I was browsing old ACR's today and found the RAM ad for the 2000 mint and proof sets. Now it struck me that the unc 50c really looks like the incuse type which we're led to believe was originally intended for use in the mint sets. Was the press photo taken before that decision was overturned? Are we seeing the incuse type here?
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/2000-millennium-50c-press.jpg)
Looks incused to me !
Quote from: 'purplepennyhunter' pid='52379' dateline='1402652495'I was browsing old ACR's today and found the RAM ad for the 2000 mint and proof sets. Now it struck me that the unc 50c really looks like the incuse type which we're led to believe was originally intended for use in the mint sets. Was the press photo taken before that decision was overturned? Are we seeing the incuse type here?
That looks like an incused coin to me
Looks like it to me PP.
I wonder if there are any prototype sets floating about the Mint Vaults :drooling:
We should all get our 2000 mint sets out and ask the RAM why all our millenniums are not incuse (http://www.sv-portal.com/forums/images/smilies/Foot,P20stomp.gif.pagespeed.ce.0AVGSU2hmL.gif)
Quote from: 'purplepennyhunter' pid='52387' dateline='1402657909'We should all get our 2000 mint sets out and ask the RAM why all our millenniums are not incuse (http://www.sv-portal.com/forums/images/smilies/Foot,P20stomp.gif.pagespeed.ce.0AVGSU2hmL.gif)
It wouldn't help me one iota as I don't have a single mint set unopened :angel:
I think it is incuse.
Well spotted!
I was told once *don't know if it is true on CCF* that the mint sets were supposed to have he incused millennium 50c, but a employee used it in the circulation press or something like that, not the mint set press that would stamp them with a different pressure or something would be the guess, so they ended up in circulation, or just could of been human mistake and they were sent into circulation and not to mint set, who knows they could have been struck properly, anyways the mint wont admit to it :P
That's interesting AC if they decided not to use it after a "whoops" with the incuse die. Sounds like the 05 MOR, they struck some and then did more, whether this was a change of mind or to cover up who knows.
Someone over on Facebook has made an interesting comment. This lady says she knows from making badges "the incuse was for a inlay of red enamel . They trialed to lay enamel you needed a recess that is how we got some with the recess".
I wonder if the RAM fluffed around trialing some things before they did the coloured proof coin or something coloured was intended for the mint set.
There were only 2 versions approved in the Currency Determination (1999 No. 5)
1) A representation of the Australian National Flag in colour, surrounded by the inscriptions:
(a) 'MILLENNIUM YEAR'; and
(b) '50 cents'.
and
2) A representation of the Australian National Flag, surrounded by the inscriptions:
(a) 'MILLENNIUM YEAR'; and
(b) '50 Cents'.
If they had intended to mint one with inlaid enamel then I would have thought there would have been a third description along the lines "with a coloured union jack" but that doesn't mean they weren't thinking about it early in the piece, just that it didn't progress to getting approval to go ahead with the design.
another comment whilst I was out
"Australian Coin Collecting Blog- Melissa did you have some input to the Mint in the process? The proof coin was coloured but pad printed on a flat surface?
Melissa Williams -yes but they first were ment to be inlaid colour even the stars were ment to be blue that is why they are incursed the same to take the layer of enamel"
I was still in "Only pre decimals are worth collecting" Mode when I bought the Millennium Proof set.
I got it simply to see if the 50 cent coin had an incused design so that it could accept the paint better than the mint set coin.
I learned Nothing from that purchase other than Decimal coins looked awfully good compared to my pre decimal collections and haven't looked back since then :)
The truth about the incused coin is slowly coming to light but it is like squeezing the water out of a stone so far.
We must be squeezing pretty damn hard because we are slowly getting more and more info on this coin because "As a Group" we push harder and harder and lift all the stones and share what we learn, That is what a forum like this is all about, Asking questions and getting answers :wavemulticolor:
Great members make great forums
This topic is interesting and educational thanks everyone :)
Quote from: 'trout' pid='52490' dateline='1402738302'The truth about the incused coin is slowly coming to light but it is like squeezing the water out of a stone so far.
We must be squeezing pretty damn hard because we are slowly getting more and more info on this coin because "As a Group" we push harder and harder and lift all the stones and share what we learn, That is what a forum like this is all about, Asking questions and getting answers :wavemulticolor:
I bit the bullet on the week-end and submitted a Freedom of Information request to the RAM along the lines:
Documents sought: Documents that relate to the decision to create an "incused variety" die including the purpose for which the die was intended and also relating to the use, either deliberately or unintentionally, of the incused die to strike circulating coins.
