I have a question about sovereigns

[Matteo95 120]

Hi all

In the italian forum lamoneta.it there is an interesting where a member asked us if we know why the sovereigns minted between 1985 and 1997 ( exept 1989 ) have been struck only in proof version ... Honestly none of us know the answer ( I try to see on the Marsh's book but I didn't find anything ) so Is there some member who know it ?

Thanks

Matteo

[DaveG38 408]

I don't know from any personal knowledge, but the cynic in me says its because proof coins retail for a higher price than UNC coins do, yet the gold content is the same. Sure, there's probably higher preparation and handling costs for proof coins, but I'd bet the Royal Mint still makes a healthy extra profit from striking proof coins rather than uncirculated.

[Rob 3,152]

It's possible the Mint was trying to anticipate demand. Before the mid-90s there wasn't the annual flood of commemoratives that we now find familiar. You had the new £2 coins in 86, 89, 94 95 & 96 and the occasional crown up to 1990, together with the revaluation of that item from %/- to £5. Once they became £5 they were simultaneously issued on an annual basis.

In the case of the Sovereign, there weren't many collectors of modern RM output in the 1980s, so it is quite possible that none were produced because they didn't think they would sell. Proofs are much easier to sell to the general populace than a dull currency piece. As the sovereign wasn't a currency piece despite its nominal face value, any bullion issued would be based on perceived demand for storing gold.

I think it is necessary to cast minds back 30 years when the public's collecting habits were vastly different to today.

[ozjohn 662]

I can understand the mint's desire to enhance their profits by selling proofs but to describe their currency issues as dull is a little unfair. I have a 2000 currency sovereign which is very well struck from what looks like polished dies of which

old style proof/specimen coins were struck with rather than the frosted proofs of today. High quality coins struck for general circulation with what looks like polished dies can be seen from both the RM and RAM's production.

[Rob 3,152]

I was thinking out loud in terms of the public's psyche. A high grade currency piece without the polished fields of a proof is much less likely to catch the eye of the general public than a proof. i.e. a proof is more likely to stimulate them to look further. Most coins in your pocket will not be very reflective, if at all.