Decimal varieties

[Geordie582]

I desperately want to stop buying modern coins or even collecting them from change - but you know how it is, seeing them brings on the itch and 10-12 coins down the track you can't stop. What a lot of garbage when you oversee the result!!!

By the way Chris, I don't dispute other itch-for Kylie, it's just another form of collecting! 

[Nutsaboutcoins]

13 hours ago, Chris Perkins said:

Talking of mules, another one exists and so far only 2 are known - 2009 10p with the (wrong) crowned lion reverse instead of the Dent shield section. That's one that would easily be overlooked in change.

How can RM produce so many errors and mules? Have they just got a big box of dies and some idiot rummaging around in it looking for two that are about the same size?

 

[Chris Perkins]

10 minutes ago, Nutsaboutcoins said:

How can RM produce so many errors and mules? Have they just got a big box of dies and some idiot rummaging around in it looking for two that are about the same size?

 

It was the same work experience boy that allowed them to produce a 50p without a denomination, then a different one for silver/gold proof before finally doing one that they could actually circulate.

[Nordle11]

So do you think the new commem 50p with denomination is an error then? The RM are insisting it's not, which was why I started that thread.

[Chris Perkins]

I don't see how a coin can be made with no denomination and be called 'deliberate', especially as they had a suitable obv that they could have used (the one which had 'FIFTY PENCE' under the Queen in smaller letters). It was a cock up and they're pulling the wool over out eyes. Is a coin with no marked denomination actually legally even a coin?

Or it actually was deliberate and was done to try and make the coins more interesting, create more hype and sell more of them. But I doubt that on this occasion. They cocked up.

 

[Rob]

The suggestion that the RM is deliberately creating errors seems a little wide of the mark when they have no control of the market for circulating coins. They would not be able to turn round and say 'used undated 20p, forty quid if anyone wants one', so unless they advertise errors when new, I can't see how they can ask more than face value for circulating pieces

[Nordle11]

A case of trying to cover up their mistakes then. You should have said something in my thread!  

[Nutsaboutcoins]

8 hours ago, Rob said:

The suggestion that the RM is deliberately creating errors seems a little wide of the mark when they have no control of the market for circulating coins. They would not be able to turn round and say 'used undated 20p, forty quid if anyone wants one', so unless they advertise errors when new, I can't see how they can ask more than face value for circulating pieces

They sell circulating pieces for more than face value all of the time, just look at the commemorative 50p & £2 coins. They are not going to sell a specific error as an error coin, but does the frequency of them having errors / unique varieties keep people buying the next grossly overpriced proof set just in case they bag themselves a variety?

From the latest RM Bulletin. "The 2016 United Kingdom Silver Proof Coin Set... This is the only way to own the £1 bearing Matthew Dent's shield of the Royal Arms design, dated 2016 and struck in precious metal... Price £595.00"  So they do have an eye for varieties, and it will cost you six hundred quid if you want a silver £1.

7 hours ago, Nordle11 said:

A case of trying to cover up their mistakes then. You should have said something in my thread!  

Thread envy is a terrible thing Nordle  

[Chris Perkins]

9 hours ago, Rob said:

The suggestion that the RM is deliberately creating errors seems a little wide of the mark when they have no control of the market for circulating coins. They would not be able to turn round and say 'used undated 20p, forty quid if anyone wants one', so unless they advertise errors when new, I can't see how they can ask more than face value for circulating pieces

I know Rob, it was a bit tongue in cheek. They have no control over 2nd hand coin prices, especially ones from circulation, but I do sometimes feel that the odd error/anomaly that seems to occur certainly doesn't do them any harm. I think it's possible that a lot of new customers may have ended up buying RM products after the whole fiasco with the mule 2008 20p and the later problem coins that came to light after see them selling for enormous prices (enormous asking prices usually, selling prices are of course quite different!). All these things get reported in the media and talked about a lot and I know lots of people that seem to think buying new coin products new is a good investment. There were companies (that like to pretend to be a 'mint' or in some way associated with a mint) selling mule circulation 20p's in special boxes with certificates that they printed themselves... some even offered the mule 20p as a gold plated ltd edition and I think a lot of people can't really tell the difference between the RM and other sellers of hyped up new coins (from a business practice point of view there are actually very few differences!) 

Many even speculate on new coin products hoping for a low mintage when the mintage figures are released a couple of years later, or hoping for an error or something out of the ordinary. People have become so obsessed with potential RM errors that some even make a big fuss about spelling mistakes on the accompanying packaging/literature. Many don't really understand the nature of the errors/anomalies. The whole thing with the IRB no denomination Battle of Britain 50p for example.... it's common because they made thousands of sets and they'll always be available, but it's been talked about a lot because of the missing denomination and I bet even the suggestion that it was some kind of oversight caused more people to buy them than perhaps would have done so normally. 

[Chris Perkins]

9 hours ago, Nordle11 said:

A case of trying to cover up their mistakes then. You should have said something in my thread!  

Don't think I saw it! It's just my opinion of course. If the RM say it was deliberately sans denomination then no one can ever prove otherwise.