New 2014 Proof Britannia is an absolute beauty
- Thread starter AgAuNEWS
- Start date
mmissinglink
Active Member
I received the same pat response from the RM as yrh. Obviously it is a pre-written marketing pitch...I expected this. It may or may not be true that the quality is the same but I wonder how NGC would grade yrh's spotty coin? What is likely true is the claim made by GovMint which is that the first XXX (550 in the case of the 5 coin set and 150 in the case of the 5 oz coin) coins minted were sent to GovMint. The reason I believe this is true is because NGC had already graded 750 5 oz coins before or at the very least by the time yrh had discovered this on the census details page of the NGC website which was only six days after I received my coin and because making the claim that GovMint makes were it not true could leave them open to a big fat lawsuit. Also, if the special RM COA states that the NGC special labelled coins are the first 150 struck but are in fact not, this would leave the RM open to a big fat lawsuit. So, my thinking is that unquestionably, the first 150 5 oz proof coins were sent to GovMint and likely the remaining first minted 600 of the 750 (150 "first struck" plus 600 = 750) total privately sold also went to GovMint.
I suppose with such a relatively low mintage, the RM had no problem actually setting aside the actual first 150 struck coins and matched these with the 150 special COA's. That would not be difficult at all to do. So the "First 150 Struck" labels are in fact probably true. Unlike normal "First Strike" labels for coins that are minted in the tens of thousands or tens or millions, there really is no way logistically that a mint would be able to know or separate from the rest the actual first struck coins.
This is the only time I actually believe the NGC label to be factually true where on a very small run of coins it indicates "First 150 Struck".
I will be re-checking my coin at some point today when I can get to my Safe Deposit Box. I will report back.
As for the screen capture which states that the Maximum Coin Mintage is 600, this is the response I received regarding this specific issue:
"Thank you for your email
When we originally listed this item it was incorrectly listed as MCM of 600. We amended this as soon as the error was noticed. Regrettably due to a recent refresh of our system several previously incorrect listings were also refreshed to the original figure. This product being one of them. The web department are now working to correct these immediately.
I assure you that we certainly did not intend to mislead anyone, intentionally or otherwise. The figure of 600 is correct as our Limited Edition Presentation."
.
I suppose with such a relatively low mintage, the RM had no problem actually setting aside the actual first 150 struck coins and matched these with the 150 special COA's. That would not be difficult at all to do. So the "First 150 Struck" labels are in fact probably true. Unlike normal "First Strike" labels for coins that are minted in the tens of thousands or tens or millions, there really is no way logistically that a mint would be able to know or separate from the rest the actual first struck coins.
This is the only time I actually believe the NGC label to be factually true where on a very small run of coins it indicates "First 150 Struck".
I will be re-checking my coin at some point today when I can get to my Safe Deposit Box. I will report back.
As for the screen capture which states that the Maximum Coin Mintage is 600, this is the response I received regarding this specific issue:
"Thank you for your email
When we originally listed this item it was incorrectly listed as MCM of 600. We amended this as soon as the error was noticed. Regrettably due to a recent refresh of our system several previously incorrect listings were also refreshed to the original figure. This product being one of them. The web department are now working to correct these immediately.
I assure you that we certainly did not intend to mislead anyone, intentionally or otherwise. The figure of 600 is correct as our Limited Edition Presentation."
.
This was a really deceptive marketing scam. I'll keep my 1oz, but both of my 5oz coins are going back.
People in the US should consider that since GovMint received 750 of them, greater than 1/2 the mintage will be here - likely to stay as I don't see a crappy company like GovMint as having a huge international presence.
People in the US should consider that since GovMint received 750 of them, greater than 1/2 the mintage will be here - likely to stay as I don't see a crappy company like GovMint as having a huge international presence.
mmissinglink
Active Member
I think it's possible and likely true the explanation I was given as to the glitch in the system after a refresh...but of course we have no way of verifying this
My problem is that there was no transparency by the RM in delineating right from the start on their sales page for the 5 oz coin that the first 750 minted coins were privately sold and that the first 150 struck are issued with a special RM COA and only offered through a private firm. At least then customers would know whether or not they want to order one of the 600 5 oz coins that were produced for sale to the public. Are these 600 inferior? I can not say for certain....but it doesn't matter....transparency is the important rule here and the lack thereof by the RM is troubling to me.