See how we go in a month or so.
Nicely worded Steve - seems to cover all avenues. Now, where is that paperwork ...
Pedro
Quote from: 'Pedro' pid='52598' dateline='1402881781'Nicely worded Steve - seems to cover all avenues. Now, where is that paperwork ...
Pedro
I suspect the documentation should include a design image of the intended coin so if that comes up I'll be happy and be over the moon if it included a ballpark mintage figure.
The RAM Annual Reports I saw state there have been no FOI applications hence no relevant entries on the Information Publication Scheme. I think someone at RAM is this morning saying @#$%^&*)?????
Quote from: 'Steveqld' pid='52592' dateline='1402876412'I bit the bullet on the week-end and submitted a Freedom of Information request to the RAM along the lines:
Documents sought: Documents that relate to the decision to create an "incused variety" die including the purpose for which the die was intended and also relating to the use, either deliberately or unintentionally, of the incused die to strike circulating coins.
See how we go in a month or so.
Nice. Let us know how it goes.
good luck
I am not sure if business in confidence is able to be released? even under FOI's?
plus, I think that any mistakes are less likely to be documented ?
hum
interesting
Quote from: 'robbiegal' pid='52606' dateline='1402885441'good luck
I am not sure if business in confidence is able to be released? even under FOI's?
plus, I think that any mistakes are less likely to be documented ?
hum
interesting
Can but try. I considered the "exempt information" and public interest provisions before applying and couldn't see any that applied (my opinion only) so I'll just have to wait and see if they wish to claim those grounds for refusal and consider whether it is worthwhile applying for an internal/external review. I would expect any such material to be redacted and the rest provided.
Also agree about the "mistakes" being documented. These conversations tend to be in person with limited material appearing in print solely to circumvent FOI laws.
In the end if they don't give me anything then I don't pay anything. Not sure if it is the same at the federal level but in Queensland the onus is on the agency to show why the material should not be released.
Well lets wait and see, very interesting.
worth a try
I don't know anyone around here to ask about it (well that worked on that coin) but there seems to be someone in another forum who is a mint employee or something
usually in government department you aren't suppose to disclose certain things in a public setting
I think a person can be fined for breaches
well here a lot of gov. workers who I meet are signed to 15 years or is it 25 years (?) confidentiality statements
You could go hang out at the smoke-o spot by the fire hydrant house? out the front with guys on their break.
Quote from: 'purplepennyhunter' pid='52675' dateline='1402915896'You could go hang out at the smoke-o spot by the fire hydrant house? out the front with guys on their break.
Be Nice PP , Robbie is a happily married woman.
Send AJ :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2::diablo:
Quote from: 'purplepennyhunter' pid='52675' dateline='1402915896'You could go hang out at the smoke-o spot by the fire hydrant house? out the front with guys on their break.
yep done that
that is how I got to know Wojciech a little better
not that he smokes
might have to ask around and see if I can find out any gos on that coin
but an óffical' FOI might unearth some historical facts 'for the record'
Quote from: 'trout' pid='52693' dateline='1402920472'Quote from: 'purplepennyhunter' pid='52675' dateline='1402915896'You could go hang out at the smoke-o spot by the fire hydrant house? out the front with guys on their break.
Be Nice PP , Robbie is a happily married woman.
Send AJ :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2::diablo:
yeah
I got flowers tonight too - thank-you flowers
so I am all for a glowing report!! (tonight that is!! ha ha)
he is well trained and generally keeps his mitts OFF my Tupperware stores ha ha
Quote from: 'Steveqld' pid='52487' dateline='1402733682'There were only 2 versions approved in the Currency Determination (1999 No. 5)
1) A representation of the Australian National Flag in colour, surrounded by the inscriptions:
(a) 'MILLENNIUM YEAR'; and
(b) '50 cents'.
and
2) A representation of the Australian National Flag, surrounded by the inscriptions:
(a) 'MILLENNIUM YEAR'; and
(b) '50 Cents'.
If they had intended to mint one with inlaid enamel then I would have thought there would have been a third description along the lines "with a coloured union jack" but that doesn't mean they weren't thinking about it early in the piece, just that it didn't progress to getting approval to go ahead with the design.
