Bullion coins quality

[pricha]

57 minutes ago, LawrenceChard said:

There is another factor which you have probably not realised.

Although you did not state which type of gold bullion coins you meant, your images were of gold Yales of Beaufort. These are made of "fine gold", sometimes wrongly called 24ct, as are many modern gold bullion coins, and therefore are quite soft, and scratch and scuff more easily.

Older gold coins, originally made for the rough, tough world of circulation, such as gold sovereigns were, and still are, made of 22ct gold. Some countries, notably the USA used .900 fine gold. The addition of copper, and often silver, helped to make these harder, and therefore more resistant to scuffing and scratches. Add to tje fact that, as they were made primarily for trade and circulation use, very few people would be looking at them so critically and closely that they would notice slight imperfections. For example, when did you examine look at any shiny new pennies or twopences in your change for scratches, scuffs and bagmarks?

This provides another argument in favour of 22ct bullion coins rather than 24ct one. This does not mean or imply that I think all modern gold bullion coins should be 22ct. There are argument both ways. Fine gold coins are the natural colour of gold, and not the awful coppery red / pink / rose which omitting the traces of silver causes.

😎

That's interesting.  So people who prefer their coins in pristine condition should really avoid 24ct . Makes sence. 

[Bratnia]

1 hour ago, LawrenceChard said:

Although you did not state which type of gold bullion coins you meant, your images were of gold Yales of Beaufort. These are made of "fine gold", sometimes wrongly called 24ct, as are many modern gold bullion coins, and therefore are quite soft, and scratch and scuff more easily.

What is the difference - when you say fine gold is sometimes wrongly called 24ct?

From https://www.ukbullion.com/learning-centre/articles/the-britannia-coin

Quote

From 2013 the Royal Mint changed the make-up of the 1 oz Gold Britannia from 22 carat .916 to 24 carat .9999 Gold. This change was presumably to allow easier comparison with rival nationality bullion coins which were increasingly produced from .9999 Gold. The dimensions of the new Britannia also changed. The new version of the coin is 32.69 mm in diameter and weighs 31.10 grams or 1 Troy ounce of pure 24 carat .9999 Gold.

Is it only that 24ct is a 24/24 measure (100%) whereas fine gold is 99.99%, a difference of 0.001%?

When money was gold, such as Sovereign's - that the One Pound paper note could be converted for ("I promise to pay the bearer the sum of One Pound" wording on paper notes, i.e. a Sovereign gold coin), hardening everyday coins with alloys made sense. Britannia's since 2013 in having transitioned to .9999 will be 'soft' and easily scratched as you say. I guess even doing a simple "ring" test (balance on finger and tap with another coin) is inadvisable with 2013 onward fine gold coins? At least if you desire to avoid deformation.

Also, why do paper (plastic) notes still bear the "I promise to pay the bearer the sum of ..." wording? Yes its a lot smaller text nowadays - but still a 'broken promise' as it has been since the early 1930's when mass paper to gold conversions forced the Chancellor to end convertibility (or rather others stepped in to make that decision as the Chancellor himself had a breakdown thinking it was the end of the world).

[LawrenceChard]

11 hours ago, Bratnia said:

What is the difference - when you say fine gold is sometimes wrongly called 24ct?

From https://www.ukbullion.com/learning-centre/articles/the-britannia-coin

 

If you are going to look for information online or anywhere else, you need to get it from a reliable, trustworthy and informed source.

This should answer your question:

https://taxfreegold.co.uk/24caratgoldcoins.html

In particular, the first paragraph:

24 Carat Gold Coins
The first thing we should point out is that it is almost impossible to economically or commercially obtain absolutely pure gold. 24 carat gold would be absolutely pure. Before electrolytic refining, highly refined gold was usually .9995 pure (99.95%). If we convert this to carats, it would be 23.988 carats. London good delivery gold bars are acceptable at .995 which is "only" 23.88 carats. With electrolytic refining, it became commercially economic to produce .9999 fine gold, which works out to 23.9976 carats. the Royal Canadian Mint also produce a .99999 fine gold coin, advertised as the world's purest gold coin. this works out at 23.99976 carats. It follows from this, that it is more accurate to refer to coins by their metric fineness than as 24 carat.

- - -

When I tried to follow your link, I got an error message. It seems that ukbullion.com is one of those pathetic websites which blocks access for people using a VPN. I use one for security reasons.

It annoys me having to turn off the VPN to access such sites, which means I cannot access our Microsoft Teams app and a few other important resources until I turn it back on. 

Having read a little more of their page, it struck me that they have probably read some of my expert and accurate published information, then re-hashed it, but missed out some important and informative bits, possibly because they did not understand it.

"Is it only that 24ct is a 24/24 measure (100%) whereas fine gold is 99.99%, a difference of 0.001%?"

Almost right, but...

Fine gold in not necessarily 99.99%, it can be 99.9% 99.95%, or 99.5%. It could even be 99%.

The term "fine gold" is an inexact, lazy, expression, although many people use it as a kind of shorthand.

Similarly "24ct" is also an inexact, lazy, expression, used in a similar way.

It is similar to saying "football". In the UK, most people would understand that as meaning soccer (Association Football), but most Americans would think you meant American Football. Other Brits might think you meant rugby.

"When money was gold, such as Sovereign's"

You you used a greengrocers' apostrophe!

" I guess even doing a simple "ring" test (balance on finger and tap with another coin) is inadvisable with 2013 onward fine gold coins? At least if you desire to avoid deformation."

Wrong assumption. Gold is not putty. It is not so soft. Unless you were worried about deforming your finger, ping away as much as you like.

I did not understand some other parts of your questions, but I am sure you can find answers here or elsewhere.

😎

[LawrenceChard]

On 11/02/2023 at 09:30, TeaTime said:

The simple matter is that a damaged or poorly minted coin has lost the (hefty) premium paid by the purchaser instantly - the coin to most people then becomes 'bullion' and will be considered as a commodity (valued solely on spot price) rather than a coin. How on earth the RM (and others) has managed to persuade people that this is acceptable is beyond me.  

There is always an expectation with a manufactured product that you will receive something of a quality that matches the cost.  In the case of RM  coins sadly, this is often not the case. 

No reasonable person expects perfection with a mass-produced item, but when the premiums are so high, a certain level of quality should be achieved. I guess that the RMs view of acceptable falls well below that of the average purchaser. 

It is unfortunate that, as it stands, dealers (the biggest purchaser from RM) have no incentive to call out the manufacturer when they can simply re-sell the product with a catch-all 'bullion' description. That's why i detest the use of that word when it comes to coins.

I do agree with much of what you say.

There are some parts with which I disagree:

"(hefty) premium paid by the purchaser"

Anyone can buy new gold Britannias at between 3.1% and 3.55% premium, from a leading dealer:

Quantity	Premium %	Price Per Item	Total	Est UK Delivery
1	3.55	£1,601.37	£1,601.37	£7.00
5	3.45	£1,599.82	£7,999.10	£11.00
10	3.4	£1,599.05	£15,990.50	£16.00
20	3.3	£1,597.50	£31,950.00	£27.00
50	3.2	£1,595.96	£79,798.00	£64.00
100	3.15	£1,595.18	£159,518.00	£132.60
200+	3.1	£1,594.41	£318,882.00	£238.60

IMO, those are not hefty premiums.

To add some perspective to that, when Krugerrands were introduced in 1967, the ex-mint premium was 3.%. This was only available to major international banks and bullion dealers. Minimum order size was either 5,000 ot 10,000 ounces (I forget which). This did not include "free postage"!

When a UK retail investor can buy 1 piece at 3.55%, it shows how much the market has developed.

I am aware that the photos shown in the OP were "Beasts", then sure, they are at slightly higher premiums, and there is a very good argument that for this reason, they should be produced with a "premium quality finish".

"the coin to most people then becomes 'bullion' and will be considered as a commodity (valued solely on spot price) rather than a coin."

But if what you are buying is a bullion coin, then nothing has changed.

"There is always an expectation with a manufactured product that you will receive something of a quality that matches the cost."

A reasonable point on the face of it, but the premium paid should be a more important influence on this, rather than the actual price, or amount spent.

"It is unfortunate that, as it stands, dealers (the biggest purchaser from RM) have no incentive to call out the manufacturer when they can simply re-sell the product with a catch-all 'bullion' description.

