(http://www.awaywegotours.com.au/sites/default/files/mint_robot.jpg)
Can you believe the RAM is so proud of this coin destruction machine that they posted it on their Facebook page????
Ewwww...
It all depends on your criteria for being proud....
"We get heaps out the door fast"
Vs
"What gets out the door is high quality"
What is happening there is probably NOTHING compared to the rest of the trauma the coins go through before they finally arrive in our hands from the various tills around the country :angel:
These are after all circulating coins and this is probably just their baptism of Fire before they head out into the Big Bad world :)
Quote from: 'trout' pid='93398' dateline='1469782252'These are after all circulating coins and this is probably just their baptism of Fire before they head out into the Big Bad world :)
Those Olympic sets are not circulating coins though. They're being sold as a set at a hefty premium, and should be a higher standard.
Remember that up until recently, the mint managed to produce circulating coins which were very high quality. Standards have deteriorated significantly, and its because of 'innovations' like that thing dropping them from a great height by the drumfull.
I'm not saying every coin should be proof or specimen quality, but the rough handling between the time it hits the tote (an unavoidable part of the process) and the time it ends up in a sack is responsible for 90% of the damage I reckon. Damage which was avoided in the old days, even when they were shipping 1-ton bulk palletised bags. :dodgy:
It isn't only the circulating coins that are getting knocked about , The annual Mint sets have seen quite a decrease in quality over the last few years as well.
It used to be the case of IF you wanted the top quality coins you would simply buy the Mint set to acquire the best coins, This is not a "Given" anymore as many of the sets have bagged up coins in them lately.
If we are paying a premium for "Collectable" grade coins then I would Much prefer that RAM reinstated the Wedding set coins in the Specimen finish for the "Fussy Buggers" like me that like to add the best available coins to their sets.
Personally I would be quite happy to pay the same money as a Proof set for a set of perfectly struck and flawless Specimen strike coins any day :good::)
Quote from: 'Fulvio' pid='93391' dateline='1469771542'(http://www.awaywegotours.com.au/sites/default/files/mint_robot.jpg)
If ever there was a true spew Roo, that's it. And any coins that display the rabbit ear phenomenon among that discharge, well they are just Chunder Bunnies :biggrin:
Quote from: 'autocoupler' pid='93415' dateline='1469793837'Chunder Bunnies :biggrin:
ROFL! :heart: it! :)
:laugh2: Love it Auto!
I'm going to have to write to Beatrix Potter regarding Peter, his mother, Mrs Josephine Rabbit, his sisters, Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cotton-tail to make sure Cousin Chunder Bunny is added in with Cousin Benjamin Bunny as one of Peter's relatives.
Quote from: 'Fulvio' pid='93402' dateline='1469786388'Quote from: 'trout' pid='93398' dateline='1469782252'These are after all circulating coins and this is probably just their baptism of Fire before they head out into the Big Bad world :)
Those Olympic sets are not circulating coins though. They're being sold as a set at a hefty premium, and should be a higher standard.
Remember that up until recently, the mint managed to produce circulating coins which were very high quality. Standards have deteriorated significantly, and its because of 'innovations' like that thing dropping them from a great height by the drumfull.
I'm not saying every coin should be proof or specimen quality, but the rough handling between the time it hits the tote (an unavoidable part of the process) and the time it ends up in a sack is responsible for 90% of the damage I reckon. Damage which was avoided in the old days, even when they were shipping 1-ton bulk palletised bags. :dodgy:
A "hefty premium" for better quality coins is 650% above face value for a mint set. A 50% premium over face for the convenience of getting all 5 different coins at once isn't going to get you better coins.
And those innovations are no doubt leading to a better use of tax payers dollars and a more efficient mint.
Good quality coins, cheap coins. Pick one and don't expect the other.
Quote from: 'markn' pid='93435' dateline='1469834856'Good quality coins, cheap coins. Pick one and don't expect the other.
Why?Are you telling me coins are harder and more expensive to make than EVERY other manufactured good in the world?
And have become so only in recent times, and while other mints seem capable of maintaining both for at least some of their products?
Sorry, but I'm gonna call bullshit on that one.
Look at this photo specifically... Why is it necessary for that robot to dump the barrel like that? Why can't it be programmed to do the job more gently? We've all been through the mint, right? We've seen the processes and we know that there are friction points where damage can't be avoided (at least economically). Like when a coin first comes down the chute from the press into the tote. But that's always been the case, even back when the quality WAS there.
No, the decline has been optional, and not related to cost reduction. IMO it stems from this two-train mindset, where collectors are viewed as cash cows to be milked dry, and not worthy of any consideration when it comes to their bread and butter circulation strikes. :dodgy:
Quote from: 'Unicorn' pid='93431' dateline='1469826972':laugh2: Love it Auto!
I'm going to have to write to Beatrix Potter regarding Peter, his mother, Mrs Josephine Rabbit, his sisters, Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cotton-tail to make sure Cousin Chunder Bunny is added in with Cousin Benjamin Bunny as one of Peter's relatives.
:laugh2: Good one uni. So what's the chance of seeing the latest family addition in maybe next years baby set then :laugh2:
Quote from: 'autocoupler' pid='93444' dateline='1469842592'So what's the chance of seeing the latest family addition in maybe next years baby set then
Why wait?