Is that deceptive that the RM was not transparent? Yes, to me it is.
If the RM would have stated up front those details of the first 750 coins sold to a private firm, then I really could forgive the alleged glitch in their computer system...such things do happen afterall.
.
My problem is that there was no transparency by the RM in delineating right from the start on their sales page for the 5 oz coin that the first 750 minted coins were privately sold and that the first 150 struck are issued with a special RM COA and only offered through a private firm. At least then customers would know whether or not they want to order one of the 600 5 oz coins that were produced for sale to the public. Are these 600 inferior? I can not say for certain....but it doesn't matter....transparency is the important rule here and the lack thereof by the RM is troubling to me.
Is that deceptive that the RM was not transparent? Yes, to me it is.
If the RM would have stated up front those details of the first 750 coins sold to a private firm, then I really could forgive the alleged glitch in their computer system...such things do happen afterall.
.
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
"Refreshing a system".
What terminology is that?
There is a computer storing data.
There is a backup storing a snapshot of that data.
A backup that thus 'misses' the changes since it was made.
So they had a DATABASE ERROR.
Restore from backup dated DATE.
And then they forget things changed since?
Heh.
Imagine you ran a webshop.
Imagine you'd get a hard disk crash.
You replace it.
You restore the backup to the new.
And then back to coffee?
No hair on your head that thinks about changes since the backup?
Hard to imagine.
Normally, it's the very first thing you do after restoring. And directly.
What terminology is that?
There is a computer storing data.
There is a backup storing a snapshot of that data.
A backup that thus 'misses' the changes since it was made.
So they had a DATABASE ERROR.
Restore from backup dated DATE.
And then they forget things changed since?
Heh.
Imagine you ran a webshop.
Imagine you'd get a hard disk crash.
You replace it.
You restore the backup to the new.
And then back to coffee?
No hair on your head that thinks about changes since the backup?
Hard to imagine.
Normally, it's the very first thing you do after restoring. And directly.
mmissinglink
Active Member
As far as I understand, there are only and precisely 150 5 oz proof coins that are designated by an NGC label which states "One of First 150 Struck" or something nearly identical to this (I'm assuming very similar to the 2013 St George & the Dragon release). These 150 coins each apparently come with a special Royal Mint COA which also designates this apparent provenance. With such a low total mintage of these coins, it's reasonable for me to be convinced that in fact those coins that are labelled as such and which also come with the special COA are in fact the first 150 struck by the Royal Mint. I believe with such a low mintage and with the apparent effort put into this certification, that these 150 coins are actually legitimately the first 150 struck by the Royal Mint. See this page for details about this NGC designation: http://www.ngccoin.com/coin-grading/scale-designations/other.aspx#link7
The remaining 600 of those 750 sold to a private firm as a pre-release (apparently) and that were graded by NGC as PF69 or PF70 may be housed in slabs that have the designation "Early Release"...which would actually be truthful. But I am not 100% certain that those 600 will have any designations like that....I'm just assuming that those 600 will. NGC no longer uses the "First Strike" designation on coins that come with no assurance by a mint that they are in fact first struck coins. But because the Royal Mint is unequivocally asserting that the 150 "One of First 150 Struck" are actually the first 150 struck, NGC will designate them as such....and of course grade them. Not all the 150 first struck coins are PF70 graded, from what I understand. I don't know what percentage are PF69 vs PF70 of these 150.
.
The remaining 600 of those 750 sold to a private firm as a pre-release (apparently) and that were graded by NGC as PF69 or PF70 may be housed in slabs that have the designation "Early Release"...which would actually be truthful. But I am not 100% certain that those 600 will have any designations like that....I'm just assuming that those 600 will. NGC no longer uses the "First Strike" designation on coins that come with no assurance by a mint that they are in fact first struck coins. But because the Royal Mint is unequivocally asserting that the 150 "One of First 150 Struck" are actually the first 150 struck, NGC will designate them as such....and of course grade them. Not all the 150 first struck coins are PF70 graded, from what I understand. I don't know what percentage are PF69 vs PF70 of these 150.
.
mmissinglink
Active Member
Sully said:
The RM associate is claiming that the website originally had the error but then was corrected but then a "refresh of our system" caused the error to be present again. I am not a web tech guy so i do not know if this sort of scenario is likely or even possible....so I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the RM unless I can learn otherwise from someone who is very knowledgeable about such tech things.
