Home U.S. Coin Forum

The 24k Flowing Hair is monetized and denominated?

WeissWeiss Posts: 9,941 ✭✭✭✭✭

I know I'm late to the party here, but I was just double-checking the gold version out mid-November. And the mint is calling it a "coin" and a "dollar". Edge-marked and denominated.
I know NCLT face values are virtually arbitrary. But this seems really strange.
Thoughts?

We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last.
--Severian the Lame
«1

Comments

  • M4MadnessM4Madness Posts: 314 ✭✭✭✭

    Yes, the gold one is monetized, but the silver one is not. It's due to silver coins requiring congressional approval.

  • MetroDMetroD Posts: 2,174 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @PerryHall said:
    Any idea what the mintage will be? If the mintage is low enough, this may actually be worth getting.


    Source: https://catalog.usmint.gov/230th-anniversary-flowing-hair-high-relief-gold-coin-24YG.html?cgid=2024-product-schedule

  • GoldminersGoldminers Posts: 3,916 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Mintage listed is 17,500 and they will probably cost around $3,600.

    The lucky one's worth getting will be the ones they forget to run through the edge lettering machine. LOL

  • PerryHallPerryHall Posts: 46,084 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Goldminers said:
    Mintage listed is 17,500 and they will probably cost around $3,600.

    Considering that the 1 oz gold 2009 Ultra High Relief $20 Saint sold 114,427 coins, there may be a sellout although gold was much cheaper in 2009.

    Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
    "Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
    "Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire

  • morgansforevermorgansforever Posts: 8,456 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'll probably purchase one, at least these will not sell out in the first 5 minutes. With any luck I'll get the one that's 50% off center. :)

    World coins FSHO Hundreds of successful BST transactions U.S. coins FSHO
  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 33,919 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NJCoin said:

    @PerryHall said:

    @Goldminers said:
    Mintage listed is 17,500 and they will probably cost around $3,600.

    Considering that the 1 oz gold 2009 Ultra High Relief $20 Saint sold 114,427 coins, there may be a sellout although gold was much cheaper in 2009.

    Yeah, "although ..."

    You don't think the fact that gold was worth around $900 per ounce then, and the Mint sold those absolutely beautiful coins, with elaborate wooden packaging and an accompanying booklet, for a $300 premium, for a total issue price of around $1200, might have had something to do with those sales figures? Those coins sell for around $3,000 today.

    Gold is now trading at an all-time high of over $2700 per ounce, and the Mint has refused to take a cue from the classic double eagle market to see that numismatic premiums decrease as precious metal prices increase for gold. This is why their numismatic gold coin sales have taken a beating as they stick to their pricing grid, with a fixed premium over the value of the gold. Even as the percentage premium decreases as the underlying price of the metal increases.

    The coins are just progressively more and more expensive, out of line with secondary market values for the products. So now you have 17,500 of these. A full 5,000 more than recent American Liberty coin sell outs, at gold prices between $700 and $1,000 more than 2021-23. I wish them lots of luck selling these, in that quantity, at those prices.

    The recent American Liberty High Relief Gold coins are the closest comparable to these. Not an Ultra High Relief made 15 years ago, in another era, at a totally different price point, with a totally different premium structure. Not informative at all, just because they sold a lot of them with no mintage limit and 100 years of pent up demand since the original 1907 high relief double eagles.

    There's a difference between an existing coin and a new coin. It costs money to produce a new coin.

    And there's a difference between absolute dollars and percentages. Gold premiums in absolute dollars haven't shrunk. $500 gold traded on $50 premiums while $2500 gold trades on $100 premiums. (Round numbers). FWIW, a $300 premium on a $900 gold coin is the same percentage as $900 in a $2700 coin.

    Bottom line, as always, buy it if you want and don't buy it if you don't. I wouldn't buy one at $1 over melt (other than to flip) but I just spent $1100 on a 1909 Tibet silver Srang that melts at $20. These are not intended to be bullion coins.

  • JimTylerJimTyler Posts: 3,352 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 27, 2024 5:00AM

    Nevermind I looked it up

  • olympicsosolympicsos Posts: 764 ✭✭✭✭

    I am still curious about the mottos as the US Mint has not released images yet.

  • JimTylerJimTyler Posts: 3,352 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I know the privy is the big Winna winna chicken dinna but I find it a distraction from the design, makes it look more like bullion. Only 2.4% of silver but approximately 10% of gold.

  • MetroDMetroD Posts: 2,174 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JimTyler said:
    I know the privy is the big Winna winna chicken dinna but I find it a distraction from the design, makes it look more like bullion. Only 2.4% of silver but approximately 10% of gold.

    The Mint 'product page' for the gold coin does not CURRENTLY indicate that there will be a privy variant.

    If you are 'able/willing', would you mind sharing your source.

  • JimTylerJimTyler Posts: 3,352 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MetroD said:

    @JimTyler said:
    I know the privy is the big Winna winna chicken dinna but I find it a distraction from the design, makes it look more like bullion. Only 2.4% of silver but approximately 10% of gold.

    The Mint 'product page' for the gold coin does not CURRENTLY indicate that there will be a privy variant.

    If you are 'able/willing', would you mind sharing your source.

    You’re right and I’m glad I’m wrong. It clearly states no privy mark.

  • MetroDMetroD Posts: 2,174 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JimTyler said:

    @MetroD said:

    @JimTyler said:
    I know the privy is the big Winna winna chicken dinna but I find it a distraction from the design, makes it look more like bullion. Only 2.4% of silver but approximately 10% of gold.

    The Mint 'product page' for the gold coin does not CURRENTLY indicate that there will be a privy variant.

    If you are 'able/willing', would you mind sharing your source.

    You’re right and I’m glad I’m wrong. It clearly states no privy mark.

    FWIW, the 'product page' for the silver medal also indicated no privy mark, until they updated it. In fact, the spec table still indicates no privy mark.

    You never know. We will just have to wait, and see what they have in store for us. :)

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 27, 2024 7:01AM

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @PerryHall said:

    @Goldminers said:
    Mintage listed is 17,500 and they will probably cost around $3,600.

    Considering that the 1 oz gold 2009 Ultra High Relief $20 Saint sold 114,427 coins, there may be a sellout although gold was much cheaper in 2009.

    Yeah, "although ..."

    You don't think the fact that gold was worth around $900 per ounce then, and the Mint sold those absolutely beautiful coins, with elaborate wooden packaging and an accompanying booklet, for a $300 premium, for a total issue price of around $1200, might have had something to do with those sales figures? Those coins sell for around $3,000 today.

    Gold is now trading at an all-time high of over $2700 per ounce, and the Mint has refused to take a cue from the classic double eagle market to see that numismatic premiums decrease as precious metal prices increase for gold. This is why their numismatic gold coin sales have taken a beating as they stick to their pricing grid, with a fixed premium over the value of the gold. Even as the percentage premium decreases as the underlying price of the metal increases.

    The coins are just progressively more and more expensive, out of line with secondary market values for the products. So now you have 17,500 of these. A full 5,000 more than recent American Liberty coin sell outs, at gold prices between $700 and $1,000 more than 2021-23. I wish them lots of luck selling these, in that quantity, at those prices.

    The recent American Liberty High Relief Gold coins are the closest comparable to these. Not an Ultra High Relief made 15 years ago, in another era, at a totally different price point, with a totally different premium structure. Not informative at all, just because they sold a lot of them with no mintage limit and 100 years of pent up demand since the original 1907 high relief double eagles.

    There's a difference between an existing coin and a new coin. It costs money to produce a new coin.

    And there's a difference between absolute dollars and percentages. Gold premiums in absolute dollars haven't shrunk. $500 gold traded on $50 premiums while $2500 gold trades on $100 premiums. (Round numbers). FWIW, a $300 premium on a $900 gold coin is the same percentage as $900 in a $2700 coin.

    Bottom line, as always, buy it if you want and don't buy it if you don't. I wouldn't buy one at $1 over melt (other than to flip) but I just spent $1100 on a 1909 Tibet silver Srang that melts at $20. These are not intended to be bullion coins.

    Yup. All excellent points. All I'm going by is what's been happening to the numismatic premiums on Gem BU classic gold as the gold price has gone from ~$1K+ per ounce to ~$2K+. Not talking about rare 1909 Tibetan coins whose values are not tied to their intrinsic value, but kudos for always bringing in a distraction that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

    The value of 1794 silver medals with privys also isn't tied to the price of the ounce of silver they contain. That is irrelevant to the value of modern numismatic gold coins from the Mint, which are sold in lower and lower numbers each year as the price of gold rises, and whose values closely track the price of gold in the secondary market. Unlike your 1909 Tibet silver Srang. So, what's your point?

    Mine is that Mint premiums in absolute dollar terms not only haven't shrunk, but that they HAVE shrunk as a percent of the sales price. And that that hasn't helped sales at all, as the price of the coins has skyrocketed, and as the premiums on classic gold have basically disappeared. Because the price of the coins is just "too damn high," and people are either being priced out, or are simply refusing to make such a large, unjustifiable contribution to the US Treasury, given where after market values inevitably go.

