| Author |
 Replies: 40 / Views: 8,186 |
|
|
|
Valued Member
Australia
75 Posts |
Quote:
It is far too late for that to happen because of the sheer number of wedding set issues already slabbed as MS.
From the description of the minting process I got in the email from Dion these coins are certainly NOT your run of the mill circulation coin.
Non frosted Proof or SP is what they truly are and it would be nice to see them recognised as such because IMHO they are by far the best examples of these coins in the years 2002-2009 available.
As the Mintage is relatively low compared to the business strike coins these will eventually in the years to come become sought after by collectors.
I will be forwarding the email to PCGS.
Why waste your and other peoples' time? The RAM defines these as gem uncirculated on the packaging. PCGS have always gone by that ever since the first coins were sent to them and each subsequent time and also each time someone has queried it. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 Australia
7096 Posts |
Quote:
Why waste your and other peoples' time? I do not consider it a "Waste of Time" trying to get a coin recognised for what it is. Just because the marketing department at RAM got it wrong doesn't alter the fact that these coins were specially produced and ARE in fact specimen quality coins  |
|
Valued Member
Australia
56 Posts |
Either way these are pretty stunning coins, I have a small hoard of them just to stare at
|
|
Valued Member
Australia
75 Posts |
I can argue that the RAM marketing department did get it right. The4 coins are at least the quality of predecimal proof coins but the RAM do not consider them proof coins or archival specimen coins. You must consider the purpose of a specimen or proof coin - for archival purposes and/or specifically to show how good a coin they could produce. The wedding set coins were intended for a completely different purpose and were actually described as "gem uncirculated" coins - not as proof or specimen as that was not the INTENTION of the RAM when minting or marketing them.
I'd love to see them produce coins of that quality again, no matter what you call them.
Edited by agent86
04/17/2015 07:32 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
674 Posts |
I think it was worth fighting the fight Trout.!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
Still No reply from PCGS But I did read something interesting on "Bluesheet" Australia's Premier coin site. I have asked Walter if I can make this information available in this forum and will post it IF I get permission to do so.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
This is on page 224 of Australian Coins and Banknotes 21st edition by Greg McDonald .  The McDonalds or Maccas Pocket Book as we Aussie collectors fondly refer to it as is a well respected Numismatic publication. I am Certain that Greg McDonald would NOT have published this if he wasn't 100% certain of the fact. Why is it that PCGS cannot understand that these are NOT Business strike coins. The RAM may have called them "Gem Uncirculated" but the truth of the matter is they are specimen/Unfrosted Proofs and to call them Gem Uncirculated is totally inaccurate . Some of you Guys may think I am  But the more I look into this the more evidence I have that these coins have been wrongly attributed by PCGS and it is high time that mistake is addressed |
|
Valued Member
Australia
121 Posts |
I am with Trout on this one. Even if RAM mistakenly calls these coins Proof, I would expect such reputable TPG as PCGS to identify these coins correctly as SP. The only thing is that so many coins were incorrectly slabbed that it is nearly impossible to retrospectively rectify this. Edited by zic
04/26/2015 07:29 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
Quote:
Still No reply from PCGS But I did read something interesting on "Bluesheet" Australia's Premier coin site.
I have asked Walter if I can make this information available in this forum and will post it IF I get permission to do so. I have just received an email from Walter giving me permission to post what I found written on his site "Bluesheet" and I thank him for that. http://www.bluesheet.com.au/Austral...nt/Type_III/Quote:
A number of different strike types were issued along side the standard business strike, specimen strike and proof strike. From 2001, the Royal Australian mint intermittently issued gold proof strikes and from 2003 the mint issued silver proof strikes. In addition, from 2002 to 2009 the mint issued wedding coin sets containing deep mirror specimen strikes. These were subsequently replaced by proof strikes in 2010. Edited by trout1105
04/27/2015 5:39 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
1005 Posts |
I think that if the process used to produce these was different, and the results of that process are different, then they should be labelled by a TPG as such. The fact that some are already not properly attributed, is irrelevant. It is fair enough that when new information comes to light that it is acted on. Who seriously thinks "I have done something incorrectly, but now that I know I will continue to make the same mistake"? In my opinion PCGS should recognise these coins as different. As a marketing exercise they should make a big deal of "New information has come to light and as the best in the industry, we are offering to regrade wedding set coins that are not correctly labelled". At the very least they must correctly attribute any being graded from now on. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
541 Posts |
Quote:
Why waste your and other peoples' time?
The RAM defines these as gem uncirculated on the packaging. PCGS have always gone by that ever since the first coins were sent to them and each subsequent time and also each time someone has queried it. Designations are often based on market opinion, e.g. the 1934 specimens were not called proofs by the Melbourne mint but PCGS slabs them as proof strikes. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
Quote:
Designations are often based on market opinion, e.g. the 1934 specimens were not called proofs by the Melbourne mint but PCGS slabs them as proof strikes that's a pretty good analogy Walter I have been copping a bit of "Flack" over this but that not only won't stop me but encourages me even more to try and get this issue sorted out   |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
I have just sent another submission away to PCGS with a 2004 Wedding set included. I put SP in the specify MS/PR/SP column and put Wedding set coin in the variety column. It will be interesting to see if they have taken any notice of my many emails regarding these coins. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
|
| |
Replies: 40 / Views: 8,186 |
First Page
Posted 04/17/2015 07:16 am