Now, was the initial error an actual error or was it purposeful marketing misinformation? My guess is that it was an error because the COA's that come with the 600 "Limited Edition Presentation" coins (these are the 600 that were made available to the public and that come with the OGP) clearly denote the 1,350 coins MCM (Maximum Coin Mintage). So it's hard for me to believe with the COA stating this that the RM would intentionally put up the 600 figure as the MCM....the discrepancy could be easily discovered. It was likely an error initially on the website....those things can happen....unfortunately.
Don't get me wrong, I did have my suspicions and it's exactly why I had posed that question to Jane a few days ago now. I will assume that she is getting this information from a colleague or a manager....I don't know how much information like that is known by default by RM customer service associates. I am giving Jane the benefit of the doubt that she is simply expressing to me what she is being told on matters that she is not informed about. In other words, the RM probably does not authorize their customer service associates to make up answers to challenging questions to which they do not know the answer. That's why I am giving the benefit of a doubt to the customer service agents to whom I had correspondence with.
.
This whole hoo-haa started when Royal Mint advertised the 5-ounce proof Britannia as mintage of 600. Later on when some of us received the coin the COA states 1,350 total mintage and we got mad about it... which is understood as the mintage was more than 2x of what we accepted. Later on Royal Mint did apologise in our (mmissinglink and myself) email exchange with Royal Mint and Royal Mint took immediate action to correct this mintage figure on their website. Royal Mint explanation was that this is a computer error, if anyone of us bought this coin with low mintage as the deciding factor feel free to execute your rights and seek for a full refund. Attach the screenshot that is available on this discussion thread showing mintage of 600, I am sure Royal Mint will honour your return and provide a full return.
As a person who does IT day-in day-out, I find it hard to believe that this is a computer glitch. 600 is the mintage of limited presentation packaging, 750 were sent to large accounts, total mintage is 1,350. So the Mint want us to believe that the backend servers had a computation error? To be honest I choose to believe that the "750" copies were not finalised at the point of product announcement. Royal Mint has to put up some figures (can't leave maximum mintage as blank right?) so they put in 600. When they finalised the 750 First Struck coins someone forgot to update the website. And I don't think Royal Mint's front end web portal is link back to their production system... most likely the mintage figures are just a text field on their content management system. Someone just forgot to update the website.
Another thing we brought up and led to heated discussion is that 750 coins were sent to NGC and graded PF69/PF70 before anyone of us who bought direct from the Mint got their coins. And to make things worse these 750 coins were slabbed and labelled "First of XXX Struck". I did some research and I found some interesting facts on NGC's site. Link here: http://www.ngccoin.com/coin-grading/scale-designations/other.aspx
NUMBERED FIRST STRUCK EDITIONS
On several occasions, NGC has received coinage with official mint documentation stating that a particular group of coins were among the first examples produced. These will be represented on their certification label indicating that the encapsulated coin belongs to this edition. The size of the edition is also included (e.g., ONE OF FIRST 1000 STRUCK; ONE OF FIRST 50,000 STRUCK). This designation can also be applied to foreign coins when satisfactory supporting documentation is available. This designation is available only on bulk submissions.
Interesting enough, it was not mentioned that these "First Struck" coins were cherry-picked. I looked through the NGC census of First Releases, there is NONE being graded PF68 and below... yes NONE. It could be:
1. The Mint has very strict QC to ensure they are the best ones with zero defects. Or,
2. The Mint swap the lesser-quality ones with good ones so that the First Struck batch consist of only perfect grades. Or,
3. NGC was instructed not to grade anything less than PF69, the ones that failed to meet PF69 requirements were replaced by the dealer/Mint to ensure the whole batch of First Struck coins are of best quality
I could be wrong but odd enough all the First Struck coins indicates the size/population. One out of 1,000... One out of 5,000... what are the odds of having PF69/70 in a sample size of 5,000 coins? Seriously none graded below PF69? Further investigate on First Struck coins reveal that Royal Mint is not the only Mint doing this... Perth Mint has almost all their proof silver coins available in "First Struck".
These are some coins I found with First Struck designations... apparently even bullion silver coins (300,000 mintages!) are labelled this way. What a sad day for us coin collectors.
The last coin... 2013 Australia Kangaroo High Relief. This coin has a mintage of whopping 20,000... 3,000 of them went into First Struck editions. 3,000!
