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  
Oxford_Collector

Horrible ultra shiny finish on modern sovereigns - when/why?

Recommended Posts

Sorry if this is slightly off-topic (though a sovereign is arguably a pre-decimal coin still, whichever the year), but am I the only one to think that the ultra-shiny finish on modern (well, post-2000, if not earlier) gold sovereigns is horrible? I don't know what they do to sovereigns these days, but I have a 1970s sovereign and the finish on this still looks more like the "traditional" finish seen on much earlier sovereigns, so I'm not quite sure when (or why?!) this change-over happened, as my only other "modern" sovereign is a 1980s proof one. The ultra-glossy finish on modern bullion sovereigns I think actually makes them look "cheap", rather than proof-like. The slightly matt finish on modern US bullion gold eagles, for example, is much nicer I think and looks less susceptible to finger marks and the like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this is slightly off-topic (though a sovereign is arguably a pre-decimal coin still, whichever the year), but am I the only one to think that the ultra-shiny finish on modern (well, post-2000, if not earlier) gold sovereigns is horrible? I don't know what they do to sovereigns these days, but I have a 1970s sovereign and the finish on this still looks more like the "traditional" finish seen on much earlier sovereigns, so I'm not quite sure when (or why?!) this change-over happened, as my only other "modern" sovereign is a 1980s proof one. The ultra-glossy finish on modern bullion sovereigns I think actually makes them look "cheap", rather than proof-like. The slightly matt finish on modern US bullion gold eagles, for example, is much nicer I think and looks less susceptible to finger marks and the like.

It's not confined to gold. If you look at the older 10p and 50p especially, you will see a change from a rather lovely satin finish (1968 - early 1970s) to a rather ugly mirror finish sometime around the mid-1970s. I'm not sure why they did this, or why they thought it was better, but I suspect it is something to do with practicalities and nothing to do with aesthetics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this is slightly off-topic (though a sovereign is arguably a pre-decimal coin still, whichever the year), but am I the only one to think that the ultra-shiny finish on modern (well, post-2000, if not earlier) gold sovereigns is horrible? I don't know what they do to sovereigns these days, but I have a 1970s sovereign and the finish on this still looks more like the "traditional" finish seen on much earlier sovereigns, so I'm not quite sure when (or why?!) this change-over happened, as my only other "modern" sovereign is a 1980s proof one. The ultra-glossy finish on modern bullion sovereigns I think actually makes them look "cheap", rather than proof-like. The slightly matt finish on modern US bullion gold eagles, for example, is much nicer I think and looks less susceptible to finger marks and the like.

It's not confined to gold. If you look at the older 10p and 50p especially, you will see a change from a rather lovely satin finish (1968 - early 1970s) to a rather ugly mirror finish sometime around the mid-1970s. I'm not sure why they did this, or why they thought it was better, but I suspect it is something to do with practicalities and nothing to do with aesthetics.

It may have something to do with the change in die finish which the mint introduced around 1973/4. From this point on the dies were Chrome plated and this seems to have led to some interesting effects when it comes to the strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least it is more difficult to make scans of coins having a shiny and bright surface...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would go with the dies as well.

it is still better then the quality of curculation coins, so much low relief junk all over the world now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would go with the dies as well.

it is still better then the quality of curculation coins, so much low relief junk all over the world now

Interesting, I didn't know that the die finished had changed, its a real shame about the effect this had had on the finish of the coins, really makes modern coinage minted in this way look unappealing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would go with the dies as well.

it is still better then the quality of curculation coins, so much low relief junk all over the world now

Interesting, I didn't know that the die finished had changed, its a real shame about the effect this had had on the finish of the coins, really makes modern coinage minted in this way look unappealing!

Yes, I've always thought the silk finish on 1969 50p pieces were far superior to - say a brightly mirrored 1980 specimen.

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  

×