2012 bullion quarter sovereign ownership

[Wampum]

11 hours ago, 9x883 said:

so the 176 perhaps refers to the 1/4  sovs in presentation sleeves? They were also available in blister packaging identical to the full sovs

That is what I thought

Since reading this thread I've been looking to see what other formats the Quarter was presented in.

The carded ones I have all have this mark in the picture below, however the blister ones don't,

so there is a possibility that these where struck separately hence the 176 (which in itself is an odd number,170 or 180 would be better🙂).

It would be good to see if anyone with a carded quarter has the same mark.   

    

[9x883]

Also very confused with the three coin BU set, the only BU set released:

only 60 in presentation, so only 60 doubles? However RM states BU sets of 119

More perplexing than the quarter!

[Petra]

Someone on here must have one of these 176🤔 anything in some sort of card etc. will be marked on as BU etc.

[Spyder]

I think there are a lot more than 176 bullion quarters.

Every other week another one turns up and I know that another will be listed for sale soon on this forum.  

[9x883]

Yes, I think everyone agrees. Just not sure what the 176 refers to, we think perhaps those in sleeves. They did not appear in any sets

 

[arphethean]

This will pop up for sale shortly.

 

[9x883]

6 minutes ago, arphethean said:

This will pop up for sale shortly.

 

Send @Petraa message 

[9x883]

It appears you've sold the mystery of the quarter sov, not so rare at all😂😂😂

[arphethean]

1 hour ago, 9x883 said:

It appears you've sold the mystery of the quarter sov, not so rare at all😂😂😂

Well they rarely produce the maximum mintage. It looks like they actually made 7xxx BUNC as per Luc's post

[Petra]

A lot of these knocking around are proof … or what started as a proof coin🤔😮

[Esjayc]

2012 quarter sovereign issues according to Marsh (revised by Hill, 2021 2nd Edition) in the first attached image.

Second attached image is issues according to SPINK (2023, as I don't have a 2024 copy) - 

My observations / questions would be:

1. Marsh/Hill only lists two versions ('Normal' and 'Proof'). Therefore, is Marsh/Hill referring to all brilliant uncirculated and bullion coins (collectively under the figure of 137) as 'Normal'? It is noteworthy that regarding the various 'modern' sovereign coins, Marsh/Hill categorise them as either 'Proof' or 'Normal' only, throughout this latest copy. Therefore, does this mean that there is no breakdown amongst 'Normal' for 'bullion issue' versus 'brilliant uncirculated'?

2. In light of question/observation 1, is the entirety of Marsh/Hill's listings of all modern full/half/quarter sovereigns therefore discounting all bullion issue coins (if only referring to 137 'Normal'/'brilliant uncirculated quarter sovereigns)'? Seems unlikely that all 'bullion'/'uncirculated coins are being discounted in a publication dedicated to the gold sovereign series (book title of the same name after all).

3. Despite what The RM say / show in YouTube videos, have the terms 'bullion' and 'brilliant uncirculated' - or perhaps even 'BU' and 'bullion uncirculated' - become blurred in some way (either by RM itself, or Marsh/Hill), in terms of sovereigns being minted and their respective mintage figures?

4. Spink (2023, as I haven't seen 2024) do allude to an 'Unc' uncirculated variety, without any mintage figure. Could it be that these are considered 'handled' 'BU' coins (losing the 'BU' status and hence slightly lower valuation figure)?

 

For me, my observations 1-3 lead me to believe Marsh/Hill is on the right track of 137 being correct for all 'non- proof' coins sold. If Marsh/Hill is wrong about that, then my thoughts go back to my question in point 2 in terms of what constitutes 'Normal' issue according to Marsh/Hill.

I've seen elsewhere on the forum that a 'The Gold Sovereign Series' third edition is in the works; there's also a thread somewhere I saw about people suggesting updates / things that have been omitted. So who knows what updates (if any) there may be in terms of the 'Proof' and 'Normal' categorisations (point 2 above), or the 2012 quarter sovereign specifically.

Thoughts / comments from folks more 'in the know' would be helpful and welcome!

 

 

 

Edited June 7 by Esjayc
Edited for some of my poor typing!

[9x883]

Thank you @Esjayc

Marsh/Hill only lists two versions ('Normal' and 'Proof'). Therefore, is Marsh/Hill referring to all brilliant uncirculated and bullion coins (collectively under the figure of 137) as 'Normal'?

It appears so. Odd, but perhaps due to all 1/4 coins being sold in either blister or presentation card they can be classed as BU? 

It is noteworthy that regarding the various 'modern' sovereign coins, Marsh/Hill categorise them as either 'Proof' or 'Normal' only, throughout this latest copy. Therefore, does this mean that there is no breakdown amongst 'Normal' for 'bullion issue' versus 'brilliant uncirculated'?

Yes, perhaps, on this occasion no bullion were produced!

2. In light of question/observation 1, is the entirety of Marsh/Hill's listings of all modern full/half/quarter sovereigns therefore discounting all bullion issue coins (if only referring to 137 'Normal'/'brilliant uncirculated quarter sovereigns)'? Seems unlikely that all 'bullion'/'uncirculated coins are being discounted in a publication dedicated to the gold sovereign series (book title of the same name after all).

Yes, it's not clear, likely an error.

3. Despite what The RM say / show in YouTube videos, have the terms 'bullion' and 'brilliant uncirculated' - or perhaps even 'BU' and 'bullion uncirculated' - become blurred in some way (either by RM itself, or Marsh/Hill), in terms of sovereigns being minted and their respective mintage figures?

I've always thought of BU coins as coins sold in boxes and sleeves which are not proof coins. The RM video suggests multiple strikes for BU. However is this only reserved for quintuples?

4. Spink (2023, as I haven't seen 2024) do allude to an 'Unc' uncirculated variety, without any mintage figure. Could it be that these are considered 'handled' 'BU' coins (losing the 'BU' status and hence slightly lower valuation figure)?

This is my thoughts, sold unpackaged are bullion. Sold in bilsters and presentation cards/boxes BU! Though I'm likely wrong. 

For me, my observations 1-3 lead me to believe Marsh/Hill is on the right track of 137 being correct for all 'non- proof' coins sold. If Marsh/Hill is wrong about that, then my thoughts go back to my question in point 2 in terms of what constitutes 'Normal' issue according to Marsh/Hill.

I've seen elsewhere on the forum that a 'The Gold Sovereign Series' third edition is in the works; there's also a thread somewhere I saw about people suggesting updates / things that have been omitted. So who knows what updates (if any) there may be in terms of the 'Proof' and 'Normal' categorisations (point 2 above), or the 2012 quarter sovereign specifically.

Thoughts / comments from folks more 'in the know' would be helpful and welcome!

Still confused. Someone at RM was asleep at the wheel, yet again, when documenting this.

 

[Esjayc]

@9x883 good and interesting observations.

Overall, the thing that is sticking in my mind with the BU / Uncirculated 'question', is how for the quintuple, double, full/one, half and quarter sovereign of QEII, each coin and each year is categorised as only 'Normal' or 'Proof. Of course, this applies with all previous monarch's coins listed (aside from the variants of proof, e.g. 'matt proof').

In Spink 2023, the QEII sovereign variants do have listings of 'Unc', 'BU', 'Proof'. 

So for me, the question is, has 'The Gold Sovereign' publication, which is supposed to be an authority on these coins, forgotten about all of the 'uncirculated' coins issued under QEII? Would seem a very bizarre and monumental error if so!

Factor in that The RM has 'issue limits' for bullion coins, but does not necessarily mint that full 'issue limit', that also steers me towards thoughts of the following - for now, without any further clarity, I'm going to assume that Marsh/Hill has lumped the uncirculated and BU issues into that one figure under 'Normal'.

Will we ever know? 🤪 

 

[9x883]

Factor in that The RM has 'issue limits' for bullion coins, but does not necessarily mint that full 'issue limit', that also steers me towards thoughts of the following - for now, without any further clarity, I'm going to assume that Marsh/Hill has lumped the uncirculated and BU issues into that one figure under 'Normal'.

You are probably right there. When was the term BU coined? I imagine that's a recent minting type. Do BU coins now come only in matt finish? I haven’t seen the mint produce 'proof like' finish coins for the last few years.

 

[Thelonerangershorse]

Are we saying there are only 60 2012 doubles?

[9x883]

9 minutes ago, Thelonerangershorse said:

Are we saying there are only 60 2012 doubles?

Crazy, right?!!!

[9x883]

Doubles came in BU sets of 0.5,1,2 sovs, which were struck on the day I believe. RM figures say BU sets of 119. There is a CoA which states 60 doubles minted, so 60 sets? Being the diamond jubilee, 60 sets makes sense I guess!

[Wampum]

34 minutes ago, Thelonerangershorse said:

Are we saying there are only 60 2012 doubles?

 

21 minutes ago, 9x883 said:

Doubles came in BU sets of 0.5,1,2 sovs, which were struck on the day I believe. RM figures say BU sets of 119. There is a CoA which states 60 doubles minted, so 60 sets? Being the diamond jubilee, 60 sets makes sense I guess!

They were produced on the 2 June 2012, and are the first ever "Brilliant uncirculated Double", to be struck,

the set is supposed to be all BU however if you look at the COA the Sovereign has an unlimited production, which to me means Bullion.

They are housed in the same blue boxes as the SOTD Sovereign.      

To be fair the box is nicer than the Proof versions

Edited June 8 by Wampum

[Spyder]

Why don't one of you who has one of these quarters send an email to Steve Hill and see what his reply is?  He does reply quickly to the last message I sent him. 

[Wampum]

Is there a possibility that the quarter that @arphethean has shown above is the missing 176, I have seen all the other types which come up quite often,

however this is the first time I seen a Quarter baby edition      

[9x883]

22 minutes ago, Wampum said:

 

They were produced on the 2 June 2012, and are the first ever "Brilliant uncirculated Double", to be struck,

the set is supposed to be all BU however if you look at the COA the Sovereign has an unlimited production, which to me means Bullion.

They are housed in the same blue boxes as the SOTD Sovereign.      

Amazing! 

Edited June 8 by 9x883

[9x883]

7 minutes ago, Wampum said:

Is there a possibility that the quarter that @arphethean has shown above is the missing 176, I have seen all the other types which come up quite often,

however this is the first time I seen a Quarter baby edition      

Yes, never seen that before. Baby edition may well be the 176🤞

[Petra]

3 hours ago, 9x883 said:

Yes, never seen that before. Baby edition may well be the 176🤞

Just one version of gift ideas for babies that they have been doing for years

[Spyder]

When is a Brilliant uncirculated coin not a bullion coin. From the RM list they are indicating that only 4559 sovereign were sold and the only way to tell the difference is a piece of paper or COA indicating struck on the day.   

[9x883]

On 08/06/2024 at 14:57, Petra said:

Just one version of gift ideas for babies that they have been doing for years

I see, get them hooked from young. Royal mint sickens me, worse than McDonalds