Compare to any Early Release editions (which is nothing more than coins being graded within 30 days of release), somehow I think First Struck coins do have some advantage over the later struck coins. Most of the time the Mint only produce a single die to strike the entire proof series, and somehow that kindda implies that the strike of the earlier coins is somehow better than those struck later. However based on my short few-hours possession of my Britannia, it seems to me that my copy has very good strike and high relief thus I choose to believe the First Struck coins might be marginally better... or perhaps mine was the 701th coin out of the production line?
Anyway I will be pursuing for a perfect copy and I don't mind returning any defective ones.
As a person who does IT day-in day-out, I find it hard to believe that this is a computer glitch. 600 is the mintage of limited presentation packaging, 750 were sent to large accounts, total mintage is 1,350. So the Mint want us to believe that the backend servers had a computation error? To be honest I choose to believe that the "750" copies were not finalised at the point of product announcement. Royal Mint has to put up some figures (can't leave maximum mintage as blank right?) so they put in 600. When they finalised the 750 First Struck coins someone forgot to update the website. And I don't think Royal Mint's front end web portal is link back to their production system... most likely the mintage figures are just a text field on their content management system. Someone just forgot to update the website.
Another thing we brought up and led to heated discussion is that 750 coins were sent to NGC and graded PF69/PF70 before anyone of us who bought direct from the Mint got their coins. And to make things worse these 750 coins were slabbed and labelled "First of XXX Struck". I did some research and I found some interesting facts on NGC's site. Link here: http://www.ngccoin.com/coin-grading/scale-designations/other.aspx
NUMBERED FIRST STRUCK EDITIONS
On several occasions, NGC has received coinage with official mint documentation stating that a particular group of coins were among the first examples produced. These will be represented on their certification label indicating that the encapsulated coin belongs to this edition. The size of the edition is also included (e.g., ONE OF FIRST 1000 STRUCK; ONE OF FIRST 50,000 STRUCK). This designation can also be applied to foreign coins when satisfactory supporting documentation is available. This designation is available only on bulk submissions.
Interesting enough, it was not mentioned that these "First Struck" coins were cherry-picked. I looked through the NGC census of First Releases, there is NONE being graded PF68 and below... yes NONE. It could be:
1. The Mint has very strict QC to ensure they are the best ones with zero defects. Or,
2. The Mint swap the lesser-quality ones with good ones so that the First Struck batch consist of only perfect grades. Or,
3. NGC was instructed not to grade anything less than PF69, the ones that failed to meet PF69 requirements were replaced by the dealer/Mint to ensure the whole batch of First Struck coins are of best quality
I could be wrong but odd enough all the First Struck coins indicates the size/population. One out of 1,000... One out of 5,000... what are the odds of having PF69/70 in a sample size of 5,000 coins? Seriously none graded below PF69? Further investigate on First Struck coins reveal that Royal Mint is not the only Mint doing this... Perth Mint has almost all their proof silver coins available in "First Struck".
These are some coins I found with First Struck designations... apparently even bullion silver coins (300,000 mintages!) are labelled this way. What a sad day for us coin collectors.
The last coin... 2013 Australia Kangaroo High Relief. This coin has a mintage of whopping 20,000... 3,000 of them went into First Struck editions. 3,000!
Compare to any Early Release editions (which is nothing more than coins being graded within 30 days of release), somehow I think First Struck coins do have some advantage over the later struck coins. Most of the time the Mint only produce a single die to strike the entire proof series, and somehow that kindda implies that the strike of the earlier coins is somehow better than those struck later. However based on my short few-hours possession of my Britannia, it seems to me that my copy has very good strike and high relief thus I choose to believe the First Struck coins might be marginally better... or perhaps mine was the 701th coin out of the production line?
Anyway I will be pursuing for a perfect copy and I don't mind returning any defective ones.
by the way thanks mmissinglink for the info. "One of First 150 Struck" ain't too bad on the 2014 Britannia proof. I thought the label would be "One of First 750 Struck".
On NGC census it was not mentioned that these 750 graded copies are First Releases. On the census these 750 graded copies seems to be regular PF69/70 coins without First Struck designation... yet to see the actual graded slab and its label.
For First Struck coins NGC will have a separate population report for "2014 BRITANNIA FIRST RELEASE" but until now there are none.
