BU (Brilliant Uncirculed) sovereign

[refero]

hi all, id like to have if possible a bit of background on these sovereigns.

From which year RM started minting them? I have a reference (and pic) of 2019; could that be then from 2019 onwards?

thanks in advance for any assistance on that

[westminstrel]

The BU matte finish Sovereigns started from 2018.

Prior to that, they had BU Sovereigns, but the difference wasn’t always clear or consistent.

For example, the 2017 BU was petty much like a Proof; and the RM even issued incorrect COAs, which led to NGC and PCGS incorrectly labeling some of the early submitted BUs as Proofs.

Prior to 2017, the BUs were issued typically as SotD Sovereigns, but you’d have to closely compare a BU with a Bullion to really see the difference - it wasn’t immediately obvious like the matte BUs from 2018 onwards.

[GoldDiggerDave]

They also put a U privy mark on some of the £5BU's so no one could mix them up.   TBH there are many blurred lines with the "BU" sovereign  like @westminstrel said the 2017 and especially the 2018 full SOTD sovereigns were proof coins but they were given a BU status.  I think the BU sovereign allows the RM to have another mid year run at selling sovereigns but they can not class them as proof sovereigns as the mintage figures are released when they sell the next years sovereigns around November.

I think this is why almost all new SOTD sovereigns are matte along with the £5 BU as it's easier to identify what the coin actually is.    The "Normal" designation is Marsh is confusing. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by GoldDiggerDave

[Booky586]

They go back some time. I had a quick look in my Royal Mint Coin Club Bulletins and the earliest reference I saw was for £5 gold coin minted in 1984:

 

[refero]

2 hours ago, westminstrel said:

The BU matte finish Sovereigns started from 2018.

Prior to that, they had BU Sovereigns, but the difference wasn’t always clear or consistent.

For example, the 2017 BU was petty much like a Proof; and the RM even issued incorrect COAs, which led to NGC and PCGS incorrectly labeling some of the early submitted BUs as Proofs.

Prior to 2017, the BUs were issued typically as SotD Sovereigns, but you’d have to closely compare a BU with a Bullion to really see the difference - it wasn’t immediately obvious like the matte BUs from 2018 onwards.

thanks a lot for this content. I am preparing an excel doc with all sovereign (i m only focussing on the whole sovs at the moment) issued since the RM decided to milk us dry...

Proof - Bullion - Sotds - Bu 

I am basically starting from 2013 (the first 2 Sotds as far as i know, the Coronation 60th anniversary 02-06-13 and Prince George birth 22-07-13)

 

[Stuntman]

Regarding the 5 sovereign pieces in the 21st century, the matte finish ones started in 2019.  the 2018 coin was in the previous shiny (quasi-proof) finish and had the sapphire coronation privy mark on it.

 

 

Edited April 10, 2023 by Stuntman

[GoldDiggerDave]

8 hours ago, Stuntman said:

Regarding the 5 sovereign pieces in the 21st century, the matte finish ones started in 2019.  the 2018 coin was in the previous shiny (quasi-proof) finish and had the sapphire coronation privy mark on it.

 

 

This coin is a proof coin in everything but name , ask yourself has this been struck with a currency bullion die or a proof die?  

[GoldDiggerDave]

This IMO is the closest we will see to a "BU sovereign" the  2019 I  it's clearly been struck with a bullion currency die.(a very sharp deep strike)  https://www.ngccoin.uk/certlookup/6321943-007/70/

 

the 2018 SOTD is clearly a proof coin however they both have the same designation MS70DPL  

https://www.ngccoin.uk/certlookup/6670965-002/70/

Same grade 2 fundamental different sovereigns 

[GoldDiggerDave]

This is 2 more 2019 sovereigns for comparison.  

Left is a UK bullion sovereign right is a BU strike on the day. 

[GoldDiggerDave]

Spot the difference between these two..........

 

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by GoldDiggerDave

[SidS]

11 hours ago, Booky586 said:

They go back some time. I had a quick look in my Royal Mint Coin Club Bulletins and the earliest reference I saw was for £5 gold coin minted in 1984:

 

Ohh I dunno about ordering today, £471 seems like a lot of money to me. 😁

[flyingveepixie]

Spectacular pics and sov examples Dave.

[Booky586]

1 hour ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

Spot the difference between these two..........

 

 

The 2018 SOTD shows more detail and is a better strike than the proof!

[GoodAsGold]

10 hours ago, Booky586 said:

The 2018 SOTD shows more detail and is a better strike than the proof!

Totally agree. The smooth rim on the SOTD gave it away for me when comparing the 2 side by side pics (they opened up in a separate tab so I only noticed the pics with the NGC labels afterwards). The numerals look nicer on the SOTD as well, plus the field is clearly visible between George’s head and the horse’s mane. The gap between the two isn’t apparent on the standard proof. The SOTD does lack the privy mark though.

[GoodAsGold]

I think the Mint slipped up by putting the initials BP on both coin versions @GoldDiggerDave. Surely only Prince George’s 5th Birthday deserves the Birthday Party invites?

