Best Of

Thanks for all the exhibit pix. While in DC don't miss the Reflecting Pool. I hear it's quite striking these days.

Without commenting on the effort of anyone in particular, this whole exercise seems to me so far to have been a perfect example of how to not figure out much of anything useful at all.

If you need a classic penny, nickel and dime guy look no further than yours truly.

@jmlanzaf said:

@NJCoin said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@NJCoin said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@NJCoin said:

@mach19 said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@NJCoin said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@NJCoin said:

@mach19 said:

@HalfDime said:
My problem with these is the size only for the price, as it is like ordering a premium hamburger and they serve you a McD 99 cent cheapie. The mint also has a clever new employee who is dreaming all this stuff up, they should probably have left them to go wild with many more products for this year. According to the court filings they drag out planning and production like they are making NASA spacecraft.

I agree , I like the design .... again I just can't see the price ?

Right. That's the entire problem. People like you who would be attracted to the product are not in a position to buy it, and those with the wherewithal to drop $20K on a gimmicky trinket will have no interest. Which is why it will land with a tremendous thud.

Instead of getting too cute by half, they should have just issued it with the usual mintages at the usual, already excessive pricing. I just don't think there is going to be a market for these.

They also could have made a clad version in a larger issuance for $100 or less. That might have had more appeal.

They also could have the silver version in a larger issuance for a far lower price. Precious metal value is not driving the pricing here, and you know it.

They are testing the waters to see if the market will tolerate very low, but not Stacks auction low, mintages at extremely elevated prices. And doing it with a one-off unique thing like this rather than messing with a variant of a popular series, like a privy on an AGE, because that would like make peoples' heads explode.

If this sells out, then yeah, look for infinite takes on it in the future. Otherwise, the market will have spoken, these will sit on the website unsold for years, and we won't see things like this anymore. After the DC debacle, I am reasonably confident we won't be seeing any more IP licensing deals going forward.

I didn't say it was. But they don't sell anything silver for under $100. The clad halves are $64, i believe.

This is an invoice from the mint from 5 months ago

Yeah. Pre price increase. No more. He's not wrong about that.

But he's out in left field speculating that clad would be the only way to go to sell these at reasonable prices. Or that the price for clad would be any more reasonable than that for a half ounce of silver if they also offered 2026 in clad. And he misses the point that selling a lot more clad would totally destroy what it is they are trying to do with this test.

The idea here was not to be reasonable. It was to test just how unreasonable they could be with 3 similar items with a collective mintage of a little over 6K.

I'm not wrong about anything. I NEVER SAID ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

I didn't say that a cheap clad version fit with their marketing. I didn't say that clad was the only way to make a cheaper product. I never said 2026 in clad, in fact, i specifically said a larger issuance.

You keep putting words in my mouth and then telling me that YOUR words are wrong. Why would you do that other than to create an argument that you want to have?

Really? You never said "2026 in clad"?

@jmlanzaf said:
They also could have made a clad version in a larger issuance for $100 or less. That might have had more appeal.

Who said that? "Clad." "Larger issuance." You said them both. They are both irrelevant, because that's not what this is.

They don't need clad to hit lower price point than $750 on an item with $32 worth of silver in it. That's the point.

And they could easily do a "larger issuance" in silver, gold, platinum, palladium, pewter, whatever, if they so chose. They didn't. They don't want a "larger issuance." They want a tiny issuance, and an astronomical price. So that's what this is.

You saying they COULD have done something else is saying nothing at all. Of course they could. They could ALWAYS do something other than what they end up doing.

The words you put in your own mouth were that clad would be tied to larger issuance to get to $100 or less. Because THAT would be consistent with a price under $100, because that would be consistent with 2026 pricing. A half ounce silver product under $100 would not be, because all one ounce silver product sells for more than $200. Right?

@jmlanzaf said:
But if you simply use their normal 2026 pricing scheme, there is no way (in my humble opinion) they are going to price the silver at under $100. Soooooo...If I wanted a sub-$100 price, it would likely have to be clad.

You may be having a stroke.

No, I did not say the clad were "tied" to a larger issuance to get to a lower price point.

I did say, strictly hypothetically, that they COULD HAVE made a clad version in a larger issuance. And I suggested that might have had more appeal. You are creating a bunch of casualties that aren't even implied by what I wrote.

You have made a giant mountain out of a tiny ant hill. I suggested that a lower mintage, cheaper clad coin might have had more appeal than a lower mintage expensive coin. You probably even agree that is true. You are arguing everything except what I said.

No. I'm arguing exactly what you said. You are just obtusely refusing to acknowledge my point.

Which is that clad is not necessary to produce in volume, or to hit a price point far lower than $750. They chose not to.

Not because they can't, but because that would defeat what they are trying to do here. $32 in silver is not why they will be asking $750. Taking that out would not necessitate a reduction in price. Certainly not to less than $100.

They could have made the silver in quantity and sold them for far less than $750. But that's not what they want with these.

So your suggestion that they COULD have turned this into something else is pointless. Because that's not what they wanted to do. And, trust me here, selling clad at less than $100 would kill any interest anyone would otherwise have in a half ounce silver version for $750. That much they know. Unlimited one ounce silver Superman medals likely reduce demand for 25K 2.5 ounce versions.

No, you're not because I NEVER said they needed a large issuance to hit that price point. Again, you are arguing casuality when "clad", "larger issuance" and "sub $100" price t ag were 3 separate properties not 3 connected properties.

If you say so. You said it all in one sentence. I did what normal people do and connected them.

@jmlanzaf said:
They also could have made a clad version in a larger issuance for $100 or less. That might have had more appeal.

If you are going to admit that your posts are nothing more than word salad, they are probably not worth paying attention to.

Sentences are groups of words strung together to convey thoughts. Are you really saying

@jmlanzaf said:
No, you're not because I NEVER said they needed a large issuance to hit that price point. Again, you are arguing casuality when "clad", "larger issuance" and "sub $100" price t ag were 3 separate properties not 3 connected properties.

meant anything other than

@jmlanzaf said:
They also could have made a clad version in a larger issuance for $100 or less. That might have had more appeal.

?????

If so, while I realize that you can never admit you are wrong, and can never publicly concede a point or lose an argument, you should understand how anyone else reading what you wrote would take it. And how utterly ridiculous you now sound trying to parse your own words, rather than just admit what you said. After all, it is here for all to see.

@mbr33 said:

@NJCoin said:

@DotStore said:
Luckily mine doesn't have the rim issue. But personally, if it did have the rim issue I would probably get one on backorder (as they have been available in the mornings), and then return the damaged one. Of course my backorder might end up being a prior return from someone else, or it might be a new one and have no issues. But at least I'd try to get a mint issue directly from the mint.

The ones in the morning now are 100% returns. Whether they will have this flaw, another flaw, or no flaw and just buyer's remorse is unknown. What is known is that what they are selling now are returns.

Could also be some back order cancellations going back into inventory.

Yes. I canceled one last week because I was tired of waiting. And since I'm not in the office much this summer, delivery there seemed riskier than it's worth.

But don't correct him, it makes him cranky and defensive.

@cladking said:
Everyone thinks these are common.

I would have my report tomorrow. The person who did the test said "we complete the test and coin was 90% aluminum"