Is BU a misleading term to use for a bullion sovereign?

[arphethean]

A set of 4 Royal mint sovereigns has a 2002 and 2012 bullion sovereign in it described as brilliant uncirculated or BU and I'm wondering if this is misleading. They are bullion sovereigns and in uncirculated condition but I think BU is a very specific term used for struck on the day sovereigns only? 

I am trying to help a local chap get his money back as I think the set was described in a misleading way as there were no 2002s produced  in BU finish and I'm not sure the 2012 is the BU version (although they are difficult to distinguish I think). 

 

However, maybe it's a grey area as BU can be used to describe coinsin mint state (or is that strictly BUNC?)

Any info on this would be appreciated 

Edited January 12, 2023 by arphethean

[Wileyfox]

I don't know but here's what the horse's mouth says..

 

[ShineyMagpie]

Thanks @Wileyfox think that is the best answer and source of evidence for @arphethean to use. A description of bullion vs BU from none other than the RM. if a seller has chosen a deviation from these description without explanation that should be just cause as a "misleading" sale title.

[Bogart]

So if the descrition has come from the RM you must then assume it is incorrect.😎

[TeaTime]

BU is used to describe historic coins that have had no, or limited, circulation. Traditionally a coin was either a proof (made as purely a collector piece) or a circulating strike, there was no 'brilliant uncirculated' striking process. It is a fairly modern contrivance of the Royal Mint to designate three types of striking (a way for them to charge extra for a non-proof coin and a way to excuse their lack of quality control on 'bullion' strikes)

So advertising a coin as BU would be technically correct if it was a circulating (?) coin that was blemish free.....

It's all down to semantics - like everything else. A traditional coin dealer would have no qualms about describing a coin as BU. Another may expect something entirely different from the designation. 

[Wileyfox]

Thanks @ShineyMagpie now that I've reminded myself and to summarise for those that don't want to watch the whole clip..

The Royal Mint uses Bullion & Brilliant Uncirculated (BU) as a description of the striking standard rather than a description of the condition/grade.

The main difference is that for their BU coins they use hand finished dies, the coins are struck twice and they're also checked more frequently than for bullion coins. Bullion coins come of the press at a rate of up to 250/hr with BU coins at around 100/hr.

It is certainly confusing to describe a bullion sovereign as BU.. The Royal Mint's definition carries a bit weight here as they are the manufacturer of the product. I would say there's a good case for it to also be 'misleading' unless the BU term was used specifically to refer to the condition.

I've had a look and other mints use different terms e.g. the Pressberg Mint uses Bullion, Proof-Like and Proof.

[LawrenceChard]

1 hour ago, arphethean said:

A set of 4 Royal mint sovereigns has a 2002 and 2012 bullion sovereign in it described as brilliant uncirculated or BU and I'm wondering if this is misleading. They are bullion sovereigns and in uncirculated condition but I think BU is a very specific term used for struck on the day sovereigns only? 

I am trying to help a local chap get his money back as I think the set was described in a misleading way as there were no 2002s produced  in BU finish and I'm not sure the 2012 is the BU version (although they are difficult to distinguish I think). 

 

However, maybe it's a grey area as BU can be used to describe coinsin mint state (or is that strictly BUNC?)

Any info on this would be appreciated 

It is a grey area.

B.U. short for Brilliant Uncirculated was used as a coin grade or description for many years.

Some time in the past few decades the RM started to use "Brilliant Uncirculated" as a production quality, in a similar way to "Proof" or "Bullion", although I have seen and noted some exceptions.

If a dealer has used "Brilliant Uncirculated" as a description, for sovereigns from the last few decades, it could indeed mislead a moderately informed buyer.

Whether this was a deliberate misdescription by the seller is a matter of conjecture, but it should be valid grounds for a refund.

As ever, it would be useful, informative, and very interesting to know who the supplying dealer is, preferably with a link if the set is / was advertised online.

The lack of a name is very frustrating, albeit very common.

😎

[Stuntman]

Yes it is misleading in my opinion, certainly for any modern bullion sovereign from 2000 onwards.  As others have said, the RM now designate BU as striking standard rather than a grading standard.

The Brilliant Uncirculated modern gold coins that I have are much closer to proof quality than bullion quality.

[Paul]

It's means something to royal mint when marketing and selling the original product 

When it comes.to selling most people won't be prepared to pay a premium.

It's just bullion my eyes 

 

[ShineyMagpie]

Agreed, my point of view also, proof may hold a slight premium due to limit numbers produced, not sure that thr RM BU coin will hold much of a premium over RM bullion over time.

[arphethean]

Thank you all. I didn't want to mention the dealer as i didn't want the thread to get side tracked (not that TSF members ever would!) about dealer listing practices or bias towards the dealer and rather focus on the technical difference between the terms BU and bullion in relation to sovereigns. Now i have that question sorted happy to share the full story

7 hours ago, LawrenceChard said:

It is a grey area.

B.U. short for Brilliant Uncirculated was used as a coin grade or description for many years.