If mmissinglink's information is right, it could very well be only 150 of these magnificent 5-ounce Britannia proof has special First Struck COA but NGC did not label them with "One out First 150 Struck"... only a regular PF69 or PF70 title. Remaining 600 graded copies could be the exact coins we Royal Mint customers received... regular proof coin without any First Struck COA. And that adds up to a population of 750 on NGC census.
Could it be this way?
On NGC census it was not mentioned that these 750 graded copies are First Releases. On the census these 750 graded copies seems to be regular PF69/70 coins without First Struck designation... yet to see the actual graded slab and its label.
For First Struck coins NGC will have a separate population report for "2014 BRITANNIA FIRST RELEASE" but until now there are none.
If mmissinglink's information is right, it could very well be only 150 of these magnificent 5-ounce Britannia proof has special First Struck COA but NGC did not label them with "One out First 150 Struck"... only a regular PF69 or PF70 title. Remaining 600 graded copies could be the exact coins we Royal Mint customers received... regular proof coin without any First Struck COA. And that adds up to a population of 750 on NGC census.
Could it be this way?
mmissinglink
Active Member
Good info yrh.
NGC states that those labels with the numbered First Struck designation are only labelled this way when the issuing mint certifies (by supplying the coins with official mint documentation) that they are in fact the first XXX struck coins. So my question would be, is it likely that the Perth or Royal Mint would lie about these coins being first struck since they are apparently providing documentation to the TPG which is alleged to certify that they are?
This is about the Perth and Royal Mint's veracity and integrity, not about NGC or GovMint.com. That's how I see it.
.
NGC states that those labels with the numbered First Struck designation are only labelled this way when the issuing mint certifies (by supplying the coins with official mint documentation) that they are in fact the first XXX struck coins. So my question would be, is it likely that the Perth or Royal Mint would lie about these coins being first struck since they are apparently providing documentation to the TPG which is alleged to certify that they are?
This is about the Perth and Royal Mint's veracity and integrity, not about NGC or GovMint.com. That's how I see it.
.
mmissinglink
Active Member
According to NGC, they will NOT reject any gradable coins on the urgings of anyone or any firm that requests this when using the "One of First XXX Struck" label designations. In other words, if of the 150 5 oz silver proof Britannica's they receive with the official RM documentation that certifies those are the first 150 struck by the RM arrive at NGC in PF67 condition, NGC must and will label that coin PF67. They will and can not reject a gradable coin labelled under that specific special "One of First XXX Struck" designation - otherwise it would render such a designation meaningless according to NGC.
.
.
well if you look from a different perspective... I can submit 200 coins, instruct NGC not to grade any below PF69. Stop grading once 150 coins were graded and slab all of them with the label "One of First 150 Struck". The rest leave it as regular PF grades for all I care.
Now I get 150 first strucks, all in near perfect/perfect grades. The Mint did not lie (they supplied me with 200 first strucks), NGC did not lie (they did graded 150 of them), and I as the dealer did not lie too as these are really 150 of the first struck copies!
By the way interesting enough... those Perth Mint First Strucks got the similar price on their eBay completed listings... customers do not pay more for a First Struck PF70 vs a regular PF70. I guess that applies to proof Britannia too... a PF70 graded Britannia is no different than a PF70 First Struck.
Now I get 150 first strucks, all in near perfect/perfect grades. The Mint did not lie (they supplied me with 200 first strucks), NGC did not lie (they did graded 150 of them), and I as the dealer did not lie too as these are really 150 of the first struck copies!
By the way interesting enough... those Perth Mint First Strucks got the similar price on their eBay completed listings... customers do not pay more for a First Struck PF70 vs a regular PF70. I guess that applies to proof Britannia too... a PF70 graded Britannia is no different than a PF70 First Struck.
mmissinglink
Active Member
yrh0413 said:
The designation "One of First XXX Struck" MUST be accompanied by official mint documentation and according to NGC they will NOT reject any gradable coins from this submitted group of those XXX coins. That's what an NGC associate has explained to me. So, if the designation indicates "One of First 150 Struck", only the first 150 coins struck will be received with mint documentation certifying that those submitted coins are the first 150 struck by the mint. I think that for a designation of 150 coins, only the first 150 will be sent to be given the special designation because the official mint documentation that NGC requires is alleged to certify that those 150 are the first struck.
