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

[Oxford_Collector 0]

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.

[Peckris 579]

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.

[DaveG38 422]

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.

[ChKy 61]

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

[scott 145]

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

[Oxford_Collector 0]

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!

[Peckris 579]

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.