Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Sign in to follow this  
Lotad

Quality control on proof coins from the Mint

Recommended Posts

I've just received an exchanged copy of the 2018 annual proof set. I sent the first back because there was a stain/mark on the obverse of the 2p. And now the second has fingerprints on the obverse of the 1p and 50p.

Am I expecting too much of these proof coins? 

Considering the cost, my expectation is that these proof coins should be perfect.

SLnYvI6.jpg

Tccp4Ot.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these pictures of the coins sealed in plastic ?

I dont have a clue but looks that way especially the 50p

Edited by PWA 1967

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After finding that 2009 silver proof in the Family Silver proof set with great shreds of metal hanging off the side I am not sure how good the quality control is this one got through 9 years ago I only noticed it when I saw scratches on the inside of the capsule and realised the silver shards were so high they were damaging the plastic.  

 

Oh I see on yours the fingerprint is on the coin not on the capsule.  In all the pretty images of them preparing the proofs they are wearing lovely white gloves  

s-l500 (3) (264x300).jpg

s-l1600 (8) (183x300).jpg

s-l500.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lotad said:

I've just received an exchanged copy of the 2018 annual proof set. I sent the first back because there was a stain/mark on the obverse of the 2p. And now the second has fingerprints on the obverse of the 1p and 50p.

Am I expecting too much of these proof coins? 

Considering the cost, my expectation is that these proof coins should be perfect.

I think you have every right to expect proof coins to be free from marks or fingerprints. Unless you particularly want the 2018 set now,  getting a refund from the mint and buying the set on the secondary market in a year or so time will save you some money.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly return proof coins that have been poorly handled, as these clearly have.

It's nothing new however - you don't see fingerprints on 70s proofs, but sometimes you see very bad staining, a reaction with the coloured inlays. 1973 proof sets especially it seems, it's rare to find one where all the coins are perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A new proof should be immaculate. The original poster is not being pedantic.

Of course with time the market is more forgiving.

A question for me is why would anyone buy modern proofs? I do accept that, that is pandering to my own prejudices. So no criticism intended, but they just seem so boring and many.

I'm sure someone can make a case.

M

Edited by sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, sound said:

A new proof should be immaculate. The original poster is not being pedantic.

Of course with time the market is more forgiving.

A question for me is why would anyone buy modern proofs? I do accept that, that is pandering to my own prejudices. So no criticism intended, but they just seem so boring and many.

I'm sure someone can make a case.

M

I don't collect modern proofs but I did once when I was a teenager. 

Reasons?

1) Couldn't afford high grade 19C coins. Worn coins had little appeal for me. Modern proofs are always in FDC. 

2) Some can be attractive in design. 

3) Some are very nicely presented.  Easy to handle.

4) A possible way to collect world coins

...and very occasionally, the odd one can be a good investment. 

... and some people buy them to tick a box

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the advice everyone. I'll send them back and try another set; don't they say the third time's a charm?

As for why modern proofs? I like how they're presented and I enjoy having a pristine copy of a coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lotad said:

Thank you for the advice everyone. I'll send them back and try another set; don't they say the third time's a charm?

As for why modern proofs? I like how they're presented and I enjoy having a pristine copy of a coin.

Older ones are available in that condition too, you just have to be patient and keep looking, and not take the first thing that comes along. Oh,.................. as you already appear to be doing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sound said:

A question for me is why would anyone buy modern proofs? I do accept that, that is pandering to my own prejudices. So no criticism intended, but they just seem so boring and many.

Not my cup of tea but I guess they found a market in the 1960s and 1970s when it was a new thing.

I'll only buy a modern proof if I can't get a circulation finish example of the same coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30 September 2018 at 8:29 PM, sound said:

A question for me is why would anyone buy modern proofs? I do accept that, that is pandering to my own prejudices. So no criticism intended, but they just seem so boring and many.

I'm sure someone can make a case.

No, I agree with you. The early 70s (the first 3 or 4 proof sets) you can make a case for - no pun intended. However, it would have been preferable if subsequent sets had been much more sporadic. Individual changing designs or new denominations - the 20p, £1, £2, 50p, etc - would  have been introduced as single issues in various forms such as regular metal, silver, and piedfort for new denominations.

The whole "several proofs each year" thing has just devalued the proof experience IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

No, I agree with you. The early 70s (the first 3 or 4 proof sets) you can make a case for - no pun intended. However, it would have been preferable if subsequent sets had been much more sporadic. Individual changing designs or new denominations - the 20p, £1, £2, 50p, etc - would  have been introduced as single issues in various forms such as regular metal, silver, and piedfort for new denominations.

The whole "several proofs each year" thing has just devalued the proof experience IMO.

Peck,

You are more articulate than me and have just presented the rub of it.

However views do change, George VI and Elizabeth II pre-decimal were not popular in their time but are certainly increasingly viewed as collectable now.

Your point about proofs is particularly apt. Surely a proof should be exciting, something to get the blood boiling, an unusual event. Not just the mint churning out thousands of coins because marketing has thought of a new angle.

Take the 1927 proof set or if broken down individual coins, I still enjoy looking at them, checking how close to FDC they are, just knowing that relatively low numbers in production make them more interesting.

The point about cost is a fair one. Think if that is a factor I might look at something else but perhaps that's just me.

M

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Peckris 2 said:

No, I agree with you. The early 70s (the first 3 or 4 proof sets) you can make a case for - no pun intended. However, it would have been preferable if subsequent sets had been much more sporadic. Individual changing designs or new denominations - the 20p, £1, £2, 50p, etc - would  have been introduced as single issues in various forms such as regular metal, silver, and piedfort for new denominations.

The whole "several proofs each year" thing has just devalued the proof experience IMO.

thats why i like the George VI cameo proofs, seems to be the first time they were made with any chance of the average collector getting their mits on one, 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2018 at 2:54 PM, Lotad said:

I've just received an exchanged copy of the 2018 annual proof set. I sent the first back because there was a stain/mark on the obverse of the 2p. And now the second has fingerprints on the obverse of the 1p and 50p.

Am I expecting too much of these proof coins? 

Considering the cost, my expectation is that these proof coins should be perfect.

SLnYvI6.jpg

Tccp4Ot.jpg

Yep, they're almost certainly fingerprints. Completely unacceptable. You'd think they'd be using gloves to insert the coins into place.

Difficult to comprehend they could be that careless. With the average person, it's understandable, as they wouldn't necessarily be expected to know. But a member of staff working in the Mint should be fully acquainted with all the ins and outs of how to handle coins.

It seems that standards are slipping. As I said in the Royal Mint experience thread, the £2 coin I had struck for me on a visit by a friend, has much of the lettering almost completely unreadable because the dies being used are so worn. Not sure how that is allowed to happen. It's not as if the same dies are used for mass production. Essentially just a few each day and certainly in no way comparable to currency strike production figures.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×