Obviously, if a private company is submitting these 150 coins, they must obtain the official mint documentation before hand to submit with those coins to receive the special designation of "One of First 150 Struck" coins otherwise NGC will not designate them as such....according to NGC.
That's the way i am understanding what NGC has explained to me.
.
thanks mmissinglink, I guess First Struck do mean something. 
Royal Mint issued special COA for these First Struck coins, this is for the 1oz proof Britannia. Could it be Royal Mint themselves sent the first 500 coins to NGC? If not how would they know these will be graded?
Source: http://www.ebay.com/itm/2014-Britan...2699000?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item3f3b971df8
To lighten things up... Something to laugh at?
1 of First 50,000 Struck!
Source: http://www.ebay.com/itm/2006-US-Sil...54493?pt=US_Bullion_Coins&hash=item19f242ec1d
1 of First 125,000 Struck!
Source: http://www.ebay.com/itm/2008-NGC-MS...8778?pt=US_Canadian_Coins&hash=item53f6d019ba
Sucks to be these guys! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Royal Mint issued special COA for these First Struck coins, this is for the 1oz proof Britannia. Could it be Royal Mint themselves sent the first 500 coins to NGC? If not how would they know these will be graded?
Source: http://www.ebay.com/itm/2014-Britan...2699000?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item3f3b971df8
To lighten things up... Something to laugh at?
1 of First 50,000 Struck!
Source: http://www.ebay.com/itm/2006-US-Sil...54493?pt=US_Bullion_Coins&hash=item19f242ec1d
1 of First 125,000 Struck!
Source: http://www.ebay.com/itm/2008-NGC-MS...8778?pt=US_Canadian_Coins&hash=item53f6d019ba
Sucks to be these guys! :lol: :lol: :lol:
mmissinglink
Active Member
I am happy to report, that my trip to my Safe Deposit Box was not in vain today because with 5 X loupe in hand and upon re-examining more closely my 5 oz proof Britannia, it appears to be flawless. There appears to be zero milk spots though there are some dust particles on the inside of the capsule ( I have never received a raw encapsulated coin which had no dust particles at all on the inside of the capsule).
I feel it's fair to say that the quality of the 600 "Limited Edition Presentation" 5 oz proof Britannia coins can be very high. If the RM would have hand picked only the best to send off to a private firm, I probably would not be in possesion of a coin that appears to be flawless. Just like with any coin received from any mint, inspect it and if the one you received happens to not be up to your standards, most mint's have very reasonable return policies.
As to the question of "Could it be Royal Mint themselves sent the first 500 coins to NGC? If not how would they know these will be graded?", I don't know but perhaps what happens is that the RM (in the case of the 150 first struck coins) sends that batch of 150 first struck coins to the private firm with the official documentation that NGC requires to certify those coins as first struck. Then the firm sends the 15o coins to NGC with the documentation. It's possible that the RM sends those 150 coins directly to NGC, billing the private firm for everything of course.
If anyone here knows more about how this procedure works, please chime in.
EDIT: Just confirmed with an NGC associate that in general, the dealer / firm that buys the first struck coins from a mint would be supplied with the certifying documentation by the mint and simply include it with the coins sent to NGC that will be graded and designated "One of First XXX Struck". Clearly, not all coins designated "One of First XXX Struck" will be flawless...each first struck coin will be independently graded and no coin that is gradable can or will be rejected upon request by the dealer / firm.
It's likely that for the "One of First XXX Struck" designation holdered coins, they actually are the first struck by the mint regardless if they grade flawless or any value less than 70..
.
I feel it's fair to say that the quality of the 600 "Limited Edition Presentation" 5 oz proof Britannia coins can be very high. If the RM would have hand picked only the best to send off to a private firm, I probably would not be in possesion of a coin that appears to be flawless. Just like with any coin received from any mint, inspect it and if the one you received happens to not be up to your standards, most mint's have very reasonable return policies.
As to the question of "Could it be Royal Mint themselves sent the first 500 coins to NGC? If not how would they know these will be graded?", I don't know but perhaps what happens is that the RM (in the case of the 150 first struck coins) sends that batch of 150 first struck coins to the private firm with the official documentation that NGC requires to certify those coins as first struck. Then the firm sends the 15o coins to NGC with the documentation. It's possible that the RM sends those 150 coins directly to NGC, billing the private firm for everything of course.
If anyone here knows more about how this procedure works, please chime in.