    With this issue, the Mint is simply being very optimistic here. And, as I said before, I wish them lots of luck.

    Not an obvious sell out, at this mintage and this price, without an accompanying lottery ticket. No 2024 numismatic AGE, with similar or lower mintages, and slightly to significantly lower price points, sold out.

    The Mint is looking to the 2021 and 2023 American Liberty High Relief Gold coins, a very similar product, that sold out at much lower prices at a 1/3 lower mintage, that have done very well in the secondary market, and is trying to recreate the magic. Justifying it by thinking this is special, so they can be pigs and sell 5,000 more, at $500-$1,000 more, and achieve the same result.

    We'll see. I still think the non-privy silver medals have nowhere to go but down, and don't see a compelling need for anyone to buy a one ounce gold tribute to the nation's first SILVER dollar, at a $1,000 premium to $2,700 gold, with a mintage of 17,500, when a non-monetized silver example of the exact same thing, in the original precious metal, can be had for around $200, assuming one even wants one in the first place.

    We'll see. Again, I'm going out on a limb. I say they won't sell out. Not in the first 24 hours, and not when the HHL is lifted.

    Ultimately? Maybe, but they won't do anything in the secondary market, other than sink to a few hundred dollars above intrinsic value. Just like those 2009 Ultra High Relief Double Eagles, which are still absolutely gorgeous coins, but have not maintained their 38% premium to the price of gold as gold has gone from $900 per ounce to $2700.

    In fact, the premium is the same $300 or so that it was in 2009. Which is around 1/3 as much as the Mint demands today. Which is why they can no longer sell 20,000 of anything numismatic containing gold. Let's see if 17,500 is enough below 20,000 to break this reality.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 33,919 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NJCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @PerryHall said:

    @Goldminers said:
    Mintage listed is 17,500 and they will probably cost around $3,600.

    Considering that the 1 oz gold 2009 Ultra High Relief $20 Saint sold 114,427 coins, there may be a sellout although gold was much cheaper in 2009.

    Yeah, "although ..."

    You don't think the fact that gold was worth around $900 per ounce then, and the Mint sold those absolutely beautiful coins, with elaborate wooden packaging and an accompanying booklet, for a $300 premium, for a total issue price of around $1200, might have had something to do with those sales figures? Those coins sell for around $3,000 today.

    Gold is now trading at an all-time high of over $2700 per ounce, and the Mint has refused to take a cue from the classic double eagle market to see that numismatic premiums decrease as precious metal prices increase for gold. This is why their numismatic gold coin sales have taken a beating as they stick to their pricing grid, with a fixed premium over the value of the gold. Even as the percentage premium decreases as the underlying price of the metal increases.

    The coins are just progressively more and more expensive, out of line with secondary market values for the products. So now you have 17,500 of these. A full 5,000 more than recent American Liberty coin sell outs, at gold prices between $700 and $1,000 more than 2021-23. I wish them lots of luck selling these, in that quantity, at those prices.

    The recent American Liberty High Relief Gold coins are the closest comparable to these. Not an Ultra High Relief made 15 years ago, in another era, at a totally different price point, with a totally different premium structure. Not informative at all, just because they sold a lot of them with no mintage limit and 100 years of pent up demand since the original 1907 high relief double eagles.

    There's a difference between an existing coin and a new coin. It costs money to produce a new coin.

    And there's a difference between absolute dollars and percentages. Gold premiums in absolute dollars haven't shrunk. $500 gold traded on $50 premiums while $2500 gold trades on $100 premiums. (Round numbers). FWIW, a $300 premium on a $900 gold coin is the same percentage as $900 in a $2700 coin.

    Bottom line, as always, buy it if you want and don't buy it if you don't. I wouldn't buy one at $1 over melt (other than to flip) but I just spent $1100 on a 1909 Tibet silver Srang that melts at $20. These are not intended to be bullion coins.

    Yup. All excellent points. All I'm going by is what's been happening to the numismatic premiums on Gem BU classic gold as the gold price has gone from ~$1K+ per ounce to ~$2K+. Not talking about rare 1909 Tibetan coins whose values are not tied to their intrinsic value, but kudos for always bringing in a distraction that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

    The value of 1794 silver medals with privys also isn't tied to the price of the ounce of silver they contain. That is irrelevant to the value of modern numismatic gold coins from the Mint, which are sold in lower and lower numbers each year as the price of gold rises, and whose values closely track the price of gold in the secondary market. Unlike your 1909 Tibet silver Srang. So, what's your point?

    Mine is that Mint premiums in absolute dollar terms not only haven't shrunk, but that they HAVE shrunk as a percent of the sales price. And that that hasn't helped sales at all, as the price of the coins has skyrocketed, and as the premiums on classic gold have basically disappeared. Because the price of the coins is just "too damn high," and people are either being priced out, or are simply refusing to make such a large, unjustifiable contribution to the US Treasury, given where after market values inevitably go.

    With this issue, the Mint is simply being very optimistic here. And, as I said before, I wish them lots of luck.

    Not an obvious sell out, at this mintage and this price, without an accompanying lottery ticket. No 2024 numismatic AGE, with similar or lower mintages, and slightly to significantly lower price points, sold out.

    The Mint is looking to the 2021 and 2023 American Liberty High Relief Gold coins, a very similar product, that sold out at much lower prices at a 1/3 lower mintage, that have done very well in the secondary market, and is trying to recreate the magic. Justifying it by thinking this is special, so they can be pigs and sell 5,000 more, at $500-$1,000 more, and achieve the same result.

    We'll see. I still think the non-privy silver medals have nowhere to go but down, and don't see a compelling need for anyone to buy a one ounce gold tribute to the nation's first SILVER dollar, at a $1,000 premium to $2,700 gold, with a mintage of 17,500, when a non-monetized silver example of the exact same thing, in the original precious metal, can be had for around $200, assuming one even wants one in the first place.

    We'll see. Again, I'm going out on a limb. I say they won't sell out. Not in the first 24 hours, and not when the HHL is lifted.

    Ultimately? Maybe, but they won't do anything in the secondary market, other than sink to a few hundred dollars above intrinsic value. Just like those 2009 Ultra High Relief Double Eagles, which are still absolutely gorgeous coins, but have not maintained their 38% premium to the price of gold as gold has gone from $900 per ounce to $2700.

    In fact, the premium is the same $300 or so that it was in 2009. Which is around 1/3 as much as the Mint demands today. Which is why they can no longer sell 20,000 of anything numismatic containing gold. Let's see if 17,500 is enough below 20,000 to break this reality.

    Tibet = numismatic value = numismatic premium which was allegedly EXACTLY the point. A numismatic coin isn't a bullion coin.

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 27, 2024 8:30AM

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @PerryHall said:

    @Goldminers said:
    Mintage listed is 17,500 and they will probably cost around $3,600.

    Considering that the 1 oz gold 2009 Ultra High Relief $20 Saint sold 114,427 coins, there may be a sellout although gold was much cheaper in 2009.

    Yeah, "although ..."

    You don't think the fact that gold was worth around $900 per ounce then, and the Mint sold those absolutely beautiful coins, with elaborate wooden packaging and an accompanying booklet, for a $300 premium, for a total issue price of around $1200, might have had something to do with those sales figures? Those coins sell for around $3,000 today.

    Gold is now trading at an all-time high of over $2700 per ounce, and the Mint has refused to take a cue from the classic double eagle market to see that numismatic premiums decrease as precious metal prices increase for gold. This is why their numismatic gold coin sales have taken a beating as they stick to their pricing grid, with a fixed premium over the value of the gold. Even as the percentage premium decreases as the underlying price of the metal increases.

    The coins are just progressively more and more expensive, out of line with secondary market values for the products. So now you have 17,500 of these. A full 5,000 more than recent American Liberty coin sell outs, at gold prices between $700 and $1,000 more than 2021-23. I wish them lots of luck selling these, in that quantity, at those prices.

    The recent American Liberty High Relief Gold coins are the closest comparable to these. Not an Ultra High Relief made 15 years ago, in another era, at a totally different price point, with a totally different premium structure. Not informative at all, just because they sold a lot of them with no mintage limit and 100 years of pent up demand since the original 1907 high relief double eagles.

    There's a difference between an existing coin and a new coin. It costs money to produce a new coin.

    And there's a difference between absolute dollars and percentages. Gold premiums in absolute dollars haven't shrunk. $500 gold traded on $50 premiums while $2500 gold trades on $100 premiums. (Round numbers). FWIW, a $300 premium on a $900 gold coin is the same percentage as $900 in a $2700 coin.

    Bottom line, as always, buy it if you want and don't buy it if you don't. I wouldn't buy one at $1 over melt (other than to flip) but I just spent $1100 on a 1909 Tibet silver Srang that melts at $20. These are not intended to be bullion coins.

