Quality control on proof coins from the Mint

[Lotad 7]

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.

[PWA 1967 2,268]

Are these pictures of the coins sealed in plastic ?

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

Edited September 27, 2018 by PWA 1967

[Lotad 7]

Yes, still in the plastic case, just as it came. 

[DrLarry 443]

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  

[Sword 1,530]

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.

[Peckris 2 2,206]

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.

[sound 25]

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 September 30, 2018 by sound

[Sword 1,530]

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

 

[Lotad 7]

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.

[Rob 3,228]

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.

[Mr T 189]

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.

[Peckris 2 2,206]

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.

[sound 25]

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

 

[craigy 363]

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, 

[1949threepence 3,368]

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.

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.