Some time in the past few decades the RM started to use "Brilliant Uncirculated" as a production quality, in a similar way to "Proof" or "Bullion", although I have seen and noted some exceptions.

If a dealer has used "Brilliant Uncirculated" as a description, for sovereigns from the last few decades, it could indeed mislead a moderately informed buyer.

Whether this was a deliberate misdescription by the seller is a matter of conjecture, but it should be valid grounds for a refund.

As ever, it would be useful, informative, and very interesting to know who the supplying dealer is, preferably with a link if the set is / was advertised online.

The lack of a name is very frustrating, albeit very common.

😎

I don't have a link, but the poor chap who reached out to me for advice was sold this set of 4 coins including a bullion 2002, 2012, proof piedfort 2018 GV privy and proof 2022 (an eclectic mix of items by anyone standards) by Hattons of London. Smart case and booklet and all. For £6300. I had to break the news to him that he would be lucky to get £2700 for the set even with the increased demand for these coins at the moment.

I am hoping that Hattons may be good enough to accept they were a bit liberal with their description and offer a full refund. 

[arphethean]

29 minutes ago, ShineyMagpie said:

Agreed, my point of view also, proof may hold a slight premium due to limit numbers produced, not sure that thr RM BU coin will hold much of a premium over RM bullion over time.

Some of the BU coins were made in tiny numbers and they are very similar to proof in finish. NGC usually mistake them for proofs and give them an PF grade, so they're weird from a few points of view!

[Paul]

I think the term BUNC can only ever be used by the original issuer, IE royal mint 

Once it is sold and in private hands, there no way to verify or say with 100% confidence it is what it is 

It's bullion and nothing special 

These days buy new direct from mint, grade, hope for MS70 and there you have your 3trd party verification it's BUNC but it's still bullion, just much better condition than average bullion 

 

 

[LawrenceChard]

18 minutes ago, arphethean said:

Thank you all. I didn't want to mention the dealer as i didn't want the thread to get side tracked (not that TSF members ever would!) about dealer listing practices or bias towards the dealer and rather focus on the technical difference between the terms BU and bullion in relation to sovereigns. Now i have that question sorted happy to share the full story

I don't have a link, but the poor chap who reached out to me for advice was sold this set of 4 coins including a bullion 2002, 2012, proof piedfort 2018 GV privy and proof 2022 (an eclectic mix of items by anyone standards) by Hattons of London. Smart case and booklet and all. For £6300. I had to break the news to him that he would be lucky to get £2700 for the set even with the increased demand for these coins at the moment.

I am hoping that Hattons may be good enough to accept they were a bit liberal with their description and offer a full refund. 

It may be hightly relevant when exactly he bought them, what Hattons Terms and Conditions say, but I would encourage your friend to engage with them ASAP, possibly also speak to Trading Standards or Consumer Advice about the descriptions. Certainly try to get a refund if possible.

I / we see stuff bought from Coin Marketing Companies, for which they would be lucky to get half or a third of what they paid, which I find very frustrating, as do our staff who try to help and advise people.

Much of this material has not been misdescribed, but the buyers have often been very trusting or gullible, and I am also aware that some of our "competitors" are actively dishonest and fraudulent.

😎

[ShineyMagpie]

@arphethean did you get an answer to this in the end?

[Roy]

On 12/01/2023 at 13:13, arphethean said:

Some of the BU coins were made in tiny numbers and they are very similar to proof in finish. NGC usually mistake them for proofs and give them an PF grade, so they're weird from a few points of view!

Agreed, NGC don't help here.

We had the issue where the 2017 SOTD was given Proof status where the coins were classified as BU by the mint.

I know some BU 2012 Sovereigns were classified as DPL by NGC. For the acronym haters out there, it means deep proof like, not a category on Pornhub.

 

 

 

It's a bullion coin and not a small mintage (750,000?).

[dicker]

Not surprisingly one can often see coins on eBay described as:

- BUNC

- BU

When they are nothing of the sort.  

The most amusing example I have seen was a Proof Sov (loose) and in poor condition….described as BU.

[GoldDiggerDave]

IMO it's where and what equipment the coin was minted on.   The 2012 SOTD is a point blank bullion coin and others around this date,  2017,2018 possibly before the BU was used to sell coins that were proof coins that were minted exactly or almost as proof coins.  Even this confused the RM as they sent some coins out with COA's saying proof for these "BU" coins (I have a letter from the RM in 2018 asking me to return the COA)  

BU for a 2022 memorial £5bu really?.........most of you have eyes don't you this is never a bullion coin it's closer to a proof (a matte one at that) than a bullion coin.  

I was talking  about this in another thread and there is a lot of kidology in this area, for the modern  SOTD or BU commemorative sovereign it's a proof coin in everything but name.  

They are stuck with the same polished blanks 4-5 times.......I know because I counted my 2019 sovereign as the coin was stuck! 

This is a topic for further debate these are pictures of coins with the same grade and attribution that are fundamentally different coins