    Yup. All excellent points. All I'm going by is what's been happening to the numismatic premiums on Gem BU classic gold as the gold price has gone from ~$1K+ per ounce to ~$2K+. Not talking about rare 1909 Tibetan coins whose values are not tied to their intrinsic value, but kudos for always bringing in a distraction that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

    The value of 1794 silver medals with privys also isn't tied to the price of the ounce of silver they contain. That is irrelevant to the value of modern numismatic gold coins from the Mint, which are sold in lower and lower numbers each year as the price of gold rises, and whose values closely track the price of gold in the secondary market. Unlike your 1909 Tibet silver Srang. So, what's your point?

    Mine is that Mint premiums in absolute dollar terms not only haven't shrunk, but that they HAVE shrunk as a percent of the sales price. And that that hasn't helped sales at all, as the price of the coins has skyrocketed, and as the premiums on classic gold have basically disappeared. Because the price of the coins is just "too damn high," and people are either being priced out, or are simply refusing to make such a large, unjustifiable contribution to the US Treasury, given where after market values inevitably go.

    With this issue, the Mint is simply being very optimistic here. And, as I said before, I wish them lots of luck.

    Not an obvious sell out, at this mintage and this price, without an accompanying lottery ticket. No 2024 numismatic AGE, with similar or lower mintages, and slightly to significantly lower price points, sold out.

    The Mint is looking to the 2021 and 2023 American Liberty High Relief Gold coins, a very similar product, that sold out at much lower prices at a 1/3 lower mintage, that have done very well in the secondary market, and is trying to recreate the magic. Justifying it by thinking this is special, so they can be pigs and sell 5,000 more, at $500-$1,000 more, and achieve the same result.

    We'll see. I still think the non-privy silver medals have nowhere to go but down, and don't see a compelling need for anyone to buy a one ounce gold tribute to the nation's first SILVER dollar, at a $1,000 premium to $2,700 gold, with a mintage of 17,500, when a non-monetized silver example of the exact same thing, in the original precious metal, can be had for around $200, assuming one even wants one in the first place.

    We'll see. Again, I'm going out on a limb. I say they won't sell out. Not in the first 24 hours, and not when the HHL is lifted.

    Ultimately? Maybe, but they won't do anything in the secondary market, other than sink to a few hundred dollars above intrinsic value. Just like those 2009 Ultra High Relief Double Eagles, which are still absolutely gorgeous coins, but have not maintained their 38% premium to the price of gold as gold has gone from $900 per ounce to $2700.

    In fact, the premium is the same $300 or so that it was in 2009. Which is around 1/3 as much as the Mint demands today. Which is why they can no longer sell 20,000 of anything numismatic containing gold. Let's see if 17,500 is enough below 20,000 to break this reality.

    Tibet = numismatic value = numismatic premium which was allegedly EXACTLY the point. A numismatic coin isn't a bullion coin.

    Understood. But, these aren't being sold as bullion. They make precious metal bullion coins, and sell them through distributors at single digit percentage premiums to precious metal content.

    They are being sold as numismatic items. At a mintage that does not support the numismatic premium they are seeking. Or, at a numismatic premium that does not support the maximum authorized mintage. Do you disagree with anything I just said?

  • BullsitterBullsitter Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭✭✭


  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Bullsitter said:

    This is certainly what they are looking at. But they are not selling slabbed, guaranteed 70s, and they increased the mintage by nearly 50%.

    Again, I wish them nothing but the best, but I have no interest at $3700, no matter what happens. Given that the 2023 70s are not even selling for $5K, I'm probably right.

  • BullsitterBullsitter Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭✭✭

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Bullsitter said:

    That's people not truly understanding what they are buying. Can pre-sellers on eBay hold buyers to the transaction if it is not fulfilled within 30 days? Because those will be going right up to the line.

    The images the sellers have posted are not proofs, and I seriously doubt those prices will reflect the market if the issue is not a sell out the instant the HHL is lifted. I can see all the buyers trying to back out.

  • GoldminersGoldminers Posts: 3,916 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 27, 2024 2:14PM

    The proofs will look so much better than these imaginary dull looking uncirculated like approximations. A cameo flowing hair bust in a mirror field surrounded by stars will be very popular.

    Lots of coins have overstated modern mintage limits that are never sold (or even minted in the first batch). If the mintage sold is low, it may even have higher long-term value.

    It may be a new type coin, a modern one-dollar, one-ounce gold. I am a buyer, to keep, not to flip. And yes, the premium is very high.

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Goldminers said:
    The proofs will look so much better than these imaginary dull looking uncirculated like approximations. A cameo flowing hair bust in a mirror field surrounded by stars will be very popular.

    Lots of coins have overstated modern mintage limits that are never sold (or even minted in the first batch). If the mintage sold is low, it may even have higher long-term value.

    It may be a new type coin, a modern one-dollar, one-ounce gold. I am a buyer, to keep, not to flip. And yes, the premium is very high.

    Unlikely, unless demand exceeds my expectations. Otherwise, low sales will mean low demand. Expecting that to later goose value, when you will already be into it for a $1,000 premium to intrinsic value, will be wishful thinking.

    Because, keep in mind, at $3,700, your risk will not only be market indifference to a modern issue at that premium. It will also be market risk to the price of gold.

    If they don't sell out, and there isn't secondary market demand at or above issue price, you might need $3,500 gold in the future not to lose money, and will get absolutely clobbered if gold goes back to $1,500, which is far from impossible.

    If you don't care, because you absolutely love it, and don't care what it might be worth in the future, that's great. But, while many collectors don't necessarily buy modern Mint products expecting to make a killing, relatively few can afford to tie up $3,700 in something that, all things being equal, has far more downside than upside potential.

  • TwoSides2aCoinTwoSides2aCoin Posts: 44,264 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Yeah. What’s a buck ?

  • GoldminersGoldminers Posts: 3,916 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The 2024 burnished uncirculated now priced $3,570 had a product limit of 13,000 and so far, only 2,573 sold. The FH will be around $3,740, with a mintage limit of 17,500, and I suspect it will also have fewer sold. How many? I have no idea.

    The FH proof will be a much better-looking coin than the burnished uncirculated eagle which has basically no extra numismatic value for the super low mintage because there is nothing special about it.

    The Mint's high premiums limit sales and final mintages, but the look of the coin matters long term for value also. Look at the 2021 high relief Bronco prices that @Bullsitter posted. People liked the design. That is very important for value in the long run, IMO.

    Whether this goes up or down in the future can't really be accurately predicted at this stage.

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 27, 2024 3:55PM

    @Goldminers said:
    The 2024 burnished uncirculated now priced $3,570 had a product limit of 13,000 and so far, only 2,573 sold. The FH will be around $3,740, with a mintage limit of 17,500, and I suspect it will also have fewer sold. How many? I have no idea.

    The FH proof will be a much better-looking coin than the burnished uncirculated eagle which has basically no extra numismatic value for the super low mintage because there is nothing special about it.

    The Mint's high premiums limit sales and final mintages, but the look of the coin matters long term for value also. Look at the 2021 high relief Bronco prices that @Bullsitter posted. People liked the design. That is very important for value in the long run, IMO.

    Whether this goes up or down in the future can't really be accurately predicted at this stage.

    Design is important. But so is price, and maximum mintage. The Bronco hit on all cylinders. The AGE, not so much. The Mint would have a had winner limiting this to the Bronco mintage, or reducing the premium to something more reasonable, but they couldn't control themselves. $2700 gold is going to impact demand for anything they produce, but that is the one element beyond their control.

    You're right that future value cannot be accurately predicted today. Get back to me on 11/21. If they haven't sold out by then, they are never going to do anything, unless the price of gold rises enough to absorb the $1,000 premium people are going to be paying for them.

    OTOH, if they do sell out, then I am wrong about 17,500 being too many at $3,700, the Mint is right, and all bets are off.

  • Mr Lindy Mr Lindy Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If the rim details are rolled on after strike, as usual, I wonder if the additional handling by the Mint will limit perfect 70's ?

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 28, 2024 5:04PM

    @Mr Lindy said:
    If the rim details are rolled on after strike, as usual, I wonder if the additional handling by the Mint will limit perfect 70's ?

    TBD, but they know what their primary market, Big Boys, demand. So I am fairly confident that there will be an ample supply of PR70s, at a significant premium to an already significant premium over intrinsic value, for anyone desiring to acquire one for their collection. It's reasonable to expect the usual 50-70% rate for modern issues, with no significant decrease due to the additional handling. The Mint knows what it is doing here.

    OTOH, if a substantial majority of them turn out perfect 70, perfect 70s won't carry a premium in the market, so that's not in anyone's interest. Other than maybe collectors who just want to buy one from the Mint at issue price and then spend a few bucks to have it slabbed. So that's also unlikely to happen.

  • GoldminersGoldminers Posts: 3,916 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 28, 2024 10:38AM

    This is denominated and monetized, and it is also demonized >:)

  • jwittenjwitten Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Now you’re claiming 70s won’t have a premium? Do you have any data to back that claim up?