[GoodAsGold]

23 hours ago, Booky586 said:

They go back some time. I had a quick look in my Royal Mint Coin Club Bulletins and the earliest reference I saw was for £5 gold coin minted in 1984:

 

The Royal Mint Coin Club clearly had some spelling issues back then. The description goes from half sovereign to soveriegn, plus the coins are masterpeices when they should be masterpieces… unless they only come in the 22 carrot version of course!

[GoldDiggerDave]

Also IMO there is a distinct difference between a bullion dies and a proof, and not just the frosting on the proof die.    The frosting on the die for those of you who don't know is produced by sellotaping the die and then cutting out the sections where the frosting is required and then its sand blasted to achieve a frosted relief against the polished blank once struck. 

The bullion dies are also more rounded and not a sharp as the proof dies, I think this is possibly due to making the die more robust and made for 1000's of strikes where the proof dies are much sharper and precise and  normally made for around 250 coins before they have to be re-tooled. You can see these differences with any bullion and proof made in the last 20 years or so. 

I do not know of a BU die (This is one question I will ask when I'm back on the RM VIP tour in June this year) I suspect they don't exist and proof dies are used. 

The RM have a video on YT on this......What is really funny and I mean funny they made all the 2014 and 2015 BU sovereigns WRONG!..........With the 2014 and 2015 they made them with a bullion obverse die and a proof reverse, I know because I have one in my collection, so even the Royal Mint has struggled with a BU sovereigns, they go to the nth degree to explain the difference and they get in wrong for 2 years 2014-2015 (think theres some 2016 with the same die mix up)  and they continue to get it wrong in 2017-2018 when they make the "BU" sovereigns only to make them with proof COA's it's only until 2019 a WHIOLE FIVE YEARS LATER when they make them matte BU they get a handle on whats a Bullion, Brilliant uncirculated and a Proof.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by GoldDiggerDave

[Stuntman]

37 minutes ago, GoodAsGold said:

The Royal Mint Coin Club clearly had some spelling issues back then. The description goes from half sovereign to soveriegn, plus the coins are masterpeices when they should be masterpieces… unless they only come in the 22 carrot version of course!

They need better proof readers for that prose, which would be better left uncirculated as it is far from brilliant...

[dicker]

One sees Binlords on eBay calling plain old bullion coins BU or BUNC, but because they have not been circulated and haven’t been cleaned by sandpaper.  

Call them out on it and you will find that they just don’t know the difference   

 

[Stuntman]

^^^ Tricky one though, because Brilliant Uncirculated would usually describe a coin's condition or grade, rather than its method of production.  An unmarked and lustrous decimal penny could properly be described as BU.  An unmarked bullion sovereign should therefore be able to be called BU, in my opinion.  

 

It's the RM that has moved the goalposts by conflating the method of production with their Brilliant Uncirculated designation or description.

I love my 2017 and 2018 'Brilliant Uncirculated' £5 sovereign coins and was relatively happy to pay the premium over bullion prices when they were first issued.  Am less happy to pay the premium these days for the matte finish ones although some of the coins are very nice.

[GoldDiggerDave]

22 minutes ago, dicker said:

One sees Binlords on eBay calling plain old bullion coins BU or BUNC, but because they have not been circulated and haven’t been cleaned by sandpaper.  

Call them out on it and you will find that they just don’t know the difference   

 

There's a fair argument to say some sovereigns minted after  1914 could be called  uncirculated as they were not minted for circulation, take all the gillicks around technically they were never minted for circulation however, the definition of a uncirculated coin in the British descriptive scale, and some others is based on the actual wear of the coin, not because  it was intended for circulation to not. 

I've had this out with some about a proof coin, they were saying if it's slightly damaged then its not a proof coin......To which I said I could get a proof coin throw it in the road and it still would be a proof coin, be it a very damaged one.....And this was a conversation with a coin collector of several decades, he presumed proof means perfect condition. 

 

[SidS]

8 hours ago, Stuntman said:

^^^ Tricky one though, because Brilliant Uncirculated would usually describe a coin's condition or grade, rather than its method of production.  An unmarked and lustrous decimal penny could properly be described as BU.  An unmarked bullion sovereign should therefore be able to be called BU, in my opinion.

Until this thread I wasn't aware of BU as a manufacturing thing. To me BU was the top tier (or next to top) after UNC in the adjectival grading system. I was buying BU coins from dealers in the 90s as such.

I've always considered:

UNC as MS60-63

BU as MS64-MS67

Gem UNC as MS68+

...give or take. I realise that's a very unofficial personal standard.

My first instruction on grading came from a 1985 Seaby catalogue.

I was under the impression that the 'U' on the £5 coins was simply to distinguish them from proofs.

[SidS]

8 hours ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

I've had this out with some about a proof coin, they were saying if it's slightly damaged then its not a proof coin.

Correct. A proof coin is a coin manufactured from differently prepared dies. Proof is not a description of condition.

A damaged proof is an 'impaired proof'.