HM 90th Birthday

[trout]

Looks like I got the "Canned" answer in my email as the same wording is up on the RAM Shop site.
Lets hope this sort of thing doesn't happen again :ok:

[runway]

The Sydney ANDA Trio PNCs had different cover than generic AP PNCs which is great

[trout]

final mintages will be available in the 2015-16 Annual Report.

Hmmmmm
Nope, not there that I can find.

[notcb]

Surely if they were minted at the end of June, the figures would be in the 2016-2017 Annual Report?

Looks like the customer service team member may need to brush up their understanding of Financial years.

Cheers
Peter (notcb)

[trout]

Surely if they were minted at the end of June, the figures would be in the 2016-2017 Annual Report?

Looks like the customer service team member may need to brush up their understanding of Financial years.

Cheers
Peter (notcb)

With the amount of BS coming out of RAM of late it is hard to give credence to anything they have to say.

These coins were originally touted as being only available in the pre order 3 coin set.
NOTHING was said about the subsequent mintages for the PNC's.
RAM was fairly and squarely caught with their pants down and now they are using semantics to try and hide the lies they told us :dodgy:

[notcb]

Trout,

To be fair, the RAM never said that "these coins were originally touted as being only available in the pre order 3 coin set"

Here is the link to the RAM announcement made both on their web page and also their Facebook page:

" http://www.ramint.gov.au/news-media/news/90th-birthday-her-majesty-queen"

What I believe some  readers have done is looked at the slant that certain retailers put on the announcement in their own publicity, changing the wording to give that impression.

For example, Downies put its own slant on the wording of the announcement by changing the word "set" to "trio", hence changing the meaning from a single product to individual coins.

Anyway, they are still nice coins - the question now remains, what will PCGS and NGC interpret the coins as - given the different frosting approach used?

Cheers

Peter  (notcb)

[trout]

This set will be offered as a made to order product, meaning the customers decide the mintage!

What part of this is ambiguous ?? Notch??

It clearly states the mintage NOT the number of sets :ok:

[interest]

And this line also

"The mintage for the set will be determined simply by the number of orders placed during this time."

Cannot see any ambiguity in that line either.

[trout]

Anyway, they are still nice coins - the question now remains, what will PCGS and NGC interpret the coins as - given the different frosting approach used?

I am going to send a couple of sets to NGC as they seem to be able to attribute different coin types a lot better than PCGS.:yahoo:
I also won't have to worry about some idiot putting fingermarks all over my coins either :good:
These can be called sets or coins, it is irrelevant.
The Mintage for the coins/sets was to be set by the orders taken for the initial set.
The RAM then produced a further 9000 sets AFTER the 9108 mintage was determined.

[notcb]

Trout,

Yes, we are going around in circles as it all depends on one's interpretation of the word mintage.

But let me give you an example from as early as 1966 where the word mintage refers to an individual set, rather than individual coins - the 1966 mintage.

If one refers to Greg McDonald's book it clearly states:

Card   (London) Mintage 31,810
Card    (London)  Mintage 67,250
Card   (RAM)   Mintage 10,000
and then the  various wallets  etc.

As well as the word mintage used to refer to the number of sets (Cards or wallets in these cases), we can then refer to the mintage of the individual coins which of course, were in the millions.

So the word mintage has always had two meanings (a)  a set    or (b) individual coins.

In all the RAM press releases it refers to meaning (a) the mintage of the set  - at no stage does it say that other individual coins would not be produced and on sold to APO to be used in their products.

Anyway, it is all passed now.   I hope that NGC really does something special with the categorising and grading of these coins - it seems that NGC is far more flexible than PCGS at the moment.

As someone who owns a Yarralumla 50cent specimen strike from 1969 in a PCGS holder, graded as PR64, I am tossing up whether to risk sending it to them to have it changed to an SP coin - others have recently got them to recognise the SP category, but I haven't heard of anyone having the grading actually changed.

Cheers

Peter  (notcb)

[trout]

In all the RAM press releases it refers to meaning (a) the mintage of the set - at no stage does it say that other individual coins would not be produced and on sold to APO to be used in their products.

No they didn't mention that they were going to mint more for Aus Post.
They did say;

The mintage for the set will be determined simply by the number of orders placed during this time.
This set will be offered as a made to order product, meaning the customers decide the mintage!

Which implies that the total mintage for the coins was to be set from the number of pre orders.
At NO stage did ram notify anyone that these would not be the only coins minted and the way the announcement of the pre order was worded Implied that this was the ONLY way to get these coins.

RAM lied to us simple as that and the only reason they are trying to come clean now is because of the backlash over the Aus Post PNC's.
As far as I am concerned their weak attempt at an apology comes a little too late to be acceptable.
RAM had the opportunity to make this good before the PNC's hit the streets but they neglected to do so.
They simply got greedy and went for the double dip and got caught out.
Pretty poor form I would say :dodgy:

[runway]

Where was it ever stated an apology from RAM ?

[runway]

As someone who owns a Yarralumla 50cent specimen strike from 1969 in a PCGS holder, graded as PR64, I am tossing up whether to risk sending it to them to have it changed to an SP coin

Yarralumla PNC 50c coins were dull in appearance no way proof so PR64 is not a Yarralumla perhaps from Proof Set

[trout]

Where was it ever stated an apology from RAM ?

there is a half hearted attempt at an apology on the RAM Shop website.

Yarralumla PNC 50c coins were dull in appearance no way proof so PR64 is not a Yarralumla perhaps from Proof Set

The Yarralumla coin is a Specimen strike Not a Proof strike and is deserved a SP designation :ok:
The Yarralumla coins are pretty "nasty" looking because of the way they have been stored in the PNC's.
I would imagine that they would have been a rather nice looking coin fresh from the press.
Looking on the bright side.
With all the outrage and disappointment this fiasco has caused and the fact that the "Networking" amongst collectors is now so good and RAM has finally realised this , I doubt very much that RAM will repeat this sort of behaviour :good:
The coins themselves are very very nice and I personally don't have a problem with having paid $25 per set.
What I do have a problem with is being lied to as it is my personal #1 pet hate :ok:
I would like to thank all the people that have posted here and elsewhere about this matter as I am certain that this has been the main reason we are able to keep  the B______s honest.
Good work people
:wavemulticolor:

[notcb]

Hi Runway,

As Trout says, the Yarra coin became dull due to storage in the PNCs.   Original coins were quite OK.  If you look at the PCGS  Proof population report, you will see that there is a category  number 144217  in which there is a total population of 2, both at PR64.

The coins are clearly not proof coins but were classified that way - it is only recently that they have accepted the Yarra version as SP (category 569220)

Cheers

Peter  (notcb)