    @NJCoin said:

    @Mr Lindy said:
    If the rim details are rolled on after strike, as usual, I wonder if the additional handling by the Mint will limit perfect 70's ?

    TBD, but they know what their primary market, Big Boys, demand. So I am fairly confident that there will be an ample supply of PR70s, at a significant premium to an already significant premium over intrinsic value, for anyone desiring to acquire one for their collection. It's reasonable to expect the usual 50-70% rate for modern issues, with no significant decrease due to the additional handling. The Mint knows what it is doing here.

    OTOH, if a substantial majority of them turn out perfect 70, perfect 70s won't carry a premium in the market, so that's not in anyone's interest. Other than maybe collectors who just want to buy one from the Mint at issue price and then spend a few bucks to have ti slabbed. So that's also unlikely to happen.

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 28, 2024 5:18PM

    @jwitten said:
    Now you’re claiming 70s won’t have a premium? Do you have any data to back that claim up?

    @NJCoin said:

    @Mr Lindy said:
    If the rim details are rolled on after strike, as usual, I wonder if the additional handling by the Mint will limit perfect 70's ?

    TBD, but they know what their primary market, Big Boys, demand. So I am fairly confident that there will be an ample supply of PR70s, at a significant premium to an already significant premium over intrinsic value, for anyone desiring to acquire one for their collection. It's reasonable to expect the usual 50-70% rate for modern issues, with no significant decrease due to the additional handling. The Mint knows what it is doing here.

    OTOH, if a substantial majority of them turn out perfect 70, perfect 70s won't carry a premium in the market, so that's not in anyone's interest. Other than maybe collectors who just want to buy one from the Mint at issue price and then spend a few bucks to have ti slabbed. So that's also unlikely to happen.

    Geez. Do you know how to read?

    "If a substantial majority of them turn out perfect 70, perfect 70s won't carry a premium in the market" is not "70s won't have a premium."

    The very next clause in the same sentence says "so that's not in anyone's interest."

    Do you think that means I said "70s won't have a premium"?

    Especially when the very first sentence of the quote very clearly states "I am fairly confident that there will be an ample supply of PR70s, at a significant premium to an already significant premium over intrinsic value, for anyone desiring to acquire one for their collection."

    Did you honestly miss the part of that sentence that said "at a significant premium to an already significant premium over intrinsic value"? Maybe stop micro focusing, for just a minute, on things to pick on in my posts, and actually take a minute to read and understand the entire post, before embarrassing yourself in a quest to try to embarrass me.

    But for the record, yeah, even without data, I'll go out on a limb and predict that if the vast majority of any issue grades 70, that 70 won't carry a premium. Because, in that case, pretty much anything graded will be a 70. What's the premium for last year's 70 Morgan and Peace Dollars, given how well they graded?

    I can buy a NGC MS70 2024 ASE off TV right now for $60. It has $34 worth of silver in it, and I can't buy an ungraded undated generic ASE with a credit card anywhere for less than $42. So just what do you suppose the premium on that NGC 70 grade is? Seems like about nothing to me.

  • jwittenjwitten Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Of course I know how to read. You are now comparing a coin that is over $3,000 to one that is $60. That’s crazy. You did not say a 70 wouldn’t have a large premium, you said it wouldn’t have ANY. Even if most grade 70. That’s just nonsense.

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 28, 2024 5:39PM

    @jwitten said:
    Of course I know how to read. You are now comparing a coin that is over $3,000 to one that is $60. That’s crazy. You did not say a 70 wouldn’t have a large premium, you said it wouldn’t have ANY. Even if most grade 70. That’s just nonsense.

    If you know how to read, go back and reread the post. It's only 7 sentences long.

    I literally said "I am fairly confident that there will be an ample supply of PR70s, at a significant premium to an already significant premium over intrinsic value." Not they wouldn't have ANY premium. I said "significant premium."

    The next paragraph then said, again, verbatim "OTOH, if a substantial majority of them turn out perfect 70, perfect 70s won't carry a premium in the market," and pointed to a recent example where that turned out to be the case, since you asked for data. Doesn't matter whether it's a $60 coin or a $3,700 one. It's a Mint issue that is grading so well that slabbed 70s are barely worth the cost of slabbing, and therefore don't carry premiums in the market. Which is what you asked for.

    And finally, the rest of the thought in the post was "so that's not in anyone's interest. ... [s]o that's also unlikely to happen."

    Do I seriously have to take you word by word through a post to explain what it means in English? Because your continuing this clearly shows that you, in fact, do not know how to read. Or, maybe, to understand the meaning of what you are reading.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 33,919 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NJCoin said:

    @jwitten said:
    Of course I know how to read. You are now comparing a coin that is over $3,000 to one that is $60. That’s crazy. You did not say a 70 wouldn’t have a large premium, you said it wouldn’t have ANY. Even if most grade 70. That’s just nonsense.

    If you know how to read, go back and reread the post. It's only 7 sentences long.

    I literally said "I am fairly confident that there will be an ample supply of PR70s, at a significant premium to an already significant premium over intrinsic value." Not they wouldn't have ANY premium. I said "significant premium."

    The next paragraph then said, again, verbatim "OTOH, if a substantial majority of them turn out perfect 70, perfect 70s won't carry a premium in the market," and pointed to a recent example where that turned out to be the case, since you asked for data. And finally, the rest of the thought in the post was "so that's not in anyone's interest. ... [s]o that's also unlikely to happen."

    Do I seriously have to take you word by word through a post to explain what it means in English? Because your continuing this clearly shows that you, in fact, do not know how to read. Or, maybe, to understand the meaning of what you are reading.

    A substantial majority often do grade 70. Look at the new Morgan dollars.

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jwitten said:
    Of course I know how to read. You are now comparing a coin that is over $3,000 to one that is $60. That’s crazy. You did not say a 70 wouldn’t have a large premium, you said it wouldn’t have ANY. Even if most grade 70. That’s just nonsense.

    If you know how to read, go back and reread the post. It's only 7 sentences long.

    I literally said "I am fairly confident that there will be an ample supply of PR70s, at a significant premium to an already significant premium over intrinsic value." Not they wouldn't have ANY premium. I said "significant premium."

    The next paragraph then said, again, verbatim "OTOH, if a substantial majority of them turn out perfect 70, perfect 70s won't carry a premium in the market," and pointed to a recent example where that turned out to be the case, since you asked for data. And finally, the rest of the thought in the post was "so that's not in anyone's interest. ... [s]o that's also unlikely to happen."

    Do I seriously have to take you word by word through a post to explain what it means in English? Because your continuing this clearly shows that you, in fact, do not know how to read. Or, maybe, to understand the meaning of what you are reading.

    A substantial majority often do grade 70. Look at the new Morgan dollars.

    I know. It's exactly what I said.

    50-70% is standard for a modern issue. Significantly above that, which I doubt will happen, will result in premiums disappearing for 70s.

    As they kind of have for the new Morgan Dollars, and absolutely have for the 2024 ASE bullion, which Magic Mike is trying to give away on TV for less that it would cost a non-bulk submitter to have raw coins slabbed, with no guarantee of 70s. That's my definition of "no premium," and applies when such a high percentage is 70 that there is no reason to attribute a premium to it.

    I haven't been paying attention to 2024 Morgans, since the 2024 Morgan and Peace Dollars have been such a bust. So much so that, again, Magic Mike is on TV selling them raw for below Mint issue price.

    I just checked -- two MS70s sold today on eBay. One for $96 and one for $86. NGC FDOI and CAC First Delivery. Original Mint price was $91. No premium for the coin, and no premium for the 70.

    Maybe an acknowledgement here that I'm right? Or is that too painful to provide, and therefor too much to expect?

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 33,919 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 28, 2024 6:01PM

    @NJCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jwitten said:
    Of course I know how to read. You are now comparing a coin that is over $3,000 to one that is $60. That’s crazy. You did not say a 70 wouldn’t have a large premium, you said it wouldn’t have ANY. Even if most grade 70. That’s just nonsense.

    If you know how to read, go back and reread the post. It's only 7 sentences long.

    I literally said "I am fairly confident that there will be an ample supply of PR70s, at a significant premium to an already significant premium over intrinsic value." Not they wouldn't have ANY premium. I said "significant premium."

    The next paragraph then said, again, verbatim "OTOH, if a substantial majority of them turn out perfect 70, perfect 70s won't carry a premium in the market," and pointed to a recent example where that turned out to be the case, since you asked for data. And finally, the rest of the thought in the post was "so that's not in anyone's interest. ... [s]o that's also unlikely to happen."

    Do I seriously have to take you word by word through a post to explain what it means in English? Because your continuing this clearly shows that you, in fact, do not know how to read. Or, maybe, to understand the meaning of what you are reading.

    A substantial majority often do grade 70. Look at the new Morgan dollars.

    I know. It's exactly what I said.

    50-70% is standard for a modern issue. Significantly above that, which I doubt will happen, will result in premiums disappearing for 70s.

    As they kind of have for the new Morgan Dollars, and absolutely have for the 2024 ASE bullion, which Magic Mike is trying to give away on TV for less that it would cost a non-bulk submitter to have raw coins slabbed, with no guarantee of 70s. That's my definition of "no premium," and applies when such a high percentage is 70 that there is no reason to attribute a premium to it.

    I haven't been paying attention to 2024 Morgans, since the 2024 Morgan and Peace Dollars have been such a bust. So much so that, again, Magic Mike is on TV selling them raw for below Mint issue price.

    I just checked -- two MS70s sold today on eBay. One for $96 and one for $86. NGC FDOI and CAC First Delivery. Original Mint price was $91. No premium for the coin, and no premium for the 70.

    Maybe an acknowledgement here that I'm right? Or is that too painful to provide, and therefor too much to expect?

    You need to compare the 70 price to the 69 price. They almost always carry a premium.

    And how is 70% not a "substantial majority"?

    Note the premium for the 70s


  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jwitten said:
    Of course I know how to read. You are now comparing a coin that is over $3,000 to one that is $60. That’s crazy. You did not say a 70 wouldn’t have a large premium, you said it wouldn’t have ANY. Even if most grade 70. That’s just nonsense.

    If you know how to read, go back and reread the post. It's only 7 sentences long.

    I literally said "I am fairly confident that there will be an ample supply of PR70s, at a significant premium to an already significant premium over intrinsic value." Not they wouldn't have ANY premium. I said "significant premium."

    The next paragraph then said, again, verbatim "OTOH, if a substantial majority of them turn out perfect 70, perfect 70s won't carry a premium in the market," and pointed to a recent example where that turned out to be the case, since you asked for data. And finally, the rest of the thought in the post was "so that's not in anyone's interest. ... [s]o that's also unlikely to happen."

    Do I seriously have to take you word by word through a post to explain what it means in English? Because your continuing this clearly shows that you, in fact, do not know how to read. Or, maybe, to understand the meaning of what you are reading.

    A substantial majority often do grade 70. Look at the new Morgan dollars.

    I know. It's exactly what I said.

    50-70% is standard for a modern issue. Significantly above that, which I doubt will happen, will result in premiums disappearing for 70s.

    As they kind of have for the new Morgan Dollars, and absolutely have for the 2024 ASE bullion, which Magic Mike is trying to give away on TV for less that it would cost a non-bulk submitter to have raw coins slabbed, with no guarantee of 70s. That's my definition of "no premium," and applies when such a high percentage is 70 that there is no reason to attribute a premium to it.

    I haven't been paying attention to 2024 Morgans, since the 2024 Morgan and Peace Dollars have been such a bust. So much so that, again, Magic Mike is on TV selling them raw for below Mint issue price.

    I just checked -- two MS70s sold today on eBay. One for $96 and one for $86. NGC FDOI and CAC First Delivery. Original Mint price was $91. No premium for the coin, and no premium for the 70.

    Maybe an acknowledgement here that I'm right? Or is that too painful to provide, and therefor too much to expect?

    You need to compare the 70 price to the 69 price. They almost always carry a premium.

    And how is 70% not a "substantial majority"?

    70% is not a substantial majority since 30% are not, and since that's pretty much the standard nowadays. In any event, I defined my terms, and clearly stated in my post that 50-70%, the norm, would carry a substantial premium. Because people still pay it. Because 30% ain't nothing.

    There are no 69s to compare to, since 70s are so cheap and plentiful. The best I can do is $75-85 in OGP. Close enough, or is the $10 going to constitute a "substantial premium" to you for the sake of winning this argument, even though it is far below the cost of a non-bulk submission? With premium FDOI/First Delivery attribution to boot?

  • jwittenjwitten Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭✭✭

    $10 is still a premium. You said they won’t go for a premium. Another case closed.

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 28, 2024 8:27PM

    @jwitten said:
    $10 is still a premium. You said they won’t go for a premium. Another case closed.

    Yes, you got me. Recapturing the bulk submission grading fee is absolutely a "premium." Not the premium I was thinking of, and not a premium to the issue price, or a premium to what anyone paid in the first month after release. But yes, a whopping premium over raw. Another case closed. 🤣

    As is the $60 TV price for the 2024 MS70 ASEs that sell for $42 raw, so why didn't you close that case as well, rather than trying to distinguish it by saying it's not a $3000 coin?

    If you seriously think $10 over raw constitutes a premium for a First Delivery CACG MS70 slab, or a NGC FDOI one, I have nothing to say to you, and their businesses are doomed to fail. Because that basically represents the cost of slabbing the coin and shipping it back and forth, on a bulk basis.

    If that's the "premium" dealers can expect, TPGs will pretty soon no longer be a thing, since there will be no reason for dealers to bother with it. So, no, it's not a "premium." It's the disappointment that manifests when the vast majority of coins grade 70, and the market does not place a "premium" on them.

    No one is making money at that "premium." Certainly not the dealer. Or the collector. And, it's not a "premium" that indicates the market values the MS70 over raw, because it doesn't. At that price, it's the slab and the label people are paying for. 🤣

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 33,919 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NJCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jwitten said:
    Of course I know how to read. You are now comparing a coin that is over $3,000 to one that is $60. That’s crazy. You did not say a 70 wouldn’t have a large premium, you said it wouldn’t have ANY. Even if most grade 70. That’s just nonsense.

    If you know how to read, go back and reread the post. It's only 7 sentences long.

    I literally said "I am fairly confident that there will be an ample supply of PR70s, at a significant premium to an already significant premium over intrinsic value." Not they wouldn't have ANY premium. I said "significant premium."

    The next paragraph then said, again, verbatim "OTOH, if a substantial majority of them turn out perfect 70, perfect 70s won't carry a premium in the market," and pointed to a recent example where that turned out to be the case, since you asked for data. And finally, the rest of the thought in the post was "so that's not in anyone's interest. ... [s]o that's also unlikely to happen."

    Do I seriously have to take you word by word through a post to explain what it means in English? Because your continuing this clearly shows that you, in fact, do not know how to read. Or, maybe, to understand the meaning of what you are reading.

    A substantial majority often do grade 70. Look at the new Morgan dollars.

    I know. It's exactly what I said.

    50-70% is standard for a modern issue. Significantly above that, which I doubt will happen, will result in premiums disappearing for 70s.

    As they kind of have for the new Morgan Dollars, and absolutely have for the 2024 ASE bullion, which Magic Mike is trying to give away on TV for less that it would cost a non-bulk submitter to have raw coins slabbed, with no guarantee of 70s. That's my definition of "no premium," and applies when such a high percentage is 70 that there is no reason to attribute a premium to it.

    I haven't been paying attention to 2024 Morgans, since the 2024 Morgan and Peace Dollars have been such a bust. So much so that, again, Magic Mike is on TV selling them raw for below Mint issue price.

    I just checked -- two MS70s sold today on eBay. One for $96 and one for $86. NGC FDOI and CAC First Delivery. Original Mint price was $91. No premium for the coin, and no premium for the 70.

    Maybe an acknowledgement here that I'm right? Or is that too painful to provide, and therefor too much to expect?

    You need to compare the 70 price to the 69 price. They almost always carry a premium.

    And how is 70% not a "substantial majority"?

    70% is not a substantial majority since 30% are not, and since that's pretty much the standard nowadays. In any event, I defined my terms, and clearly stated in my post that 50-70%, the norm, would carry a substantial premium. Because people still pay it. Because 30% ain't nothing.

    There are no 69s to compare to, since 70s are so cheap and plentiful. The best I can do is $75-85 in OGP. Close enough, or is the $10 going to constitute a "substantial premium" to you for the sake of winning this argument, even though it is far below the cost of a non-bulk submission? With premium FDOI/First Delivery attribution to boot?

    "Majority"=50.1%

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 33,919 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 28, 2024 10:32PM

    @jwitten said:
    $10 is still a premium. You said they won’t go for a premium. Another case closed.

    Sigh... the case is never closed. He just keeps redefining terms. 70% is not a "substantial majority" (tell that to Harris and Trump). A premium has to be bigger than the submission fees. Etc.

  • jwittenjwitten Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I was about to respond that a $42 raw coin selling for $60 graded is actually a huge percentage premium, but figured you’d argue against that as well. You think you’re right even when the facts say otherwise. It’s pointless to argue with you.

    @NJCoin said:

    @jwitten said:
    $10 is still a premium. You said they won’t go for a premium. Another case closed.

    Yes, you got me. Recapturing the bulk submission grading fee is absolutely a "premium." Not the premium I was thinking of, and not a premium to the issue price, or a premium to what anyone paid in the first month after release. But yes, a whopping premium over raw. Another case closed. 🤣

    As is the $60 TV price for the 2024 MS70 ASEs that sell for $42 raw, so why didn't you close that case as well, rather than trying to distinguish it by saying it's not a $3000 coin?

    If you seriously think $10 over raw constitutes a premium for a First Delivery CACG MS70 slab, or a NGC FDOI one, I have nothing to say to you, and their businesses are doomed to fail. Because that basically represents the cost of slabbing the coin and shipping it back and forth, on a bulk basis.