That may well be true for most bullion dealers, but I would certainly prefer not to have to deal with complaints because of scuffs, bagmarks, etc., and would prefer not to have to add a caveat to some of our new products, or to have to invest time in "managing customer expectations".

In most industries, there exists a stong disincentive for any direct distributor to "call out" the manufacturer or rights owner. For example, anyone who wishes to distribute Olympic Games or Disney products must first sign a very lengthy and highly restrictive legal document which would prohibit them from doing or saying anything which may in the owners opinion, damage their reputation. In many cases, there would probably be a non-disclosure clause.

Consumers of course, are under no such restiction!

😎

Edited February 12, 2023 by LawrenceChard

[MarioZG]

On 10/02/2023 at 23:00, LawrenceChard said:

[...]

Another possible option would be the existence and production of "Brilliant Uncirculated" versions of bullion coins at a slighly higher premium if necessary, and if there was sufficient demand. This does of course somewhat contradict the definition of "bullion"!

[..]

 

 

That almost perfectly describes what i thought about bullion coins from beasts and myths&legends series. They are priced with few percent of premium compared to cheapest bullion, so i'd expect new coin to be in bit better state. I wouldn't mind such marks if i'd buy some Britannias or went for bigger quantity to stack. Also Think its fair to assume that when someone buys one coin its indicates "not for stacking, i'd appreciate decent state!". 

 

[Bogart]

On 09/02/2023 at 23:33, James32 said:

Unfortunately because these coins have raised areas and are stored and transported in tubes, clanging together, these mark's are a common occurrence. Disheartening especially considering the premium, but par for the course unfortunately.

If the RM would adopt the Perth Mint way, and place coins in capsules at point of Minting, everything would be supremely better for everyone, especially us.

You could try appealing to your dealer and see if they will honour a replacement, some will, but some will hide behind the "bullion" banner.

Agree 100% with James about RM packaging.I think they do not need to go as far as capsuling each one. A piece of paper between each coin would suffice. It is luck of the draw.

On 09/02/2023 at 23:33, James32 said:

Unfortunately because these coins have raised areas and are stored and transported in tubes, clanging together, these mark's are a common occurrence. Disheartening especially considering the premium, but par for the course unfortunately.

If the RM would adopt the Perth Mint way, and place coins in capsules at point of Minting, everything would be supremely better for everyone, especially us.

You could try appealing to your dealer and see if they will honour a replacement, some will, but some will hide behind the "bullion" banner.

 

[mffiv]

I’m planning to get the 2023 bullion Sovereign (when released). Is it possible to request a pristine example when ordering from @ChardsCoinandBullionDealer ?  or are the standards already high (sovereign condition quality/their stock) and therefore won’t be a need for me to do that?

I previously bought the 2022 Platinum Jubilee Sovereign from the Royal Mint and it arrived fine, but I’m considering to purchase from Chards in the future.

Thanks. 

[TeaTime]

My sovereign from Chards arrived last week and was in good order - it was also £25 cheaper (on the day) than buying directly from the RM. It came in a 22.5mm - they didn't have the preferred 22.2 mm - capsule (additional 50p charge).

I'm not a stacker, just wanted an example to keep with the other 2022 sovereign. 

I don't know if gold 'bullion' coins are manufactured with a bit more care than silver, but it is rare to find any significant damage on them. 

[Bogart]

Be grateful. Though to credit the RM, which is rarely deserved, they seem to have got their act together with this sovereign.

[MonkeysUncle]

On 11/02/2023 at 13:41, gji25 said:

But cd,s are better than vinyl and digital camera,s are better than film 

Now that my old son depends on the quality of the blank vinyl, the pressing and indeed what you play it back on.

In my opinion a good piece of vinyl played on something such as a Linn Klimax will positively blow the bl**dy doors off. Vinyl in my experience usually wins when comparing with CD at the same price point - with the exception to this rule being sub £500, where a Rotel CD11 Tribute beats anything and everything in my book.

Back on topic to RM bullion I find their 1oz silver coins dreadful (and do not buy them anymore), their 1oz gold hit and miss and - touch wood - have only ever received one new Sovereign I've turned my nose up at.

Edited March 5, 2023 by MonkeysUncle
Missed a "not" out!