EDIT: Just confirmed with an NGC associate that in general, the dealer / firm that buys the first struck coins from a mint would be supplied with the certifying documentation by the mint and simply include it with the coins sent to NGC that will be graded and designated "One of First XXX Struck". Clearly, not all coins designated "One of First XXX Struck" will be flawless...each first struck coin will be independently graded and no coin that is gradable can or will be rejected upon request by the dealer / firm.
It's likely that for the "One of First XXX Struck" designation holdered coins, they actually are the first struck by the mint regardless if they grade flawless or any value less than 70..
.
mmissinglink
Active Member
This thread has certainly been one full of newly learned things for me. It also forced me to do some real due diligence with the Royal Mint and NGC.
I must have sent the RM nearly a dozen e-mails with pressing questions and a few condemnations of their marketing policies regarding not being transparent and mis-stating certain important things. The latest e-mail I received from the RM associate I'd been exchanging e-mails with stated that my e-mails would be turned over to their marketing department for review. I actually think this is an excellent thing because if they take to heart some of my concerns and criticisms of the way they handled this potentially blockbuster coin (the 5 oz proof Britannia) then maybe they will make some changes in the way they market new issues like this the next time around.
As anyone knows who has read my condemnations in this forum of what I call gimmick labels such as PCGS's "First Strike" and "FirstStrike" labels, I very much detest those because they are completely untruthful. But this thread has left me convinced that apparently there is a way that coins actually first struck by a given mint can be truthfully designated and that particular provenance distinguished on a TPG label. NGC's "One of First XXX Struck" special designation labels actually appears to finally be a way to certify as likely as possible that the coins in those specific holders are in fact the first coins struck of their issue/type by the mint. NGC asserts that any coin group submitted to receive this numbered First Struck designation MUST be accompanied by official documentation from the issuing mint certifying that those are indeed the first struck coins.
I think this is about as close as anyone can get to assurance of a coin issue/type being literally the first struck by a mint.
.
I must have sent the RM nearly a dozen e-mails with pressing questions and a few condemnations of their marketing policies regarding not being transparent and mis-stating certain important things. The latest e-mail I received from the RM associate I'd been exchanging e-mails with stated that my e-mails would be turned over to their marketing department for review. I actually think this is an excellent thing because if they take to heart some of my concerns and criticisms of the way they handled this potentially blockbuster coin (the 5 oz proof Britannia) then maybe they will make some changes in the way they market new issues like this the next time around.
As anyone knows who has read my condemnations in this forum of what I call gimmick labels such as PCGS's "First Strike" and "FirstStrike" labels, I very much detest those because they are completely untruthful. But this thread has left me convinced that apparently there is a way that coins actually first struck by a given mint can be truthfully designated and that particular provenance distinguished on a TPG label. NGC's "One of First XXX Struck" special designation labels actually appears to finally be a way to certify as likely as possible that the coins in those specific holders are in fact the first coins struck of their issue/type by the mint. NGC asserts that any coin group submitted to receive this numbered First Struck designation MUST be accompanied by official documentation from the issuing mint certifying that those are indeed the first struck coins.
I think this is about as close as anyone can get to assurance of a coin issue/type being literally the first struck by a mint.
.
In my email to Royal Mint, I actually protested that the mint should stop this First Struck practice. If they want to continue doing so they should put a note on the product specification that the first xxx struck coins were delivered to private dealers.
However by endorsing and certifying these First Struck versions, Royal Mint is sending a message to all their customers that the best ones have been sold and now we are selling the less-perfect ones. Royal Mint insisted that those sold to Royal Mint customers have the same high quality standards as the First Struck, if so why would there be special designation and special COA for these First Struck coins? What makes them special over the regular ones?
I recommended Royal Mint to look into this matter seriously, and proposed to use Early Release instead of First Struck. This way we as Royal Mint customers do not feel short charged by the Mint.
However by endorsing and certifying these First Struck versions, Royal Mint is sending a message to all their customers that the best ones have been sold and now we are selling the less-perfect ones. Royal Mint insisted that those sold to Royal Mint customers have the same high quality standards as the First Struck, if so why would there be special designation and special COA for these First Struck coins? What makes them special over the regular ones?
I recommended Royal Mint to look into this matter seriously, and proposed to use Early Release instead of First Struck. This way we as Royal Mint customers do not feel short charged by the Mint.