    If that's the "premium" dealers can expect, TPGs will pretty soon no longer be a thing, since there will be no reason for dealers to bother with it. So, no, it's not a "premium." It's the disappointment that manifests when the vast majority of coins grade 70, and the market does not place a "premium" on them.

    No one is making money at that "premium." Certainly not the dealer. Or the collector. And, it's not a "premium" that indicates the market values the MS70 over raw, because it doesn't. At that price, it's the slab and the label people are paying for. 🤣

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jwitten said:
    Of course I know how to read. You are now comparing a coin that is over $3,000 to one that is $60. That’s crazy. You did not say a 70 wouldn’t have a large premium, you said it wouldn’t have ANY. Even if most grade 70. That’s just nonsense.

    If you know how to read, go back and reread the post. It's only 7 sentences long.

    I literally said "I am fairly confident that there will be an ample supply of PR70s, at a significant premium to an already significant premium over intrinsic value." Not they wouldn't have ANY premium. I said "significant premium."

    The next paragraph then said, again, verbatim "OTOH, if a substantial majority of them turn out perfect 70, perfect 70s won't carry a premium in the market," and pointed to a recent example where that turned out to be the case, since you asked for data. And finally, the rest of the thought in the post was "so that's not in anyone's interest. ... [s]o that's also unlikely to happen."

    Do I seriously have to take you word by word through a post to explain what it means in English? Because your continuing this clearly shows that you, in fact, do not know how to read. Or, maybe, to understand the meaning of what you are reading.

    A substantial majority often do grade 70. Look at the new Morgan dollars.

    I know. It's exactly what I said.

    50-70% is standard for a modern issue. Significantly above that, which I doubt will happen, will result in premiums disappearing for 70s.

    As they kind of have for the new Morgan Dollars, and absolutely have for the 2024 ASE bullion, which Magic Mike is trying to give away on TV for less that it would cost a non-bulk submitter to have raw coins slabbed, with no guarantee of 70s. That's my definition of "no premium," and applies when such a high percentage is 70 that there is no reason to attribute a premium to it.

    I haven't been paying attention to 2024 Morgans, since the 2024 Morgan and Peace Dollars have been such a bust. So much so that, again, Magic Mike is on TV selling them raw for below Mint issue price.

    I just checked -- two MS70s sold today on eBay. One for $96 and one for $86. NGC FDOI and CAC First Delivery. Original Mint price was $91. No premium for the coin, and no premium for the 70.

    Maybe an acknowledgement here that I'm right? Or is that too painful to provide, and therefor too much to expect?

    You need to compare the 70 price to the 69 price. They almost always carry a premium.

    And how is 70% not a "substantial majority"?

    70% is not a substantial majority since 30% are not, and since that's pretty much the standard nowadays. In any event, I defined my terms, and clearly stated in my post that 50-70%, the norm, would carry a substantial premium. Because people still pay it. Because 30% ain't nothing.

    There are no 69s to compare to, since 70s are so cheap and plentiful. The best I can do is $75-85 in OGP. Close enough, or is the $10 going to constitute a "substantial premium" to you for the sake of winning this argument, even though it is far below the cost of a non-bulk submission? With premium FDOI/First Delivery attribution to boot?

    "Majority"=50.1%

    Perhaps. But only a "substantial majority" to you.

    Please feel free to keep picking away. Because I wasn't clear when I specifically said 50-70% = "substantial premium," and then qualified that by saying "substantial majority" would mean no premium, and likely would not happen.

    So now let's just go full circle, and say substantial majority is the same as majority, and substantial premium is the same as no premium. So I can be wrong, regardless of anything I say.

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jwitten said:
    Of course I know how to read. You are now comparing a coin that is over $3,000 to one that is $60. That’s crazy. You did not say a 70 wouldn’t have a large premium, you said it wouldn’t have ANY. Even if most grade 70. That’s just nonsense.

    If you know how to read, go back and reread the post. It's only 7 sentences long.

    I literally said "I am fairly confident that there will be an ample supply of PR70s, at a significant premium to an already significant premium over intrinsic value." Not they wouldn't have ANY premium. I said "significant premium."

    The next paragraph then said, again, verbatim "OTOH, if a substantial majority of them turn out perfect 70, perfect 70s won't carry a premium in the market," and pointed to a recent example where that turned out to be the case, since you asked for data. And finally, the rest of the thought in the post was "so that's not in anyone's interest. ... [s]o that's also unlikely to happen."

    Do I seriously have to take you word by word through a post to explain what it means in English? Because your continuing this clearly shows that you, in fact, do not know how to read. Or, maybe, to understand the meaning of what you are reading.

    A substantial majority often do grade 70. Look at the new Morgan dollars.

    I know. It's exactly what I said.

    50-70% is standard for a modern issue. Significantly above that, which I doubt will happen, will result in premiums disappearing for 70s.

    As they kind of have for the new Morgan Dollars, and absolutely have for the 2024 ASE bullion, which Magic Mike is trying to give away on TV for less that it would cost a non-bulk submitter to have raw coins slabbed, with no guarantee of 70s. That's my definition of "no premium," and applies when such a high percentage is 70 that there is no reason to attribute a premium to it.

    I haven't been paying attention to 2024 Morgans, since the 2024 Morgan and Peace Dollars have been such a bust. So much so that, again, Magic Mike is on TV selling them raw for below Mint issue price.

    I just checked -- two MS70s sold today on eBay. One for $96 and one for $86. NGC FDOI and CAC First Delivery. Original Mint price was $91. No premium for the coin, and no premium for the 70.

    Maybe an acknowledgement here that I'm right? Or is that too painful to provide, and therefor too much to expect?

    You need to compare the 70 price to the 69 price. They almost always carry a premium.

    And how is 70% not a "substantial majority"?

    Note the premium for the 70s


    Great. But, unfortunately, 2023 isn't 2024.

    In 2023 they easily sold out the uncircs and RPs. Not so much in 2024, when they just had to raise the price by $15 per coin, because a $45 premium to silver content simply is insufficient to cover the cost of making 275K of anything these days. So they needed a $15 increase to deal with a $5 jump in the price of silver, plus whatever other cost increases they are dealing with.

    The end result is no one cares about them anymore, sales decreased from 275K to under 200K in a single year, and 3 months after release, they are selling in the secondary market for the same price the Mint released them at last year, with the 70s now going for a whopping $10 "premium" above that. Likely because the 70 grade through rate is "substantially" above the 70% or so that has become the norm for modern Mint products.

    Just like the denizens of Lake Wobegon, when we are all special, none of us is special. Which is the only point I was trying to make, and it's indisputable. Even if you just need to take a shot at disputing every single thing that springs forth from my keyboard.

    At a 50-70% rate of 70s, there is still room for dealers to get a premium for them, since a "substantial" minority of coins submitted will not achieve the grade. As that drifts into the 80%s and 90%s, not so much.

    If you and your buddy @jwitten want to call recapturing a grading fee to be a "premium," I'm not going to argue, but it's clearly not what a reasonable person would mean. Because no one in their right mind would spend $10 to hopefully get $10 back, and that is certainly not the dealer's modern bulk grading game.

    That's a loss when so many come back 70 that the dealer cannot get a premium for them. In 2023, when they bought coins from the Mint for $76 (less their bulk discount) and got $125+ for them after slabbing, that's a premium.

    Not $86 on a coin that cost $91 (less bulk discount). Even when the raw is going for $76. Only a "premium" literally, in your mind, for the sole purpose of arguing with me. Because it's not a premium after taking into account the cost of getting it in the slab. And certainly not after taking into account of acquiring the coin in the first place. Period.

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jwitten said:
    I was about to respond that a $42 raw coin selling for $60 graded is actually a huge percentage premium, but figured you’d argue against that as well. You think you’re right even when the facts say otherwise. It’s pointless to argue with you.

    @NJCoin said:

    @jwitten said:
    $10 is still a premium. You said they won’t go for a premium. Another case closed.

    Yes, you got me. Recapturing the bulk submission grading fee is absolutely a "premium." Not the premium I was thinking of, and not a premium to the issue price, or a premium to what anyone paid in the first month after release. But yes, a whopping premium over raw. Another case closed. 🤣

    As is the $60 TV price for the 2024 MS70 ASEs that sell for $42 raw, so why didn't you close that case as well, rather than trying to distinguish it by saying it's not a $3000 coin?

    If you seriously think $10 over raw constitutes a premium for a First Delivery CACG MS70 slab, or a NGC FDOI one, I have nothing to say to you, and their businesses are doomed to fail. Because that basically represents the cost of slabbing the coin and shipping it back and forth, on a bulk basis.

    If that's the "premium" dealers can expect, TPGs will pretty soon no longer be a thing, since there will be no reason for dealers to bother with it. So, no, it's not a "premium." It's the disappointment that manifests when the vast majority of coins grade 70, and the market does not place a "premium" on them.

