mmissinglink
Active Member
I don't see the Numbered First Struck practice as a problem. Mint's are in business to make money. It's their prerogative to decide how that should be done.
For example, it might not be monetarily feasible otherwise for a mint to logistically put together a large group of the first XXX struck coins except to have a firm pay in advance for this undertaking....I don't know either way because I don't know what is involved logistically with such an endeavor. What I do know for sure is that coins with a First Release designation require no logistics at all beyond normal production and such designated coins are not special in any way, shape, or form. In fact, First Release coins are almost universally coins that get struck late in the game especially the larger the run of coins is. There are articles on the internet which explain why this is the case. Basically it's because a mint is not required to perform any logistics at all in isolating the actual first struck coins for coins that will be designated First Release. First Release have nothing at all to do with coins that are first struck by a mint. First Release and Numbered First Struck designations are radically different. Discerning coin collectors know that coins that are first struck by a mint are coins that usually have the sharpest and most problem-free impressions because....they are the first one's struck with the die. First struck coins means something to the most demanding collectors....to you and I, it might not mean that much because we can still acquire flawless coins that were not one of the first struck by the mint.
What I am opposed to is the lack of transparency that a mint may engage in by not disclosing certain information about a particular coin release. So long as a mint discloses all relevant information about a coin release, I am satisfied by that. I can then make my decision based on that full transparency as to whether or not I want to purchase that coin issue from the mint. I may or I may not want to....transparency allows me to make the most informed decision.
"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."
This may be true for the most part but it doesn't necessarily mean that the coins struck after the first XXX can not be flawless. In fact, we have irrefutable evidence from NGC that what I'm stating is true because the census on the 5 oz proof silver Britannia reveals that most of those graded 750 coins are in PF70 condition while the remaining are in almost flawless, PF69, condition. None are below PF69 (that in itself is an amazing testament to the quality that the Royal Mint has put into these high relief coins). That means that the 600 that were not the first struck were determined by NGC graders to be either flawless or almost flawless. That sort of flies in the face of the argument that there can only be less than perfect coins that are not struck first.
.
For example, it might not be monetarily feasible otherwise for a mint to logistically put together a large group of the first XXX struck coins except to have a firm pay in advance for this undertaking....I don't know either way because I don't know what is involved logistically with such an endeavor. What I do know for sure is that coins with a First Release designation require no logistics at all beyond normal production and such designated coins are not special in any way, shape, or form. In fact, First Release coins are almost universally coins that get struck late in the game especially the larger the run of coins is. There are articles on the internet which explain why this is the case. Basically it's because a mint is not required to perform any logistics at all in isolating the actual first struck coins for coins that will be designated First Release. First Release have nothing at all to do with coins that are first struck by a mint. First Release and Numbered First Struck designations are radically different. Discerning coin collectors know that coins that are first struck by a mint are coins that usually have the sharpest and most problem-free impressions because....they are the first one's struck with the die. First struck coins means something to the most demanding collectors....to you and I, it might not mean that much because we can still acquire flawless coins that were not one of the first struck by the mint.
What I am opposed to is the lack of transparency that a mint may engage in by not disclosing certain information about a particular coin release. So long as a mint discloses all relevant information about a coin release, I am satisfied by that. I can then make my decision based on that full transparency as to whether or not I want to purchase that coin issue from the mint. I may or I may not want to....transparency allows me to make the most informed decision.
"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."
This may be true for the most part but it doesn't necessarily mean that the coins struck after the first XXX can not be flawless. In fact, we have irrefutable evidence from NGC that what I'm stating is true because the census on the 5 oz proof silver Britannia reveals that most of those graded 750 coins are in PF70 condition while the remaining are in almost flawless, PF69, condition. None are below PF69 (that in itself is an amazing testament to the quality that the Royal Mint has put into these high relief coins). That means that the 600 that were not the first struck were determined by NGC graders to be either flawless or almost flawless. That sort of flies in the face of the argument that there can only be less than perfect coins that are not struck first.
.
By the way billionaires won't buy the 5oz proof silver Britannia, they have the gold proof 5oz to play with :lol:
