Australian Wedding set coins 2002-2009
trout
Posts: 2
Most Australian collectors regard these coins as being a Specimen strike, However RAM marketed these as "Gem Uncirculated"
I recently received an email from Dion Buck at RAM that explained the minting process used for these coins.
These are indeed specimen or even unfrosted Proofs and most certainly not Business strike coins.
Here is the email I received and have also sent to PCGS in an effort to have these coins designated as SP instead of MS.
Our term for the wedding set finish up until 2009 (i think that was
> > when it finished as gem and went to proof in 2010) was Gem
> > Uncirculated. Other parties may refer to this finish as specimen,
> > this term is subject to a little variance in meaning across the
> > industry but is mostly approriate i guess, but I'll explain the
> > nature of our term Gem Uncirculated.
> > The dies for these coins were polished to the same quality as proof
> > dies, however no frosting was applied - to maintain the uncirculated
> > appearance. The proof polishing process is extremely labour
> > intensive, done by hand with tiny tools under binocular microscopes.
> > The blanks used for Gem Uncirculated coins were proof blanks, of a
> > higher quality than circ/unc blanks. The blank preparation process
> > for proof coins was also followed, which uses a variety of
> > techniques to purify, or clear the blank surface of defects
> > (pickling, burnishing, heat treatment etc.). Finally the coins were
> > struck as per proof coin process, on a proof press, hand loaded and
> > inspected, struck four times precisely, and then encapsulated. These
> > coins were absolutely unique, and while I never got around to asking
> > all purchasers, I had a pretty strong inkling that more collectors
> > bought this set, than wedding go-ers.
> > Why are you getting this message? you partook in a thread that had
> > some sort of technical fuzz out last year, and I have never been
> > able to read it, or reply until now. I'll either delete or lock the
> > thread but i wanted to share, as the Gem finish was one of my
> > favourites!
> > Thanks, dion.
I recently received an email from Dion Buck at RAM that explained the minting process used for these coins.
These are indeed specimen or even unfrosted Proofs and most certainly not Business strike coins.
Here is the email I received and have also sent to PCGS in an effort to have these coins designated as SP instead of MS.
Our term for the wedding set finish up until 2009 (i think that was
> > when it finished as gem and went to proof in 2010) was Gem
> > Uncirculated. Other parties may refer to this finish as specimen,
> > this term is subject to a little variance in meaning across the
> > industry but is mostly approriate i guess, but I'll explain the
> > nature of our term Gem Uncirculated.
> > The dies for these coins were polished to the same quality as proof
> > dies, however no frosting was applied - to maintain the uncirculated
> > appearance. The proof polishing process is extremely labour
> > intensive, done by hand with tiny tools under binocular microscopes.
> > The blanks used for Gem Uncirculated coins were proof blanks, of a
> > higher quality than circ/unc blanks. The blank preparation process
> > for proof coins was also followed, which uses a variety of
> > techniques to purify, or clear the blank surface of defects
> > (pickling, burnishing, heat treatment etc.). Finally the coins were
> > struck as per proof coin process, on a proof press, hand loaded and
> > inspected, struck four times precisely, and then encapsulated. These
> > coins were absolutely unique, and while I never got around to asking
> > all purchasers, I had a pretty strong inkling that more collectors
> > bought this set, than wedding go-ers.
> > Why are you getting this message? you partook in a thread that had
> > some sort of technical fuzz out last year, and I have never been
> > able to read it, or reply until now. I'll either delete or lock the
> > thread but i wanted to share, as the Gem finish was one of my
> > favourites!
> > Thanks, dion.
0