@Goldbully said:
I'm really beginning to wonder if the Mint is going to offer these sets again.
They missed out on possible Christmas gift possibilities, so what would be a good reason for selling them in 2024?
There are lots of raw and graded sets out there so why compete with the secondary market?
I think this ship has sailed, and we won't see any more RP sets until the 2024's come out in Fall 2024.
JMHO.
There are ~50,000 sets unsold/returned at this point, and I cannot image the mint withholding this shear volume of coins just to melt them. So I believe they will become available again. The thing is I cannot understand why the mint has held off from offering any of these since just a few days after their release. Only thing that comes to mind is if they perceive that showing the public these have been unavailable for so long will cause pent up demand once they are offered again. But if they dump 50,000 sets on sale at once, I just don’t see that quantity being scooped up quickly. It could backfire on them, and create a messy circle of orders & returns.
Best thing the mint could do at this point is release ~5,000 of them and let that sell through, then repeat slowly.
@Goldbully said:
I'm really beginning to wonder if the Mint is going to offer these sets again.
They missed out on possible Christmas gift possibilities, so what would be a good reason for selling them in 2024?
There are lots of raw and graded sets out there so why compete with the secondary market?
I think this ship has sailed, and we won't see any more RP sets until the 2024's come out in Fall 2024.
JMHO.
There are ~50,000 sets unsold/returned at this point, and I cannot image the mint withholding this shear volume of coins just to melt them. So I believe they will become available again. The thing is I cannot understand why the mint has held off from offering any of these since just a few days after their release. Only thing that comes to mind is if they perceive that showing the public these have been unavailable for so long will cause pent up demand once they are offered again. But if they dump 50,000 sets on sale at once, I just don’t see that quantity being scooped up quickly. It could backfire on them, and create a messy circle of orders & returns.
Best thing the mint could do at this point is release ~5,000 of them and let that sell through, then repeat slowly.
Same thing happened with the 2017 EU sets. This is likely simply not a priority compared to other end of the year priorities. Inspecting a giant pile of returns takes time and there is no deadline for doing it, unlike other items tied to the calendar year.
I got mine back (First Strike) a few weeks ago (Shipped Dec 6) modern value service. Sent them in in the capsules, don't know if that counts as OGP. Also got TV's.
I really struggle with the disparity between the Advanced Release and FDOI >95% 70 rate and the 85% 70 rate on the standard submissions (may be incorrect terminology). Do we really think there was truly a difference in the quality of the coin, or is the difference in the quality of the grading? Given the mint does not segregate first day strikes, and they are all pulled from the same pool, so to speak, I have to believe the grading standards are more lax in those first days when the grading service is cranking out slabs.
I'll admit I was part of the mint returns. I received my coins shortly after release, did not do anything more than a perfunctory glance at them, and put them in the safe. I did not buy them to flip, or to grade initially, but after all of the talk of flaws, I did take a closer look, and had a big defect on the nose on the Morgan. Not just a scratch, but like a V shaped knife cut appearance. I unfortunately did not take a picture of it, but the Mint took it back and refunded me outside of the return period. I subsequently bought a CACG 70 FDOD set from Bullion Exchanges, hopefully they are truly 70s.
@Extremeengineer said:
I really struggle with the disparity between the Advanced Release and FDOI >95% 70 rate and the 85% 70 rate on the standard submissions (may be incorrect terminology). Do we really think there was truly a difference in the quality of the coin, or is the difference in the quality of the grading? Given the mint does not segregate first day strikes, and they are all pulled from the same pool, so to speak, I have to believe the grading standards are more lax in those first days when the grading service is cranking out slabs.
I'll admit I was part of the mint returns. I received my coins shortly after release, did not do anything more than a perfunctory glance at them, and put them in the safe. I did not buy them to flip, or to grade initially, but after all of the talk of flaws, I did take a closer look, and had a big defect on the nose on the Morgan. Not just a scratch, but like a V shaped knife cut appearance. I unfortunately did not take a picture of it, but the Mint took it back and refunded me outside of the return period. I subsequently bought a CACG 70 FDOD set from Bullion Exchanges, hopefully they are truly 70s.
It is much simpler than that. Bulk submitters can submit 70 only. Those are the same people that can get FDOI and Early Releases. The %70s is unrelated to the quality of the coins or the "quality" of the grading. It is simply the submission method that is different.
It is much simpler than that. Bulk submitters can submit 70 only. Those are the same people that can get FDOI and Early Releases. The %70s is unrelated to the quality of the coins or the "quality" of the grading. It is simply the submission method that is different.
Thanks, so then why are there grades other than 70 for FDOI and Advanced Release if all that could be submitted was 70s?
It is much simpler than that. Bulk submitters can submit 70 only. Those are the same people that can get FDOI and Early Releases. The %70s is unrelated to the quality of the coins or the "quality" of the grading. It is simply the submission method that is different.
Thanks, so then why are there grades other than 70 for FDOI and Advanced Release if all that could be submitted was 70s?
They have the option of submitting 70 only. It's not mandatory. There may also be a few dealers that aren't in both groups: Mint bulk buyers and PCGS bulk submitters.
Earlier this month, there was a discussion in this thread about damage that occurred when PCGS removed coins from customer-submitted "holders". As a result of this discussion, I e-mailed PCGS some questions in an attempt to clarify the issue. They just responded.
Earlier this month, there was a discussion in this thread about damage that occurred when PCGS removed coins from customer-submitted "holders". As a result of this discussion, I e-mailed PCGS some questions in an attempt to clarify the issue. They just responded.
Thanks @MetroD. Their response confirms my original comments above. I usually remove the coins and put them into flips for grading as they recommend, unless I don't have big enough flips for oversize items.
As always, good photos of what you send is helpful in case your coins are lost in the mail or damaged prior to receiving them back.
@drfish said:
Not taking into account the cost of 69s( or worse) , eBay store fees, capital costs , labor costs or cost of postage from PCGS to dealer (and assuming big orders shipped from mint to PCGS so maybe more postage costs ?)
$300 set off eBay
Bulk sub FS $32 per coin = $64 (this is for 100 coin submissions - probably lower for really big submissions ?)
Postage to buyer $5
7.25% eBay fees $22
Cost coins $185
$24 profit on a FS 70 set to help cover all the costs listed above
Earlier this month, there was a discussion in this thread about damage that occurred when PCGS removed coins from customer-submitted "holders". As a result of this discussion, I e-mailed PCGS some questions in an attempt to clarify the issue. They just responded.
Here is the PCGS e-response. My questions are in black; their answers are in red.
With all due respect to whoever at PCGS gave you that response, it is the exact opposite of what the word "except" means, and you are correct and they are wrong. The sentence says "PCGS shall have no liability whatsoever ... EXCEPT for any damage to a coin resulting ..."
It honestly could not be more clear. They are telling you they have no liability no matter how negligent they are. That is simply incorrect, and they have specifically carved out damage they cause when removing coins from holders from the general statement that they are never liable.
@drfish said:
Not taking into account the cost of 69s( or worse) , eBay store fees, capital costs , labor costs or cost of postage from PCGS to dealer (and assuming big orders shipped from mint to PCGS so maybe more postage costs ?)
$300 set off eBay
Bulk sub FS $32 per coin = $64 (this is for 100 coin submissions - probably lower for really big submissions ?)
Postage to buyer $5
7.25% eBay fees $22
Cost coins $185
$24 profit on a FS 70 set to help cover all the costs listed above
Earlier this month, there was a discussion in this thread about damage that occurred when PCGS removed coins from customer-submitted "holders". As a result of this discussion, I e-mailed PCGS some questions in an attempt to clarify the issue. They just responded.
Here is the PCGS e-response. My questions are in black; their answers are in red.
With all due respect to whoever at PCGS gave you that response, it is the exact opposite of what the word "except" means, and you are correct and they are wrong. The sentence says "PCGS shall have no liability whatsoever ... EXCEPT for any damage to a coin resulting ..."
It honestly could not be more clear. They are telling you they have no liability no matter how negligent they are. That is simply incorrect, and they have specifically carved out damage they cause when removing coins from holders from the general statement that they are never liable.
I agree with you that the text is clear. They are liable if they damage a coin opening it based on a literal reading of the clause. However, good luck convincing them to pay you for damage, if you have no way to prove it, unless they admit they did the damage opening the holder themselves.
With all due respect to whoever at PCGS gave you that response, it is the exact opposite of what the word "except" means, and you are correct and they are wrong. The sentence says "PCGS shall have no liability whatsoever ... EXCEPT for any damage to a coin resulting ..."
It honestly could not be more clear. They are telling you they have no liability no matter how negligent they are. That is simply incorrect, and they have specifically carved out damage they cause when removing coins from holders from the general statement that they are never liable.
Thanks for taking the time to post.
I am NOT a lawyer. That said, my initial read was the same as yours. Namely, that PCGS accepts liability for damage that occurs during holder opening.
Part #1 - PCGS is not liable for coin damage;
Part #2 - unless customer can "demonstrate" that PCGS was directly responsible;
Part #3 - except for damage incurred during holder opening.
If part #3 modifies part #1, our interpretation is correct. In words, PCGS is not liable for coin damage, except for damage incurred during holder opening.
However, upon closer inspection, this sentence COULD be interpreted another way (i.e., part #3 modifies part #2). In words, PCGS accepts liability for damage that a customer can "demonstrate" PCGS caused, except for damage incurred during holder opening.
Bottom Line - this sentence is ambiguous. As such, it should be re-drafted to ensure that the actual policy is effectively communicated.
@drfish said:
Not taking into account the cost of 69s( or worse) , eBay store fees, capital costs , labor costs or cost of postage from PCGS to dealer (and assuming big orders shipped from mint to PCGS so maybe more postage costs ?)
$300 set off eBay
Bulk sub FS $32 per coin = $64 (this is for 100 coin submissions - probably lower for really big submissions ?)
Postage to buyer $5
7.25% eBay fees $22
Cost coins $185
$24 profit on a FS 70 set to help cover all the costs listed above
Earlier this month, there was a discussion in this thread about damage that occurred when PCGS removed coins from customer-submitted "holders". As a result of this discussion, I e-mailed PCGS some questions in an attempt to clarify the issue. They just responded.
Here is the PCGS e-response. My questions are in black; their answers are in red.
With all due respect to whoever at PCGS gave you that response, it is the exact opposite of what the word "except" means, and you are correct and they are wrong. The sentence says "PCGS shall have no liability whatsoever ... EXCEPT for any damage to a coin resulting ..."
It honestly could not be more clear. They are telling you they have no liability no matter how negligent they are. That is simply incorrect, and they have specifically carved out damage they cause when removing coins from holders from the general statement that they are never liable.
I agree with you that the text is clear. They are liable if they damage a coin opening it based on a literal reading of the clause. However, good luck convincing them to pay you for damage, if you have no way to prove it, unless they admit they did the damage opening the holder themselves.
I agree it wouldn't be an easy path, but once upper management and lawyers got involved they would admit the liability. Again though, proving anything is the hard part. Although I do believe their coin handling stations are video recorded, so if it came to it in a legal proceeding you could get the video and hopefully spot the damage occurring.
One solution to this quandary is to just quit submitting coins and just buy them already graded. Problems solved. No need for lawyers, fancy cameras, stress, etc.
That said, I really like a very hard to find $10,000+ coin I just saw online that I want for my classic Indian set in an NGC holder and in spite of less than 25% success rate that I have had with NGC crossovers, I am going to try again. Glutton for punishment.
Bottom Line - this sentence is ambiguous. As such, it should be re-drafted to ensure that the actual policy is effectively communicated.
This is how lawyers work - they write things, the rest of us cannot fully comprehend and understand upon initial, secondary, and third reading. So, that we have to hire a fellow lawyer, for a fee, to interpret what the true meaning is...and thus the lawyer community keeps itself it business.
All five Morgans have hairlines on Liberty's cheek.
If you want to see closer lookup online.
Wished I had used a loupe before I sent to PCGS.
Big lesson learned.
All five of my Peace $1's were PR70............zero hairlines.
Darn, that is a tough result.
I tried to warn people about the Morgans having issues and buy them already graded. Even the one I sent in to get a True View was a 69 by the time they were done with it. The cheek is clearly subject to hairline scratches on these.
@coastaljerseyguy said: @Goldbully
Is it shadows or do 4 of those 5 Morgans have some indent on Liberty's nose? #4 has the only obvious scratch from photos.
Those are shadows.
Here are the closeups of Liberty's cheek in order from above images.................it pains me to post these.
Understood. That's the usual trickle of returns that are deemed acceptable for resale.
If 50K were indeed sent back, as the sales report implies, then there should be tens of thousands available, as many are expecting, and they shouldn't just be popping up momentarily at 7:30 some mornings.
Until they go back on sale for a sustained period of time, in virtually unlimited quantities, people should really stop pooping on them as a bust that were way over produced and did not sell out, because, as of now, that is simply not the case. I happen to think that it's far more likely that there is a glitch in the sales report, and that 50K did not come back and are now sitting in a warehouse, waiting for a vault sale in 2026.
Other "hoards" offered for later sale are always coins that did not sell when originally issued. Not popular issues that sold out almost immediately, with 20% of the mintage returned and then held off the market for no apparent reason.
[If 50K were indeed sent back, as the sales report implies, then there should be tens of thousands available, as many are expecting, and they shouldn't just be popping up momentarily at 7:30 some mornings.]
Let's pretend for a moment that 50,000 are melted down...how would that impact the value of the remainder?
@RichR said:
[If 50K were indeed sent back, as the sales report implies, then there should be tens of thousands available, as many are expecting, and they shouldn't just be popping up momentarily at 7:30 some mornings.]
Let's pretend for a moment that 50,000 are melted down...how would that impact the value of the remainder?
I think it should go without saying that that would positively impact the value. But, that's just fantasy. The Mint does not go to the expense of producing things like this, and then destroy 20% without trying to sell them, so that would never happen.
It's also fantasy that 20% are fatally defective and cannot be sold. We've never seen anything like this before, but, I'm telling you, it's far more likely that they appear some week on the sales report as an adjustment than they appear on the website for sale, or are melted down for no apparent reason while they plan to sell even more next year.
@NJCoinI I was just adding my observation a tiny amount were available when @Goldminers said he saw them. Do you know if these sets ever had the big dump about a week after release when all the cancelled/unpaid subs are usually added back to inventory?
@AtomicWatermelon said: @NJCoinI I was just adding my observation a tiny amount were available when @Goldminers said he saw them. Do you know if these sets ever had the big dump about a week after release when all the cancelled/unpaid subs are usually added back to inventory?
I'm not sure what a "big dump" is! Sold out coins are added back to inventory on an intermittent basis every day at around 7:30 when they are returned in saleable condition, but there are not usually large quantities available, and what is available is typically snapped up within seconds or minutes. These were no exception.
The twist here is that the sales report is showing something like 50K being added back into inventory. If that's true, and if those coins were now made available so long after initial release, they would undoubtedly sit unsold for a long time. I just think it's a mistake, because I don't think bulk purchasers have return privileges, and I also don't think the Mint would have sat on such a large quantity for all these months without doing something with them.
@AtomicWatermelon said: @NJCoinI I was just adding my observation a tiny amount were available when @Goldminers said he saw them. Do you know if these sets ever had the big dump about a week after release when all the cancelled/unpaid subs are usually added back to inventory?
The cancelation probably were already sold. The vast majority of the "missing" mintage is almost certainly returns. This can take weeks or months to reappear.
Comments
Not much change in four days..................................but here are today's pop report.
Received my FS results on two sets. Both Peace went 70. The Morgan’s split…….one 69 and one 70.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
I'm really beginning to wonder if the Mint is going to offer these sets again.
They missed out on possible Christmas gift possibilities, so what would be a good reason for selling them in 2024?
There are lots of raw and graded sets out there so why compete with the secondary market?
I think this ship has sailed, and we won't see any more RP sets until the 2024's come out in Fall 2024.
JMHO.
There are ~50,000 sets unsold/returned at this point, and I cannot image the mint withholding this shear volume of coins just to melt them. So I believe they will become available again. The thing is I cannot understand why the mint has held off from offering any of these since just a few days after their release. Only thing that comes to mind is if they perceive that showing the public these have been unavailable for so long will cause pent up demand once they are offered again. But if they dump 50,000 sets on sale at once, I just don’t see that quantity being scooped up quickly. It could backfire on them, and create a messy circle of orders & returns.
Best thing the mint could do at this point is release ~5,000 of them and let that sell through, then repeat slowly.
Same thing happened with the 2017 EU sets. This is likely simply not a priority compared to other end of the year priorities. Inspecting a giant pile of returns takes time and there is no deadline for doing it, unlike other items tied to the calendar year.
That makes sense.
Not much change from 12/20/2023......
Only posting the Pop Report to display a PR63 graded Morgan $1.
Who would have submitted that coin?
1. Very poor eyesight.
2. Shipped in OGP, but that is doubtful.
3. Didn't care and thought it was cool.
Maybe they should petition PCGS for a First Strike Lowball registry set!
2. I don't know why you think that is "doubtful".
I'm still waiting on my submission of RP's that were sent in November.
If anyone sent in OGP, they won't see them until January. JMHO.
Based on one anecdotal data point? Why would the OGP be taking any longer than any other submission? It's not a different tier.
Is First Strike attribution not considered a data point? Vast majority of submissions are Submitted For FS. OGP are usually sent after FS cutoff date.
I got mine back (First Strike) a few weeks ago (Shipped Dec 6) modern value service. Sent them in in the capsules, don't know if that counts as OGP. Also got TV's.
I really struggle with the disparity between the Advanced Release and FDOI >95% 70 rate and the 85% 70 rate on the standard submissions (may be incorrect terminology). Do we really think there was truly a difference in the quality of the coin, or is the difference in the quality of the grading? Given the mint does not segregate first day strikes, and they are all pulled from the same pool, so to speak, I have to believe the grading standards are more lax in those first days when the grading service is cranking out slabs.
I'll admit I was part of the mint returns. I received my coins shortly after release, did not do anything more than a perfunctory glance at them, and put them in the safe. I did not buy them to flip, or to grade initially, but after all of the talk of flaws, I did take a closer look, and had a big defect on the nose on the Morgan. Not just a scratch, but like a V shaped knife cut appearance. I unfortunately did not take a picture of it, but the Mint took it back and refunded me outside of the return period. I subsequently bought a CACG 70 FDOD set from Bullion Exchanges, hopefully they are truly 70s.
Many people ship sealed even before the cut off dates.
It is much simpler than that. Bulk submitters can submit 70 only. Those are the same people that can get FDOI and Early Releases. The %70s is unrelated to the quality of the coins or the "quality" of the grading. It is simply the submission method that is different.
Thanks, so then why are there grades other than 70 for FDOI and Advanced Release if all that could be submitted was 70s?
They have the option of submitting 70 only. It's not mandatory. There may also be a few dealers that aren't in both groups: Mint bulk buyers and PCGS bulk submitters.
Why? There would be absolutely no advantage or reason for this
@Goldminers
@jmlanzaf
@ProofCollection
Earlier this month, there was a discussion in this thread about damage that occurred when PCGS removed coins from customer-submitted "holders". As a result of this discussion, I e-mailed PCGS some questions in an attempt to clarify the issue. They just responded.
Here is the specific section of the "'PCGS Grading Terms & Conditions" that I inquired about:
Source: https://www.pcgs.com/submissionform/usacoin.pdf
Here is the PCGS e-response. My questions are in black; their answers are in red.
Not to mention, who doesn't want the opportunity to examine each coin under a loupe before submitting to PCGS?
Thanks @MetroD. Their response confirms my original comments above. I usually remove the coins and put them into flips for grading as they recommend, unless I don't have big enough flips for oversize items.
As always, good photos of what you send is helpful in case your coins are lost in the mail or damaged prior to receiving them back.
National Commemorative Medals of the U.S. Mint:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/medals-tokens/national-commemorative-medals-united-states-mint-1940-present/alltimeset/195526
I agree. Nonetheless they do. Maybe they are worried about mail delays. Start a poll.
With all due respect to whoever at PCGS gave you that response, it is the exact opposite of what the word "except" means, and you are correct and they are wrong. The sentence says "PCGS shall have no liability whatsoever ... EXCEPT for any damage to a coin resulting ..."
It honestly could not be more clear. They are telling you they have no liability no matter how negligent they are. That is simply incorrect, and they have specifically carved out damage they cause when removing coins from holders from the general statement that they are never liable.
I agree with you that the text is clear. They are liable if they damage a coin opening it based on a literal reading of the clause. However, good luck convincing them to pay you for damage, if you have no way to prove it, unless they admit they did the damage opening the holder themselves.
National Commemorative Medals of the U.S. Mint:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/medals-tokens/national-commemorative-medals-united-states-mint-1940-present/alltimeset/195526
Thanks for taking the time to post.
I am NOT a lawyer. That said, my initial read was the same as yours. Namely, that PCGS accepts liability for damage that occurs during holder opening.
Part #1 - PCGS is not liable for coin damage;
Part #2 - unless customer can "demonstrate" that PCGS was directly responsible;
Part #3 - except for damage incurred during holder opening.
If part #3 modifies part #1, our interpretation is correct. In words, PCGS is not liable for coin damage, except for damage incurred during holder opening.
However, upon closer inspection, this sentence COULD be interpreted another way (i.e., part #3 modifies part #2). In words, PCGS accepts liability for damage that a customer can "demonstrate" PCGS caused, except for damage incurred during holder opening.
Bottom Line - this sentence is ambiguous. As such, it should be re-drafted to ensure that the actual policy is effectively communicated.
I agree it wouldn't be an easy path, but once upper management and lawyers got involved they would admit the liability. Again though, proving anything is the hard part. Although I do believe their coin handling stations are video recorded, so if it came to it in a legal proceeding you could get the video and hopefully spot the damage occurring.
One solution to this quandary is to just quit submitting coins and just buy them already graded. Problems solved. No need for lawyers, fancy cameras, stress, etc.
That said, I really like a very hard to find $10,000+ coin I just saw online that I want for my classic Indian set in an NGC holder and in spite of less than 25% success rate that I have had with NGC crossovers, I am going to try again. Glutton for punishment.
National Commemorative Medals of the U.S. Mint:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/medals-tokens/national-commemorative-medals-united-states-mint-1940-present/alltimeset/195526
This is how lawyers work - they write things, the rest of us cannot fully comprehend and understand upon initial, secondary, and third reading. So, that we have to hire a fellow lawyer, for a fee, to interpret what the true meaning is...and thus the lawyer community keeps itself it business.
It's the ultimate self-licking ice cream model.
BST references available on request
Gut check.
5 out of 5 PR69.
All five Morgans have hairlines on Liberty's cheek.
If you want to see closer lookup online.
Wished I had used a loupe before I sent to PCGS.
Big lesson learned.
All five of my Peace $1's were PR70............zero hairlines.
Darn, that is a tough result.
I tried to warn people about the Morgans having issues and buy them already graded. Even the one I sent in to get a True View was a 69 by the time they were done with it. The cheek is clearly subject to hairline scratches on these.
National Commemorative Medals of the U.S. Mint:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/medals-tokens/national-commemorative-medals-united-states-mint-1940-present/alltimeset/195526
End of year Mintage sales report: Note, they are still available.
Precious Metal Products 23XS 2023 MORGAN AND PEACE SILVER REVERSE PROOF 2-COIN SET (S) 200,455 1/1/2024
The 250,000-mintage limit might have worked initially, but the Morgan quality and basically 50,000 returns or cancellations were just too high.
National Commemorative Medals of the U.S. Mint:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/medals-tokens/national-commemorative-medals-united-states-mint-1940-present/alltimeset/195526
6 sets sent in to PCGS here are the results:
Don't mind the colorized Purple Heart, forgot that I even bought it so I threw it into this sub...
So when do we see the returns come back for re-sale?
I'm thinking, what's the point?
Thoughts?
Where are they available, because the Mint site literally says "Not Available"?
Sorry, I usually check at 4:30AM and thought it showed them active for a while, but not any available now.
National Commemorative Medals of the U.S. Mint:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/medals-tokens/national-commemorative-medals-united-states-mint-1940-present/alltimeset/195526
@Goldbully
Is it shadows or do 4 of those 5 Morgans have some indent on Liberty's nose? #4 has the only obvious scratch from photos.
@Goldminers
@NJCoin
FWIW they were available 2 days ago at 730am EST on the mint site for a very brief while
Those are shadows.
Here are the closeups of Liberty's cheek in order from above images.................it pains me to post these.
Wow, bummer. Was something in the dies to cause the pock marks.
Four of the five have an "orange peel" look.
Some sort of dust or dirt?
Maybe acne?
Understood. That's the usual trickle of returns that are deemed acceptable for resale.
If 50K were indeed sent back, as the sales report implies, then there should be tens of thousands available, as many are expecting, and they shouldn't just be popping up momentarily at 7:30 some mornings.
Until they go back on sale for a sustained period of time, in virtually unlimited quantities, people should really stop pooping on them as a bust that were way over produced and did not sell out, because, as of now, that is simply not the case. I happen to think that it's far more likely that there is a glitch in the sales report, and that 50K did not come back and are now sitting in a warehouse, waiting for a vault sale in 2026.
Other "hoards" offered for later sale are always coins that did not sell when originally issued. Not popular issues that sold out almost immediately, with 20% of the mintage returned and then held off the market for no apparent reason.
[If 50K were indeed sent back, as the sales report implies, then there should be tens of thousands available, as many are expecting, and they shouldn't just be popping up momentarily at 7:30 some mornings.]
Let's pretend for a moment that 50,000 are melted down...how would that impact the value of the remainder?
I think it should go without saying that that would positively impact the value. But, that's just fantasy. The Mint does not go to the expense of producing things like this, and then destroy 20% without trying to sell them, so that would never happen.
It's also fantasy that 20% are fatally defective and cannot be sold. We've never seen anything like this before, but, I'm telling you, it's far more likely that they appear some week on the sales report as an adjustment than they appear on the website for sale, or are melted down for no apparent reason while they plan to sell even more next year.
RP Morgans
68.9% First Strike PR70
84.4% Total Pop PR70
RP Peace $1's
89.2% First Strike PR70
93.6% Total Pop PR70
@NJCoinI I was just adding my observation a tiny amount were available when @Goldminers said he saw them. Do you know if these sets ever had the big dump about a week after release when all the cancelled/unpaid subs are usually added back to inventory?
Looks like the 2024 RP sets are up on the Mint’s schedule for later this year. I think I’m in for two sets. Maybe
I'm not sure what a "big dump" is! Sold out coins are added back to inventory on an intermittent basis every day at around 7:30 when they are returned in saleable condition, but there are not usually large quantities available, and what is available is typically snapped up within seconds or minutes. These were no exception.
The twist here is that the sales report is showing something like 50K being added back into inventory. If that's true, and if those coins were now made available so long after initial release, they would undoubtedly sit unsold for a long time. I just think it's a mistake, because I don't think bulk purchasers have return privileges, and I also don't think the Mint would have sat on such a large quantity for all these months without doing something with them.
The cancelation probably were already sold. The vast majority of the "missing" mintage is almost certainly returns. This can take weeks or months to reappear.