Queen Elizabeth II Memorial Sovereign - 2022 Gold Proofs

[blackadder]

16 minutes ago, Charliemouse said:

I'm OK'ish with putting together a faulty set and returning it for a replacement.  That's just working with RMs restrictive policy of not accepting partial exchanges.

I'm not so happy with switching things and sending back to other sources for refund - that's a bit dishonest for me and quite illegal too (fraud).

Another option I guess would be to have the 1/4 conserved - @GoldDiggerDave may have an opinion.  I do not think the surface is damaged.  No scratches, just a smudged fingerprint or dirt.

I have a COA and the booklet lol,I need replacement everything else 😂

[blackadder]

Just now, James32 said:

As in real hair? 😆 

Pictures are not great, so tough to tell. Unless you are close enough to feel it?

Yes Pubic hair😂

[Midasfrog]

1 hour ago, Charliemouse said:

I'm OK'ish with putting together a faulty set and returning it for a replacement.  That's just working with RMs restrictive policy of not accepting partial exchanges.

 

Putting together a fraudulent set and claiming a replacement sounds like fraud 🤔

[sovereignsteve]

1 hour ago, Midasfrog said:

Putting together a fraudulent set and claiming a replacement sounds like fraud 🤔

Don't get it I'm afraid. There is no difference between coins of the same denomination regardless of which box they are in. They were put in boxes at random after all. In fact you'd be doing the Mint a favour, putting all the rotten eggs in one basket and saving them the trouble of dealing with more than one return. Also saving them return postage.

[Charliemouse]

2 hours ago, Midasfrog said:

Putting together a fraudulent set and claiming a replacement sounds like fraud 🤔

 

55 minutes ago, sovereignsteve said:

Don't get it I'm afraid. There is no difference between coins of the same denomination regardless of which box they are in. They were put in boxes at random after all. In fact you'd be doing the Mint a favour, putting all the rotten eggs in one basket and saving them the trouble of dealing with more than one return. Also saving them return postage.

This is where morals and the law contradict each other. (Not legal advice, I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV.)

It's definitely fraud.  Accepting a product and then replacing parts of it and returning it 'as sold' is definitely fraudulent.

Morally it seems reasonable to me.  Firstly, it's only their policy of refusing partial returns for exchange - they could do it if they wanted to.  And you are right - you are actually saving the Royal Mint the hassle and expense of dealing with multiple returns.  And you are not depriving them of anything. Nor are you gaining anything.  You are simply seeking to avoid an endless cycle of returns.

But here is where it becomes morally dodgy again.  I bet if you told them of the plan, they'd never accept it.  Maybe they would, but if they don't, you've kind of shot your bolt - they're not going to accept it after that.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Charliemouse

[blackadder]

31 minutes ago, Charliemouse said:

 

This is where morals and the law contradict each other. (Not legal advice, I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV.)

It's definitely fraud.  Accepting a product and then replacing parts of it and returning it 'as sold' is definitely fraudulent.

Morally it seems reasonable to me.  Firstly, it's only their policy of refusing partial returns for exchange - they could do it if they wanted to.  And you are right - you are actually saving the Royal Mint the hassle and expense of dealing with multiple returns.

But here is where it becomes morally dodgy again.  I bet if you told them of the plan, they'd never accept it.  Maybe they would, but if they don't, you've kind of shot your bolt - they're not going to accept it after that.

They shouldn't send out such terrible all the time then 😄 **** em

[James32]

34 minutes ago, Charliemouse said:

 

This is where morals and the law contradict each other. (Not legal advice, I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV.)

It's definitely fraud.  Accepting a product and then replacing parts of it and returning it 'as sold' is definitely fraudulent.

Morally it seems reasonable to me.  Firstly, it's only their policy of refusing partial returns for exchange - they could do it if they wanted to.  And you are right - you are actually saving the Royal Mint the hassle and expense of dealing with multiple returns.  And you are not depriving them of anything. Nor are you gaining anything.  You are simply seeking to avoid an endless cycle of returns.

But here is where it becomes morally dodgy again.  I bet if you told them of the plan, they'd never accept it.  Maybe they would, but if they don't, you've kind of shot your bolt - they're not going to accept it after that.

50k in unmarked bills by morning guv..or I'm telling Anne everything 😆 

[blackadder]

6 minutes ago, James32 said:

50k in unmarked bills by morning guv..or I'm telling Anne everything 😆 

you want to buy another four coin set james 😂😂it's in good order i swear.

[Midasfrog]

What happens when a customer returns a proof set or a single proof coin but "forgets" to put the COA inside. The RM have no record of who was sent which COA number. They cant just print another COA 🔍

I have a spare COA for a 1/4oz Proof Dragon 😁

 

[Taikonaut]

7 hours ago, Midasfrog said:

Putting together a fraudulent set and claiming a replacement sounds like fraud 🤔

Selling coins describing them as proofs, flawless struct to the highest possible quality and passing them off with questionable quality control only for them to show flaws of every description you would find in circulated coins sounds like fraud to me.

To fraud a fraudster is justice for me.

[Darr3nG]

8 hours ago, Midasfrog said:

I have a spare COA for a 1/4oz Proof Dragon 😁

Fraudster!!!