Great effort Steve I am very interested to hear the outcome
My second email from the RAM (the first was just to acknowledge receipt)
"As you can imagine records from 2000 are quite difficult to find so I wanted to get in contact with you to discover what kind of documents you were hoping for us to locate? My understanding is:
· Documents that state the decision to create the incused die and for what purpose.
· Documents relating to the use of the incused die
Is that correct?"
I hope the comment "As you can imagine records from 2000 are quite difficult to find" isn't intended to prime me for a declaration that the records are unavailable. Govt Departments just aren't that careless with their information or their administrative records so I'm sure some info will be available either electronically or in hard copy and will just negotiate so that it doesn't create an unreasonable workload for them.
Two weeks down and a bit over two to go.
Don't fret, I sent the RAM four emails almost 12 months ago and I have sent a further four or five chase/reminders. I am still waiting for responses.
you have to be specific for an FOI Steve (as you'd already know)
they might even charge you as well - I think it is about $75 (there is probably a scheduled fee somewhere)
Yes I knew there was a fee and had a look at it before making the application. The costs look reasonable:
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2010C00740
$15/hr to retrieve the document
+ $20/hr to peruse the documents but the first 5 hours are free
+ $0.10 per page to photocopy
It should be a simple request. One coin where all the info should be in one file and easily locatable and little, if any, of the info should be exempt so little redacting.
Costs are negotiable and reviewable and in the end, if it becomes prohibitively expensive the applicant can just say "No thanks".
Interesting comment from Goldie: Don't fret, I sent the RAM four emails almost 12 months ago and I have sent a further four or five chase/reminders. I am still waiting for responses.
The RAM email had queried: Have you contacted us in the normal fashion for this type of information before?
I replied: No this was my first request to the RAM for info. In my home state an inquirer gets nothing from a Govt Department unless it is by an RTI (Right to Information) application as that offers the Dept some protection over the release of the info and offers the applicant some avenues for reviewing the decision. Also I suspect if I made an informal query I would get the short answer that the info isn't available. If the info is available through an alternative administrative process and it is easier for everyone to withdraw my application then I'm happy to do that.
Interesting reading, I look forward to their response.
Hmmm ... call me a cynic but "As you can imagine records from 2000 are quite difficult to find" might equate to "we don't really want to answer those questions"! Maintain the mystique of the incused 50c and all that.
Pedro
Just a quick update. Looks like they have found some material and are working out how much to charge for it. Their email today:
Thank you for the clarification on the request and your understanding of how busy the end of financial year can be.
As the electronic filing system only came into play a few years ago here at the Mint there is quite a bit of seeking and finding that needs to be done so I hope to get an charge estimates letter to you by the end of the week. Please note in the preliminary discussions I have had it does not look like the decision was documented but it does look like there are records of the die existing and possibly how many were made from it.
I will send through an update at the end of the week.
Looks like many of the answers are available but not sure which "does not look like the decision was documented" refers to, ie the decision to create the die or the decision not to use it. I think that's rather astounding for a Govt agency whose core business is minting national coinage.
Also amazed that they only went to electronic filing records a couple of years ago. My former agency went to them back in the late 80's.
Will have to wait and see how much they want to charge me.
Looks like we may need to pass the hat around
Quote from: 'serial' pid='54810' dateline='1405493191'Looks like we may need to pass the hat around
I knew at the time of the application that the applicant is liable for charges.
There's a few provisions in the Act and the Regs that require these to be reasonable and they can't charge for the time where it is due to the inefficiency of their file records. How long can it take to look up a file number then pull it out of a box in a filing room? Certainly an hour or 2 is reasonable. The first 5 hours of assessing the file is free and photocopying is only $0.10 per page so the costs can't be excessive.
Will have to wait and see and if too great then ask for them to be reconsidered or internally reviewed. I'm trying to be nice and the contact does seem like a really nice person so don't want to upset them.
The Act required the material to be provided to me by today (30 days after receipt of the application) and the FOI officer didn't seem to realize I had to consent in writing to an extension of that time. I did that unilaterally so am (I think) in the good books at the moment.
ok I had a bash thru the annual report 2000 - 2001
and the currency page (nothing there)
things of interest to keep for later (Bradman coin)
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10011/bradman.jpg)
coin production
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10011/coin_pro.jpg)
set production
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10011/set.jpg)
tooling
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10011/tooling.jpg)
there's nothing to say that the number here can be applied to a 50c die
Storm clouds on the horizon with the FoI request. RAM now advises that mintage records do not exist but they can provide "Master Tool Reports for the plaster and the die cards that show how many dies were made". That's a long way from what I requested but have been advised the cost is just $37.54 which is acceptable.