    No one is making money at that "premium." Certainly not the dealer. Or the collector. And, it's not a "premium" that indicates the market values the MS70 over raw, because it doesn't. At that price, it's the slab and the label people are paying for. 🤣

    Yes, I'll argue with it. It's not a huge 70 premium. It's a huge TV markup.

    If they are going for $60 on TV, they are likely going for under $50 in the real world. Not a huge premium.

    And, it didn't occur to you to even try to say that yesterday. But yeah, sure, if you think $42 coins selling for $60 on TV represents and "huge premium," why not get into the game, and go make a killing on them? Apparently lots of money just sitting there waiting for you to go scoop it up. Huge premium. 🤣

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 33,919 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NJCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jwitten said:
    Of course I know how to read. You are now comparing a coin that is over $3,000 to one that is $60. That’s crazy. You did not say a 70 wouldn’t have a large premium, you said it wouldn’t have ANY. Even if most grade 70. That’s just nonsense.

    If you know how to read, go back and reread the post. It's only 7 sentences long.

    I literally said "I am fairly confident that there will be an ample supply of PR70s, at a significant premium to an already significant premium over intrinsic value." Not they wouldn't have ANY premium. I said "significant premium."

    The next paragraph then said, again, verbatim "OTOH, if a substantial majority of them turn out perfect 70, perfect 70s won't carry a premium in the market," and pointed to a recent example where that turned out to be the case, since you asked for data. And finally, the rest of the thought in the post was "so that's not in anyone's interest. ... [s]o that's also unlikely to happen."

    Do I seriously have to take you word by word through a post to explain what it means in English? Because your continuing this clearly shows that you, in fact, do not know how to read. Or, maybe, to understand the meaning of what you are reading.

    A substantial majority often do grade 70. Look at the new Morgan dollars.

    I know. It's exactly what I said.

    50-70% is standard for a modern issue. Significantly above that, which I doubt will happen, will result in premiums disappearing for 70s.

    As they kind of have for the new Morgan Dollars, and absolutely have for the 2024 ASE bullion, which Magic Mike is trying to give away on TV for less that it would cost a non-bulk submitter to have raw coins slabbed, with no guarantee of 70s. That's my definition of "no premium," and applies when such a high percentage is 70 that there is no reason to attribute a premium to it.

    I haven't been paying attention to 2024 Morgans, since the 2024 Morgan and Peace Dollars have been such a bust. So much so that, again, Magic Mike is on TV selling them raw for below Mint issue price.

    I just checked -- two MS70s sold today on eBay. One for $96 and one for $86. NGC FDOI and CAC First Delivery. Original Mint price was $91. No premium for the coin, and no premium for the 70.

    Maybe an acknowledgement here that I'm right? Or is that too painful to provide, and therefor too much to expect?

    You need to compare the 70 price to the 69 price. They almost always carry a premium.

    And how is 70% not a "substantial majority"?

    70% is not a substantial majority since 30% are not, and since that's pretty much the standard nowadays. In any event, I defined my terms, and clearly stated in my post that 50-70%, the norm, would carry a substantial premium. Because people still pay it. Because 30% ain't nothing.

    There are no 69s to compare to, since 70s are so cheap and plentiful. The best I can do is $75-85 in OGP. Close enough, or is the $10 going to constitute a "substantial premium" to you for the sake of winning this argument, even though it is far below the cost of a non-bulk submission? With premium FDOI/First Delivery attribution to boot?

    "Majority"=50.1%

    Perhaps. But only a "substantial majority" to you.

    Please feel free to keep picking away. Because I wasn't clear when I specifically said 50-70% = "substantial premium," and then qualified that by saying "substantial majority" would mean no premium, and likely would not happen.

    So now let's just go full circle, and say substantial majority is the same as majority, and substantial premium is the same as no premium. So I can be wrong, regardless of anything I say.

    I did NOT say that 50.1 is a "substantial majority". I said that 70% is substantial, but you deny even that.

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @jwitten said:
    $10 is still a premium. You said they won’t go for a premium. Another case closed.

    Sigh... the case is never closed. He just keeps redefining terms. 70% is not a "substantial majority" (tell that to Harris and Trump). A premium has to be bigger than the submission fees. Etc.

    I'm not "redefining" anything. I clearly defined my terms in the original post you are picking apart, and apparently simply had an impossible time understanding.

    You can disagree with my definitions, but I was very clear in what I said, and have not backed away from or redefined anything from the original post. You just cannot wrap your head around English words strung together in relatively simple sentences that seek to make a point.

    We are not talking about a presidential election here. We are talking about modern coin grading.

    Here, 50-70% 70s is the norm, and 70s carry a premium. Here, numbers significantly above that constitute a "substantial majority." At least to me.

    And here, coins that grade with a "substantial majoirty" at 70 do not carry premiums. I gave you two examples. You don't like either one. Apparently, because I can never be right. So be it.

    So a coin that costs a dealer $10 to slab, and would cost a customer $30+ to slab, and sells for $10 more than raw, is selling at a "premium," because $10 isn't $0, even though it either barely recaptures costs or not does not come close to recapturing them. Okay, if that's how you want to define premium. In my mind, if no one but the grading service is making money, the graded coin is not selling for a premium.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 33,919 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NJCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jwitten said:
    Of course I know how to read. You are now comparing a coin that is over $3,000 to one that is $60. That’s crazy. You did not say a 70 wouldn’t have a large premium, you said it wouldn’t have ANY. Even if most grade 70. That’s just nonsense.

    If you know how to read, go back and reread the post. It's only 7 sentences long.

    I literally said "I am fairly confident that there will be an ample supply of PR70s, at a significant premium to an already significant premium over intrinsic value." Not they wouldn't have ANY premium. I said "significant premium."

    The next paragraph then said, again, verbatim "OTOH, if a substantial majority of them turn out perfect 70, perfect 70s won't carry a premium in the market," and pointed to a recent example where that turned out to be the case, since you asked for data. And finally, the rest of the thought in the post was "so that's not in anyone's interest. ... [s]o that's also unlikely to happen."

    Do I seriously have to take you word by word through a post to explain what it means in English? Because your continuing this clearly shows that you, in fact, do not know how to read. Or, maybe, to understand the meaning of what you are reading.

    A substantial majority often do grade 70. Look at the new Morgan dollars.

    I know. It's exactly what I said.

    50-70% is standard for a modern issue. Significantly above that, which I doubt will happen, will result in premiums disappearing for 70s.

    As they kind of have for the new Morgan Dollars, and absolutely have for the 2024 ASE bullion, which Magic Mike is trying to give away on TV for less that it would cost a non-bulk submitter to have raw coins slabbed, with no guarantee of 70s. That's my definition of "no premium," and applies when such a high percentage is 70 that there is no reason to attribute a premium to it.

    I haven't been paying attention to 2024 Morgans, since the 2024 Morgan and Peace Dollars have been such a bust. So much so that, again, Magic Mike is on TV selling them raw for below Mint issue price.

    I just checked -- two MS70s sold today on eBay. One for $96 and one for $86. NGC FDOI and CAC First Delivery. Original Mint price was $91. No premium for the coin, and no premium for the 70.

    Maybe an acknowledgement here that I'm right? Or is that too painful to provide, and therefor too much to expect?

    You need to compare the 70 price to the 69 price. They almost always carry a premium.

    And how is 70% not a "substantial majority"?

    Note the premium for the 70s


    Great. But, unfortunately, 2023 isn't 2024.

    In 2023 they easily sold out the uncircs and RPs. Not so much in 2024, when they just had to raise the price by $15 per coin, because a $45 premium to silver content simply is insufficient to cover the cost of making 275K of anything these days. So they needed a $15 increase to deal with a $5 jump in the price of silver, plus whatever other cost increases they are dealing with.

    The end result is no one cares about them anymore, sales decreased from 275K to under 200K in a single year, and 3 months after release, they are selling in the secondary market for the same price the Mint released them at last year, with the 70s now going for a whopping $10 "premium" above that. Likely because the 70 grade through rate is "substantially" above the 70% or so that has become the norm for modern Mint products.

    Just like the denizens of Lake Wobegon, when we are all special, none of us is special. Which is the only point I was trying to make, and it's indisputable. Even if you just need to take a shot at disputing every single thing that springs forth from my keyboard.

    At a 50-70% rate of 70s, there is still room for dealers to get a premium for them, since a "substantial" minority of coins submitted will not achieve the grade. As that drifts into the 80%s and 90%s, not so much.

    If you and your buddy @jwitten want to call recapturing a grading fee to be a "premium," I'm not going to argue, but it's clearly not what a reasonable person would mean. Because no one in their right mind would spend $10 to hopefully get $10 back, and that is certainly not the dealer's modern bulk grading game.

    That's a loss when so many come back 70 that the dealer cannot get a premium for them. In 2023, when they bought coins from the Mint for $76 (less their bulk discount) and got $125+ for them after slabbing, that's a premium.