[Midasfrog]

4 minutes ago, Darr3nG said:

Fraudster!!!

It's got some damage to it a bit scuffed and torn so didn't think they would want it back 😂

[Darr3nG]

14 minutes ago, Midasfrog said:

It's got some damage to it a bit scuffed and torn so didn't think they would want it back 😂

...and a ruffian! Reported!!

[Charliemouse]

4 hours ago, Taikonaut said:

Selling coins describing them as proofs, flawless struct to the highest possible quality and passing them off with questionable quality control only for them to show flaws of every description you would find in circulated coins sounds like fraud to me.

No, that's marketing.  Pot-ay-to, pot-ah-to.

Reminds me of tax evasion vs tax avoidance.

[Paulo]

Received my 5 coin set and a single Sovereign from the Royal Mint yesterday. Had a good look this morning - Wow!

I think I have been one of the lucky ones (had problems like everyone with quality control in the past).  Apart from some minor frosting issues

on the double and quarter, they seem as perfect as can be. 

The  Quintuple in hand looks perfect, don't think photos can do it justice, an amazing coin (in my opinion).

Feel privileged to own this the Jubilee 5 coin set.

The package from the Mint was excellent, so credit where credit is due!

Sorry for those who have had issue, hopefully you get things sorted

Cheers.

 

[Charliemouse]

I hear from a reliable source that most of the quarters and many of the halves have greasy smears.

I have no idea how such a thing gets released through QC.  It's not subtle:

 

[James32]

1 minute ago, Charliemouse said:

I hear from a reliable source that most of the quarters and many of the halves have greasy smears.

I have no idea how such a thing gets released through QC.  It's not subtle:

 

Great work on the picture..your improving thanks to my masterclass!

On a serious note, are you sure that can't be improved with conservation?

[SiCole]

5 minutes ago, James32 said:

Great work on the picture..your improving thanks to my masterclass!

On a serious note, are you sure that can't be improved with conservation?

You shouldn’t need to with a brand new product though. Utterly piss poor 

[BriEarl]

im still waiting on my 3 coin set im hoping to send for grading but will wait and see 

[James32]

56 minutes ago, SiCole said:

You shouldn’t need to with a brand new product though. Utterly piss poor 

I know it shouldn't..but I also have been through enough returns to know, if one coin can be sorted without the need of whole set going back, then that's the best and quickest option. Next set may have a flawless 1/4 but dodgy double. Sad but very true. 

[Charliemouse]

1 hour ago, James32 said:

Great work on the picture..your improving thanks to my masterclass!

On a serious note, are you sure that can't be improved with conservation?

I always follow your example.

I've asked a certain forum member for comment, but received no reply thus far.

56 minutes ago, SiCole said:

You shouldn’t need to with a brand new product though. Utterly piss poor 

I totally agree.  But I am unwilling to send back 3.5 'perfect' sovereigns in order to get a new 0.25 sovereign.  Frankly, the chance of getting more flaws than I return seems pretty high.  Unless someone presents another option, I can either build a flawed set with other members, get it conserved, or lump it.

[Taikonaut]

4 hours ago, Charliemouse said:

I hear from a reliable source that most of the quarters and many of the halves have greasy smears.

I have no idea how such a thing gets released through QC.  It's not subtle:

 

 

RM must have known how routine returns are and yet their QC remains terrible. Could be this is nothing more than job creation, hiring staffs to process resturns and their phone operators busy handling complaints, finance department ticking issueiing refund while keeping their sister company the "Royal Mail"  busy. 

[Taikonaut]

Had a better look this morning using light at various angles in a dark room to pick out frosting flaws. The 1/4 obverse has a pinhole frosting flaw on the King's face, a tiny spec on the field not sure it can be rid of, you cant see these when you look at it normally. The half is perfect. The full the obverse field has a very light smudge maybe grease, otherwise perfect but again not noticeable under normal viewing. The double the reverse on the back of the unicorn there is a few tiny spec of frosting flaws, its not immediately obviouse.

So overall its goodish but not great.   

[blackadder]

14 hours ago, Charliemouse said:

I always follow your example.

I've asked a certain forum member for comment, but received no reply thus far.

I totally agree.  But I am unwilling to send back 3.5 'perfect' sovereigns in order to get a new 0.25 sovereign.  Frankly, the chance of getting more flaws than I return seems pretty high.  Unless someone presents another option, I can either build a flawed set with other members, get it conserved, or lump it.

I'd have sent you my 0.25 but even that was terrible,only thing that was perfect was the half.

 

3 hours ago, Taikonaut said:

So overall its goodish but not great.   

it's more then not great,it's shockingly bad all the time now.

[Charliemouse]

3 hours ago, blackadder said:

I'd have sent you my 0.25 but even that was terrible,only thing that was perfect was the half.

Do you plan to return your whole set?

3 hours ago, blackadder said:

it's more then not great,it's shockingly bad all the time now.

I must agree that I was shocked about the quarter.  Even a first glance from a foot away shows it having something wrong with it.  It's impossible to believe anyone looked at it.  And to hear that it is common is just ridiculous.  Obviously there is some systemic error here, not just a one-time mistake.