I've come across a 2012 TDC 1 Crown Jubilee Monarch coin with no Rhodium-Platinum highlighting on the reverse which one would expect to see on the 2012 issue. In that sense, it looks like the 2010 variant, except that the year is clearly 2012, and the reverse is complete with the symbol of crown with '60' on it, and with the coin number (02765 of 50000), both of which are typical for 2012. Can anyone please tell me what this could mean? Thank you.
Topic moved to "Numismatic questions"(ZacUK, 29 Kas 2021, 17:52)
Thank you COINMAN1 but I had seen the listings for 2010 and 2012 before I posted my question, and in fact that is exactly what caused the question. The 2012 listing says: "Similar to coin dated 2010 but 2012 coin has Rhodium-Platinum highlights". Well, mine hasn't, 2012 though it is!
Trying to get full clarification on your coin/coins
Are you stating that your 2012 coin is not Rhodium plated, as per link? This would make situation more interesting.
Yes Geoff, that is exactly what I mean: the reverse is of a uniform golden colour, just like the 2010 thing, without a trace of any Rhodium-Platinum.
I have at least four hypotheses:
1. Fake. Not very likely, though: the quality is very high, it's probably not worth the trouble to imitate a relatively inexpensive coin with such precision. Also, if anyone had gone into such trouble, why not imitate the Rhodium-Platinum highlighting with any silvery metal? Anyway, the answer is perhaps in having the plating checked by a jeweller: if fake, it won't be real gold. I am going to try it one of these days. Interestingly, if fake and if botched in small enough numbers, it may be more collectable and expensive than the real thing.
2. Minting error. If so, it's very interesting to find out how many were issued with this defect. Again, could be rare and valuable.
3. Same as above but not an error but a preliminary lot.
4. As you suggested, a money-making trick: they may have minted, say, half of the total 50,000 with the highlighting, half without, thus doubling rarity and cost. But: in that case a lot of people must have the "bare" variant, apart from my humble self. Ever heard of any such people?
Looking forward to getting your ideas.
Also, it could just be a 2012 coin where the date should be included in the 2010 listing. That's seems unlikely but a possibility, although, it is strange it has never been mentioned before.
I have both those as per the links above.
Like you stated, why remove the plating. No sense at all.
As for being a fake, check both against each other, especially the weight.
Mint error. This would be a great result
I shall have to keep my eyes open to complete the trio, but not looking good as you seem to have the only one. Perhaps you might swap it one day?????????
Thank you Geoff. As I said, one of these days I'll be able to let you know the jeweller's verdict. Please keep me posted, too, on whatever you may find out.
Hi Geoff. I've finally managed to have the coin weighed and spectrographed by jewellers.
It weighs 25.53 g, against 25.65 as per the spec. The 0.12 g difference may be just the weight of the missing Rh-Pt finish?
The spectrum goes: Gold 1.396% (i.e., truly gold-plated!), Copper 91.124%, Nickel 7.479% - well, yes, copper-nickel alloy underneath., as promised; not even a trace of Rhodium or Platinum, so these metals were never applied.
Therefore, it's not a fake but, probably:
1)a mint defect;
2) some kind of a trial issue;
3) a deliberate partial issue without the Rh-Pt coating;
4) STOLEN from the Mint's plating shop - after the gold-plating had been done but before the Rh-Pt finishing was done...
All four raise the question of how many of these can exist on this planet?
Strangely enough, no other members of the community, apart from yourself (thank you so much!) have reacted to my plea...
In answer to your question as to how many are out there in the numismatic community, NOT many. If it was stolen and tried to do something different, but it failed, so could not be bothered with the others.
It could still be a mint error, where it slipped through the system and was issued as you have it.
You are one lucky man and I envy you as it would look great against the correct issue.
As to my reply to you. I was extremely interested in why an issue such as this existed, so my reply was in hope you would pursue the problem, which you have done brilliantly, and you are to be congratulated on doing so.
We will probably never know the real reason for its existence as it is. My only guess would be to contact whoever minted them
Geoff
Hello Geoff. Thank you for the warm appreciation of my humble efforts but, alas, they don't lead us very far.
I, just like you, have thought of getting through to the issuing mint. Most probably, it is the Commonwealth Mint in Bristol, to whom the TDC authorities usually order the execution of their projects. Unfortunately, the Mint's site clearly warns visitors they don't deal with personal questions. Just business enquiries: orders, quotes, etc. The only chance of getting some info from them seems to be looking for someone who has a personal link out there: friend, kith, kin...
I made contact with the Commonwealth Mint, and I received an answer to my question.
I wanted to know how many coins were minted in the World War I Centenary set from Tristan da Cunha in 2014.
Not only did I get an answer, but a full list of coins in the set.
Don't give up hope until you have exhausted all avenues
Thank you Geoff, will try asking them. I may have been wrong in taking the disclaimer on their website too seriously 🤔. There's no harm in asking, anyway.