Google to the rescue! I won't insert it cos its a little bit gross, but its actually called 'chunder bunny'. :angel:
http://pre10.deviantart.net/d8db/th/pre/f/2010/199/d/a/da152a0e51bfd9f4b5f46c2a3a0f5838.jpg
QuoteA "hefty premium" for better quality coins is 650% above face value for a mint set. A 50% premium over face for the convenience of getting all 5 different coins at once isn't going to get you better coins.
And those innovations are no doubt leading to a better use of tax payers dollars and a more efficient mint.
Good quality coins, cheap coins. Pick one and don't expect the other.
:agreed:
The Mints Primary function is to produce the coinage required for the day to day use in commerce.
The coins are produced and designed to withstand the wear and tear associated with the use in commerce and they do this rather well as it is particularly hard to find extremely worn decimal coins in your change.
Ensuring that EVERY coin that leaves the mint for this primary purpose is in "Pristine" condition without any marks or blemishes is simply NOT cost effective.
The "Collector" coins that the Mint produces however are a different kettle of fish altogether.
ALL the Proof sets, Baby sets and all the specially produced Commemoratives are treated with more care, Especially the Proof coins .
You notice that I left out the Mint sets there because from what I can gather is that the coins in the Mint sets are selected from the production run and the best coins that they can find are used for these sets.
Traditionally ALL the better circulating design coins have come from these annual Mint sets, However these new coloured $2 coins in the 5 coin card haven't been specially selected like the Mint set coins and I think have been produced in an effort by the Mint to ensure that ALL collectors have access to them.
At $3 a coin even if they are NOT perfect is a far better option than paying some eBay seller the $10-$15 that these coloured $2 coins normally fetch and I applaud RAM for this initiative :good:
For this reason I doubt that these particular coins will turn out to be a "Gold Mine" like all the other coloured coins that a select few have been able to acquire in the past and pretty much every collector will be able to get these at a reasonable cost for the first time.
Quote from: 'trout' pid='93460' dateline='1469853264'Ensuring that EVERY coin that leaves the mint for this primary purpose is in "Pristine" condition without any marks or blemishes is simply NOT cost effective.
Once again, that's NOT what I'm saying.
When the mint was built and outfitted in 1965, it was to the highest standards of the day. And if you compare its production from that era, it compared extremely well with the coins from the other mints involved. This despite the massive volumes and logistical nightmare in getting the new currency to EVERY nook and cranny of this huge country.
And that was just the way it was. Year after year, everything that came out of the mint was extremely good, with bagmarks being the only detrimental feature. Detrimental, but not ubiquitous. Maybe you've forgotten opening rolls to pick out high grade coins, but I haven't. My only complaint now is that they are increasingly subject to environmental damage because paper offers zero protection.
And then, things changed. I'm sure you can pin it down to an exact point in time, but certainly since the turn of the century things have been on a downhill slide, with current production being rubbish.
Why?
Don't give me that 'efficiency' claptrap. You can efficiently pick up a piece of glass and move it across the room without damage, or you can throw it at the wall and hope it survives. That's what the mint is doing, except they either don't care or worse HOPE it will break, so they can sell a replacement at an exhorbitant profit.
Is it too much to ask for processes to be designed to minimise unnecessary damage? Especially when such damage was never an issue in the past?
QuoteAnd then, things changed. I'm sure you can pin it down to an exact point in time, but certainly since the turn of the century things have been on a downhill slide, with current production being rubbish.
Maybe it is because since the turn of the centaury the mintages have been a lot higher and RAM have had to produce more coins.
Increases in production has rarely produced increases in quality in ANY product , Why should the Mint be any different?
Quote from: 'Fulvio' pid='93450' dateline='1469846670'Quote from: 'autocoupler' pid='93444' dateline='1469842592'So what's the chance of seeing the latest family addition in maybe next years baby set then
Why wait?
Google to the rescue! I won't insert it cos its a little bit gross, but its actually called 'chunder bunny'. :angel:
http://pre10.deviantart.net/d8db/th/pre/f/2010/199/d/a/da152a0e51bfd9f4b5f46c2a3a0f5838.jpg
:biggrin: The mind boggles, or is that googles :angel: heh, looks like a bar scene from a Star Wars movie :biggrin:
Quote from: 'trout' pid='93466' dateline='1469856459'Maybe it is because since the turn of the centaury the mintages have been a lot higher and RAM have had to produce more coins.
And yet, production and coins in circulation are both falling. Read the Treasury reports.
IMO, they're deliberately diverting resources into much more profitable granny-bait and dropping circulation quality to the minimum possible in order to try and drive people into buying said junk.
QuoteAnd yet, production and coins in circulation are both falling. Read the Treasury reports.
I used Mackas latest editions mintage figures as a reference and from 1999 onwards the mintage numbers increase quite a lot , Especially if you take into account the commemorative circulation issues as well :ok:
If I remember correctly a lot was going on with industrial relations Australia wide at this time as well.
This resulted in may businesses streamlining their operations and shedding employees.
Maybe it is this reduction in the workforce that has lead to a reduction in quality along with the extra workload that the larger mintages create ??
I really don't think that RAM has an agenda to create crappy coins in a bid to sell more of the collector items that they produce :ok: