 2015 Gold Sovereigns from the Royal Mint - Proof or Bullion - Confused? - Misleading? - Mystery?

Also - Pick Your Colour

I have previously commented on many occasions about silver content in gold sovereigns giving an attractive yellow colour, and its absence causing a less pleasing coppery red-pink colour.

I just came across an example which I will highlight here:

These were from a two-coin set marketed in 2015 by the Royal Mint:

First World War Centenary 1915 Sovereign & 2015 Sovereign Set

"Gold Proof Coin Set" according to the fron of the RM Certificate, but...

Both stated as "Bullion" on the inside of the Cert.

Strange!

At this point, I need to admit that I have only seen the photos, and not the actual coins.

If the 1915-L London Mint sovereign is a proof, it is extremely rare, but it clearly is not a proof.

I assumed from the photo that the 2015-L (Llantrisant Mint) sovereign is proof, but perhaps it's the photo making it look better than it is.

Tomorrow I will be taking a look, with great interest, at the two coins.

I will also ask for obverse photos.

All comments welcome!

😎

 

On 28/07/2022 at 07:58, Britannia47 said:

Fairly certain these our both bullion!  No frosting on the 2015 relief for a start. This is not a proof set - Well done RM!

I like the idea of a refund etc, but I’m sure the RM would ‘fess’ up to a mistake on the initial label….

 

Having looked at the actual coins, it is clear the the 2015 is not a proof, so I think we can conclude that its designation as "bullion" on the certificate is correct.

I shared this post with Chards staff, and one of them pointed out that the inner left page of the certiificated also says: "It is advisable to avoid handling the coins as fingerprints will spoil their Proof qaulity."