Return it to the Mint..............

morgansforever · August 13, 2015 7:31AM

or live with it? If you look closely you can see two disturbances on the reverse, one at 11 the other at 4.
Had to shoot it through the capsule, could not crack the capsule open without possibly breaking it. Tight sucker let me tell ya.
I thought the 09 UHR was tight.

mbogoman · August 13, 2015 7:43AM

That area at 11:00 on the reverse rim seems to be a common problem area. It is the same spot my first one had issues with, only they were a little worse than yours. However, mine didn't have the 4:00 problems. I returned it. My second one had perfect rims, but Liberty has a broken right jaw. It's "as struck", so I decided to keep it. I've seen a few others with what looks like the same jaw, including 70s, so I decided to keep it.

Bottom line, if it were mine, it would go back...

bigole · August 13, 2015 7:47AM

Interesting. I bought two. One of mine had the same reverse rim scrapes in the same area, the other had a noticeable ding at the 4 o'clock area. That me be a risk area for them in their process.

I mailed both back last Thursday, arrived in Memphis Saturday, but didn't get my credits until today. They must be handling a lot of returns.........

morgansforever · August 13, 2015 7:49AM

It's hard to explain, sorta resembles corrosion. Were these struck twice? Possible some of the rim stuck to the die?

BillJones · August 13, 2015 7:52AM

I would return it. The die polishing on both sides, but most especially the obverse would bother me too. The stuff on the reverse rims is definitely a distraction.

I bought this 2009 ULR directly from the mint. The die polishing on this one was a turn-off for me. It impaired my enjoyment of the piece. I finally bought one in a PCGS MS-70 holder to replace it, which pleases me much more.

I don't think that this 2015 UHR has that bright of a future despite the fact that the mintage is less than half of the 2009 piece. The 2009 piece provided collectors who can't afford the 5-figure price tag to have an example of the St. Gaudens design in high relief. For that reason I think that it will always sell for more than melt, but perhaps not as much of a premium as it has in the past. As for this coin, it's a piece of gold with an attractive design, but no history behind it at all. I see these things selling for melt in two years or less.

BillJones · August 13, 2015 7:58AM

<< It's hard to explain, sorta resembles corrosion. Were these struck twice? Possible some of the rim stuck to the die? >>

I would say that it is a problem with the die although it could be a rim sticking issue given the high relief design. If the same exact roughness appears repeatedly, it's the die. If varies that it is probably a technical strike issue.

TopographicOceans · August 13, 2015 8:32AM

You could take a gamble on an exchange.

Timbuk3 · August 13, 2015 8:54AM

Send it back !!! :-(

BAJJERFAN · August 13, 2015 8:58AM

<< You could take a gamble on an exchange. >>

Does it help to note any deficiencies on the return form?

air4mdc · August 13, 2015 12:15PM

I would send it back to them along with a letter about their poor quality control. Sure glad I didn't buy any. Not only am I tired of the high premiums which make it a poor investment in a falling PM market, but the mint has not done anything to repair the production process that stamps out troubled coins. Can't tell you how many coins I have sent back over the last four years that had nicks,scractches and grease spots. When a a good proof is selling for 1200-1900$ in my opinion it should be trouble free. Get a new one or buy a 69/70 with a PCGS label.

keyman64 · August 13, 2015 12:30PM

These coins are sold with such a high premium, they should be darn near perfect. I would return!

dcarr · August 13, 2015 2:48PM

<< 

<< It's hard to explain, sorta resembles corrosion. Were these struck twice? Possible some of the rim stuck to the die? >>

I would say that it is a problem with the die although it could be a rim sticking issue given the high relief design. If the same exact roughness appears repeatedly, it's the die. If varies that it is probably a technical strike issue. >>

Not a "sticking" or a die problem. It is the result of incomplete striking of the rims.
The burnished (shiny) planchet wasn't struck out 100%, and so that rim area is showing the original planchet texture.

Bullsitter · August 13, 2015 3:40PM

Return it.

morgansforever · August 13, 2015 7:48PM

<<These coins are sold with such a high premium, they should be darn near perfect. I would return! >>

You're spot on keyman64, why settle for mediocre, back to the mint tomorrow and will point out the deficiencies.
I had good luck with the Kennedy 3/4 oz. gold piece, the replacement was much nicer.

SaorAlba · August 13, 2015 11:26PM

<< <<These coins are sold with such a high premium, they should be darn near perfect. I would return! >>

You're spot on keyman64, why settle for mediocre, back to the mint tomorrow and will point out the deficiencies.
I had good luck with the Kennedy 3/4 oz. gold piece, the replacement was much nicer. >>

They have a really slipshod QC programme in the mint - I ordered a 2008 APE once and it came with glaring rim defects and I returned it. Haven't bought anything significant from the mint since that time. And then there is the packaging, shoddy cases, capsules that crack etc.

Cakes · August 13, 2015 11:39PM

Bill Jones wrote" I don't think that this 2015 UHR has that bright of a future despite the fact that the mintage is less than half of the 2009 piece. The 2009 piece provided collectors who can't afford the 5-figure price tag to have an example of the St. Gaudens design in high relief. For that reason I think that it will always sell for more than melt, but perhaps not as much of a premium as it has in the past. As for this coin, it's a piece of gold with an attractive design, but no history behind it at all. I see these things selling for melt in two years or less"

I agree with the above. The 2009 UHR is a timeless classic. If they do a Pan Pac coin I hope they stick with a similar strategy.

TwoSides2aCoin · August 13, 2015 11:48PM

Sell to me at mint issue price. That's an option, but I'm not going to beg anyone or spam this place , so I don't upset the fragility of the minds of a few whom I still have a great respect for:
Other collectors who got shut out.

oih82w8 · August 14, 2015 12:59AM

If there are "exchanges" available, you could get a worse one.

Roll the dice and take your chances...or let it be.

I don't know if it's because I can't afford one of these or if I just don't like the design. (flip a coin)

derryb · August 14, 2015 1:08AM

if you're looking to get a 70 or selling it as a potential 70, return it or sell it to the member who offered to buy it here.

asheland · August 14, 2015 1:14AM

Beautiful design!
I'd just keep it...
(unless you're seeking a 70)

steveben · August 14, 2015 3:06AM

is that a fingerprint by PH (obv)?

agentjim007 · August 14, 2015 3:13AM

if you're asking now you'll regret it later

C0INB0Y · August 14, 2015 3:30AM

I sent them all back, they have already been processed and credits issued.

Bullsitter · August 14, 2015 3:43AM

<< if you're asking now you'll regret it later >>

Yep.

Broadstruck · August 14, 2015 3:55AM

Send it back as this Liberty doesn't look like she has the strength to defend freedom...

Design would have been better had they posed her upward facing dog while eating a veggie burger

SultanOfSwat · August 14, 2015 10:37AM

Like others have said, I would definitely return it.

Hydrant · October 11, 2015 5:49AM

Looks like Lady Liberty had some work done on the ol' kisser. I sense a trend here.

Return it to the Mint..............

Comments

Leave a Comment