They also advise that some material will be exempt as commercial in confidence/commercial copyright. Reading between the lines they don't want to release the diagrams.
Unfortunately the goalposts have moved since making the application. If the applicant disagreed with a decision they lodged an internal then external review to the Australian Information Commissioner at no cost. Unfortunately the July budget abolished that office and appeals now are direct to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal from 1/1/15 but that has a cost >$800. So effectively if the department doesn't want to give you the material then it's cost prohibitive to take it to an impartial decision maker.
I think the abolition of the OAIC may be a retrograde step for government accountability.
Ah, well, at least you gave it a shot Steve. Doesn't look like the info the RAM are able to provide is going to get us much closer to potential numbers.
Pedro
QuoteI think the abolition of the OAIC may be a retrograde step for government accountability.
NOT as far as the Government is concerned :dodgy:
In April, May and June of 2007 I made extensive enquiries about this coin with the RAM. There was some difficulty in collating the information at the time, as the enquiries encompassed a number of different sections within the Mint itself, each with different responsibilities within the production process. Initially, it seems that the incuse die was originally intended to be used only for the Mint Set coins. However, this decision was apparently later changed and one of the incuse dies was used for a limited production run of circulated coins. The reply I received from the RAM at that time is as follows:
'We have followed up on your enquiry regarding the millennium 50c piece. Thorough investigations of our records indicate that there were 2 master tools. The incused master tool was used to strike a series of uncirculated grade dies. At a later date the incised master tool was used to strike a series of circulating grade dies. Records indicate that an uncirculated die was converted to a circulating die and used to strike production coins. The number of pieces a die makes varies and the number of circulating pieces struck by this die could possibly be in the region of 1-2% of total circulation.'
So, although a series of uncirculated grade dies was produced, no uncirculated coins were ever actually minted for inclusion in the Mint Sets and the limited run of circulation coins - namely, 1-2% of total production - was the only instance of the use of the incused die. Given that the mintage was 16,630,000, the number of incuse coins issued into circulation should be in the range of 166,300 to 332,600.
Hahar I thought so, so a lot higher than people thought, thanks eccentric.
Quote from: 'eccentric' pid='57254' dateline='1408242811'In April, May and June of 2007 I made extensive enquiries about this coin with the RAM. There was some difficulty in collating the information at the time, as the enquiries encompassed a number of different sections within the Mint itself, each with different responsibilities within the production process. Initially, it seems that the incuse die was originally intended to be used only for the Mint Set coins. However, this decision was apparently later changed and one of the incuse dies was used for a limited production run of circulated coins. The reply I received from the RAM at that time is as follows:
'We have followed up on your enquiry regarding the millennium 50c piece. Thorough investigations of our records indicate that there were 2 master tools. The incused master tool was used to strike a series of uncirculated grade dies. At a later date the incised master tool was used to strike a series of circulating grade dies. Records indicate that an uncirculated die was converted to a circulating die and used to strike production coins. The number of pieces a die makes varies and the number of circulating pieces struck by this die could possibly be in the region of 1-2% of total circulation.'
So, although a series of uncirculated grade dies was produced, no uncirculated coins were ever actually minted for inclusion in the Mint Sets and the limited run of circulation coins - namely, 1-2% of total production - was the only instance of the use of the incused die. Given that the mintage was 16,630,000, the number of incuse coins issued into circulation should be in the range of 166,300 to 332,600.
thanks for that
now does that solve the matter at hand?
Not until we find all the little beggars :biggrin:
Pedro
It certainly helps and fits with the rumours that have been flowing around for the last few years and the mintage figures seem about right. A couple of questions though:
What was the specimen coin supposed to look like? Was it to have enamel inserts as posted elsewhere? Why didn't they strike the specimen coins? When the mint says "an uncirculated die was converted to a circulating die" was that intentional or accidental? Was it struck in error or is it an intended circulating variety?
No harm in looking at the original reports to see what else they say although the answer to that could be "nothing".
Apparently the FoI material was mailed out today so I'll find out later in the week what the RAM is prepared (or able) to release.
While researching the application I came across this AAT decision from 1997 where a banknote collector took the Reserve Bank of Australia on an FoI application for their pricing and supply policies. Someone may know the applicant:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/1997/217.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=royal%20australian%20mint
Quote from: 'robbiegal' pid='57407' dateline='1408353985'Quote from: 'eccentric' pid='57254' dateline='1408242811'In April, May and June of 2007 I made extensive enquiries about this coin with the RAM. There was some difficulty in collating the information at the time, as the enquiries encompassed a number of different sections within the Mint itself, each with different responsibilities within the production process. Initially, it seems that the incuse die was originally intended to be used only for the Mint Set coins. However, this decision was apparently later changed and one of the incuse dies was used for a limited production run of circulated coins. The reply I received from the RAM at that time is as follows:
'We have followed up on your enquiry regarding the millennium 50c piece. Thorough investigations of our records indicate that there were 2 master tools. The incused master tool was used to strike a series of uncirculated grade dies. At a later date the incised master tool was used to strike a series of circulating grade dies. Records indicate that an uncirculated die was converted to a circulating die and used to strike production coins. The number of pieces a die makes varies and the number of circulating pieces struck by this die could possibly be in the region of 1-2% of total circulation.'
So, although a series of uncirculated grade dies was produced, no uncirculated coins were ever actually minted for inclusion in the Mint Sets and the limited run of circulation coins - namely, 1-2% of total production - was the only instance of the use of the incused die. Given that the mintage was 16,630,000, the number of incuse coins issued into circulation should be in the range of 166,300 to 332,600.
thanks for that
now does that solve the matter at hand?
Eccentric once again fantastic information :wavemulticolor:
Well the material from the RAM has arrived with mixed feelings.
Firstly if this is all the information about this die that is available then the records kept by the RAM would have to be the worst I've seen of any government department.
I do however have 11 pages of tooling reports.
The incused variety was the first version signed off at the RAM. A MASTER TOOLING REPORT signed off on 26/8/99 describes the product as "AUST 50 CENTS REV (MILENNIUM YEAR) (Production) Circ./Uncirc.
Attached to this however is only the diagram of the incused variety. That then begs the question whether the incused variety was originally intended for both the circulation and uncirculated strikes.
However on 15/10/99 a revised MASTER TOOLING REPORT was issued describing the product as "AUSTRALIAN 50 CENT REVERSE MILLENNIUM PRODUCTION (REMAKE 'FLAG HEIGHT'). This noted "NOTE: Relief to be reduced by a further 15 to 20% on reducing (unreadable but appears to be W/C)". This is attached to the diagram for the 1st version of the common inscribed variety.
On 19/04/00 we have a third Master Tooling Report described as AUST 50 CENTS REV (RELIEF LOWERED ON PLASTER) Other than being of a lower relief this appears to be identical to the second master tooling report and probably replaced it (ie the second iteration of the inscribed variety) and gave effect to the Note on the second report about reducing the relief by 15 - 20%.
There is some support for this from the die production reports.
The incused MASTER TOOLING REPORT was dated 26/8/99 and in 1999 16 die were produced from that master. These were:
20/9/99 UO-1101 to UO-1104 (4 die)
01/11/99 UO-1111 to UO-1112 (2 die)
3/11/99 UO-1113 to UO-1122 (10 die)
That die report clearly indicates the use of the die was UNC. For the die production on 20/9/99 the entry has been amended and did read that 10 die had been produced on that date up to die number UO-1110 but this was crossed out. Whether die numbers UO-1105 to 1110 were never produced or were defective and destroyed isn't mentioned. It appears those die do not exist.
The second die report indicates 50 die were produced and that these were for CIRC coins.
22/5/00 O-11021 to O-11030 10 die
16/6/00 O-11031 to O-11050 20 die
1/8/00 O-11051 to O-11070 20 die
Note the difference in the prefix for the die numbers. For the UNC die it is UO and for circulation dies it is O.
So that's it. Not much we didn't already suspect. It questions whether the incused variety was originally intended for both CIRC and UNC die (as indicated on the first MASTER TOOLING REPORT) before they made a REMAKE (FLAG HEIGHT) which was an inscribed version and this was later reduced in relief which became the CIRC die. There is nothing suggesting any die were made from the REMAKE version before the 3rd master was produced.
Apparently documents about the RAM decision making and how the UNC die came to be used for CIRC strikes are non-existent and we're still none the wiser about whether paint or resin was intended for the incused variety.
If anyone is interested in a copy then pm me otherwise they will make an appearance on the RAM website under their Information Publication Scheme some time in the next week. If there's sufficient interest I can scan them into my gallery and post links.
I'd like a copy Steve although if the info is the same I can probably print or save it from the RAM site when it's up, if it's complete.
FYI the code on my old 50c die is 1/11018 -must be older. 5c die 0-8780, 10c 0-3523, 1c 0\6092
Your info has helped me figure out that the 5c die was a circulation die.
edit: Found a PO, I wonder if that was a proof die?
Quote from: 'purplepennyhunter' pid='57535' dateline='1408523354'I'd like a copy Steve although if the info is the same I can probably print or save it from the RAM site when it's up, if it's complete.
FYI the code on my old 50c die is 1/11018 -must be older. 5c die 0-8780, 10c 0-3523, 1c 0\6092
Your info has helped me figure out that the 5c die was a circulation die.
edit: Found a PO, I wonder if that was a proof die?
I suspect you're right about the die prefix but the FoI officer is away for another 2.5 weeks so can't ask her.
author edit - nah I was way off
Quote from: 'eccentric' pid='57254' dateline='1408242811''We have followed up on your enquiry regarding the millennium 50c piece. Thorough investigations of our records indicate that there were 2 master tools. The incused master tool was used to strike a series of uncirculated grade dies. At a later date the incised master tool was used to strike a series of circulating grade dies. Records indicate that an uncirculated die was converted to a circulating die and used to strike production coins. The number of pieces a die makes varies and the number of circulating pieces struck by this die could possibly be in the region of 1-2% of total circulation.'
So, although a series of uncirculated grade dies was produced, no uncirculated coins were ever actually minted for inclusion in the Mint Sets and the limited run of circulation coins - namely, 1-2% of total production - was the only instance of the use of the incused die. Given that the mintage was 16,630,000, the number of incuse coins issued into circulation should be in the range of 166,300 to 332,600.
I think the RAM rationale for arriving at this figure is very rubbery. I suspect they arrived at that percentage by considering that 1 incused die got mixed in with the 50 circulating die hence close enough to 2%. It would assume that all 50 of the circulating dies were used and that the incused die was used for a full run. Guess we'll never know but from the number I found I'm happy that it's less than 5%.
The documents are available on the RAM website
http://www.ramint.gov.au/about/compliance/downloads/2014/2000%2050%20cent%20Millenium%20coin%20FOI%20Documents.pdf
looking...
not impressed with that! they did not try, I know what the pics and specifications mean, and that's not proper pics, you want a photo of the plaster and actual dies.
haha should have just flew me to the mint and let me play around in the die room and take pics
Quote from: 'Australian coin' pid='58087' dateline='1409106584'looking...
not impressed with that! they did not try, I know what the pics and specifications mean, and that's not proper pics, you want a photo of the plaster and actual dies.
haha should have just flew me to the mint and let me play around in the die room and take pics
Photos would have been nice but to be provided under FoI they must have been in existence at the time of the application. It's not about creating things to answer the application but to provide what already exists. Perhaps photographs do not exist and all they have is the technical drawings.
Having said that, if this is all that exists for the minting of our national coinage then their records are atrocious. There should have been minutes of the meetings discussing the design, specifications provided for creating the design, decisions on mintage figures, discussions about using the incused die, proposed mintage figures, number of coins minted per die etc etc.
Still if they haven't got it I can't hold their hand.
they are photos aren't they - of the plaster?
I'm not sure how they achieved this.
The media center on the RAM website states:
1 December 1999
The Royal Australian Mint has released collector coins dated with the year '2000'; one of these is a commemorative fifty-cent coin bearing the Australian flag and the words 'Millennium Year', likely to be released into general circulation later in 2000. The transition of millennia has influenced the themes surrounding the 2000 products.
Yet from the records the only die that existed at that time were the incused variety. The "inscribed" die were only made in May to August 2000.
Otherwise the UNC die made between Sept - Nov 1999 would have to be from the "inscribed" hob but they were only approved in April 2000. Did they use the "high relief" hob for the specimen coins and the low relief for circulation and if so then where did the incused die fit into this?
not to mention they made a die with no detail on the flag at all, so the coin could have colour printing on it, ya know just saying they missed a lot