[kimchi]

I probably wouldn't risk it again on RM suff, but I bought a few Completers and was nicely surprised that they look almost perfect, worth grading (if there's value uplift, haven't checked) in fact.

On the other hand I got some Kook 1/10th anniversary BUNCS and they all missed the same speck of frosting (noticeable without magnification) so obviously it was the die - an odd one from the usually outstanding Perth Mint! I mentioned it to the dealer and they pulled the old 'it's just bullion'. That was their genuine misunderstanding and I'd haggled for a discount, so I wasn't too bothered, and strangely (again) a lot of that issue had problems. The same dealer once excitedly emailed me that a SotD sov was a proof, not realising the difference beween PL/DPL and PF! A really nice person to deal with so I did try to teach them but they wouldn't listen!

[Bogart]

On 11/02/2023 at 13:41, gji25 said:

But cd,s are better than vinyl and digital camera,s are better than film 

Listen to the Fleetwood Mac Rumours album the 2 lp version played at 45rpm and then tell me cd is better than vinyl😁

[CazLikesCoins]

On 09/02/2023 at 22:05, MarioZG said:

I'm aware that bullion gold coins might come with some defects, but as I'm struggling to find guidelines what is acceptable and what is too much...

In particular, are marks below something you'd expect and accept on bullion coin bought as new?

 

Perhaps the only guidance a person needs is to find what's acceptable to themselves. I think new coins being imperfect is unacceptable to me while physiologically I'm perfectly happy for a 50 year old coin to look fifty years old. I suppose it'd be like having a baby that came out looking like Grotbags and wondering what happened to it. At lease with coins you can swap and sell until you get the ones you are happy with.

[gji25]

7 hours ago, Bogart said:

Listen to the Fleetwood Mac Rumours album the 2 lp version played at 45rpm and then tell me cd is better than vinyl😁

Cd is better than vinyl 😄

[gji25]

12 hours ago, MonkeysUncle said:

Now that my old son depends on the quality of the blank vinyl, the pressing and indeed what you play it back on.

In my opinion a good piece of vinyl played on something such as a Linn Klimax will positively blow the bl**dy doors off. Vinyl in my experience usually wins when comparing with CD at the same price point - with the exception to this rule being sub £500, where a Rotel CD11 Tribute beats anything and everything in my book.

Back on topic to RM bullion I find their 1oz silver coins dreadful (and do not buy them anymore), their 1oz gold hit and miss and - touch wood - have only ever received one new Sovereign I've turned my nose up at.

Imo a track recorded in flac format with a apollo UA ( universal audio ) in a flat position ( no added equalization)will blow the doors off any piece of plastic whirling around 

Edited March 6, 2023 by gji25
info

[SidS]

CDs always seem a little flat compared to vinyl. Although CDs are far more convenient, if less tactile.

[Bogart]

5 hours ago, gji25 said:

Imo a track recorded in flac format with a apollo UA ( universal audio ) in a flat position ( no added equalization)will blow the doors off any piece of plastic whirling around 

What your missing is analogue has the capability to sound way better than digital, not saying it always does though. What am I saying of course it does.👍

[CazLikesCoins]

10 minutes ago, Bogart said:

What your missing is analogue has the capability to sound way better than digital, not saying it always does though. What am I saying of course it does.👍

Agreed. Ones, zeros and pixels can't ever replace what analogue is capable of capturing. My 70 year old Johnny Ray vinyl album sounds alive yet the cd version I have just sounds like the cd version I have. Weird but vinyl captures a magical quality I don't hear in digital. 

Edited March 6, 2023 by CazLikesCoins

[Silverlocks]

Somebody once of wine tasting that they didn't want to educate their palate to the point that it started costing them money.  That was the approach I've taken with audio equipment until I had to start teleconferencing in quantity - at which point I need folks to use microphones that at least retain enough sound quality that I can understand what they're saying.

Sadly, I can't bring myself to take joy from manky old sovereigns so I do try to get ones in at least halfway decent condition.  If Victoria looks like a kewpie doll or Ed looks like he's rocking facial tats it's not my thing.

[Bogart]

Agree with this coin collecting game that it is paramount, in my mind anyway, that the coin at least looks nice in the first place.