    Not $86 on a coin that cost $91 (less bulk discount). Even when the raw is going for $76. Only a "premium" literally, in your mind, for the sole purpose of arguing with me. Because it's not a premium after taking into account the cost of getting it in the slab. And certainly not after taking into account of acquiring the coin in the first place. Period.

    The 2023 coins have a 70% 70 population. A substantial majority that you claimed would not carry a premium. And here we are, a year later, and they still carry a premium. You will also find a 70 premium for 2024 coins vs the 69 or raw. But you won't consider the premium large enough to count as a premium. So, I think I'm tapping out along with @jwitten It really doesn't matter other than you end up providing disinformation to any newbie who stumbles across these threads.

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jwitten said:
    Of course I know how to read. You are now comparing a coin that is over $3,000 to one that is $60. That’s crazy. You did not say a 70 wouldn’t have a large premium, you said it wouldn’t have ANY. Even if most grade 70. That’s just nonsense.

    If you know how to read, go back and reread the post. It's only 7 sentences long.

    I literally said "I am fairly confident that there will be an ample supply of PR70s, at a significant premium to an already significant premium over intrinsic value." Not they wouldn't have ANY premium. I said "significant premium."

    The next paragraph then said, again, verbatim "OTOH, if a substantial majority of them turn out perfect 70, perfect 70s won't carry a premium in the market," and pointed to a recent example where that turned out to be the case, since you asked for data. And finally, the rest of the thought in the post was "so that's not in anyone's interest. ... [s]o that's also unlikely to happen."

    Do I seriously have to take you word by word through a post to explain what it means in English? Because your continuing this clearly shows that you, in fact, do not know how to read. Or, maybe, to understand the meaning of what you are reading.

    A substantial majority often do grade 70. Look at the new Morgan dollars.

    I know. It's exactly what I said.

    50-70% is standard for a modern issue. Significantly above that, which I doubt will happen, will result in premiums disappearing for 70s.

    As they kind of have for the new Morgan Dollars, and absolutely have for the 2024 ASE bullion, which Magic Mike is trying to give away on TV for less that it would cost a non-bulk submitter to have raw coins slabbed, with no guarantee of 70s. That's my definition of "no premium," and applies when such a high percentage is 70 that there is no reason to attribute a premium to it.

    I haven't been paying attention to 2024 Morgans, since the 2024 Morgan and Peace Dollars have been such a bust. So much so that, again, Magic Mike is on TV selling them raw for below Mint issue price.

    I just checked -- two MS70s sold today on eBay. One for $96 and one for $86. NGC FDOI and CAC First Delivery. Original Mint price was $91. No premium for the coin, and no premium for the 70.

    Maybe an acknowledgement here that I'm right? Or is that too painful to provide, and therefor too much to expect?

    You need to compare the 70 price to the 69 price. They almost always carry a premium.

    And how is 70% not a "substantial majority"?

    70% is not a substantial majority since 30% are not, and since that's pretty much the standard nowadays. In any event, I defined my terms, and clearly stated in my post that 50-70%, the norm, would carry a substantial premium. Because people still pay it. Because 30% ain't nothing.

    There are no 69s to compare to, since 70s are so cheap and plentiful. The best I can do is $75-85 in OGP. Close enough, or is the $10 going to constitute a "substantial premium" to you for the sake of winning this argument, even though it is far below the cost of a non-bulk submission? With premium FDOI/First Delivery attribution to boot?

    "Majority"=50.1%

    Perhaps. But only a "substantial majority" to you.

    Please feel free to keep picking away. Because I wasn't clear when I specifically said 50-70% = "substantial premium," and then qualified that by saying "substantial majority" would mean no premium, and likely would not happen.

    So now let's just go full circle, and say substantial majority is the same as majority, and substantial premium is the same as no premium. So I can be wrong, regardless of anything I say.

    I did NOT say that 50.1 is a "substantial majority". I said that 70% is substantial, but you deny even that.

    Fair enough. You did not say 50.1% is a substantial majority. But I said 50-70% is the norm, and would carry a premium. I said "substantial majority" is significantly above that. My point, and I am allowed to define my own terms for the sake of my own argument.

    And, again, I'm not wrong. As evidenced by the two coins I showed that are grading 70 at substantially above 70%, and are selling at a discount to the cost of slabbing.

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 29, 2024 6:52AM

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @jwitten said:
    Of course I know how to read. You are now comparing a coin that is over $3,000 to one that is $60. That’s crazy. You did not say a 70 wouldn’t have a large premium, you said it wouldn’t have ANY. Even if most grade 70. That’s just nonsense.

    If you know how to read, go back and reread the post. It's only 7 sentences long.

    I literally said "I am fairly confident that there will be an ample supply of PR70s, at a significant premium to an already significant premium over intrinsic value." Not they wouldn't have ANY premium. I said "significant premium."

    The next paragraph then said, again, verbatim "OTOH, if a substantial majority of them turn out perfect 70, perfect 70s won't carry a premium in the market," and pointed to a recent example where that turned out to be the case, since you asked for data. And finally, the rest of the thought in the post was "so that's not in anyone's interest. ... [s]o that's also unlikely to happen."

    Do I seriously have to take you word by word through a post to explain what it means in English? Because your continuing this clearly shows that you, in fact, do not know how to read. Or, maybe, to understand the meaning of what you are reading.

    A substantial majority often do grade 70. Look at the new Morgan dollars.

    I know. It's exactly what I said.

    50-70% is standard for a modern issue. Significantly above that, which I doubt will happen, will result in premiums disappearing for 70s.

    As they kind of have for the new Morgan Dollars, and absolutely have for the 2024 ASE bullion, which Magic Mike is trying to give away on TV for less that it would cost a non-bulk submitter to have raw coins slabbed, with no guarantee of 70s. That's my definition of "no premium," and applies when such a high percentage is 70 that there is no reason to attribute a premium to it.

    I haven't been paying attention to 2024 Morgans, since the 2024 Morgan and Peace Dollars have been such a bust. So much so that, again, Magic Mike is on TV selling them raw for below Mint issue price.

    I just checked -- two MS70s sold today on eBay. One for $96 and one for $86. NGC FDOI and CAC First Delivery. Original Mint price was $91. No premium for the coin, and no premium for the 70.

    Maybe an acknowledgement here that I'm right? Or is that too painful to provide, and therefor too much to expect?

    You need to compare the 70 price to the 69 price. They almost always carry a premium.

    And how is 70% not a "substantial majority"?

    Note the premium for the 70s


    Great. But, unfortunately, 2023 isn't 2024.

    In 2023 they easily sold out the uncircs and RPs. Not so much in 2024, when they just had to raise the price by $15 per coin, because a $45 premium to silver content simply is insufficient to cover the cost of making 275K of anything these days. So they needed a $15 increase to deal with a $5 jump in the price of silver, plus whatever other cost increases they are dealing with.

    The end result is no one cares about them anymore, sales decreased from 275K to under 200K in a single year, and 3 months after release, they are selling in the secondary market for the same price the Mint released them at last year, with the 70s now going for a whopping $10 "premium" above that. Likely because the 70 grade through rate is "substantially" above the 70% or so that has become the norm for modern Mint products.

    Just like the denizens of Lake Wobegon, when we are all special, none of us is special. Which is the only point I was trying to make, and it's indisputable. Even if you just need to take a shot at disputing every single thing that springs forth from my keyboard.

    At a 50-70% rate of 70s, there is still room for dealers to get a premium for them, since a "substantial" minority of coins submitted will not achieve the grade. As that drifts into the 80%s and 90%s, not so much.

    If you and your buddy @jwitten want to call recapturing a grading fee to be a "premium," I'm not going to argue, but it's clearly not what a reasonable person would mean. Because no one in their right mind would spend $10 to hopefully get $10 back, and that is certainly not the dealer's modern bulk grading game.

    That's a loss when so many come back 70 that the dealer cannot get a premium for them. In 2023, when they bought coins from the Mint for $76 (less their bulk discount) and got $125+ for them after slabbing, that's a premium.

    Not $86 on a coin that cost $91 (less bulk discount). Even when the raw is going for $76. Only a "premium" literally, in your mind, for the sole purpose of arguing with me. Because it's not a premium after taking into account the cost of getting it in the slab. And certainly not after taking into account of acquiring the coin in the first place. Period.

    The 2023 coins have a 70% 70 population. A substantial majority that you claimed would not carry a premium. And here we are, a year later, and they still carry a premium. You will also find a 70 premium for 2024 coins vs the 69 or raw. But you won't consider the premium large enough to count as a premium. So, I think I'm tapping out along with @jwitten It really doesn't matter other than you end up providing disinformation to any newbie who stumbles across these threads.

    Not what I said. Please go back and reread it. Maybe you and @jwitten can go over it together, word by word. Let me know if anything in particular gives you trouble, and I'll try to help.

    For the umpteenth time, I very clearly said:

    "TBD, but they know what their primary market, Big Boys, demand. So I am fairly confident that there will be an ample supply of PR70s, at a significant premium to an already significant premium over intrinsic value, for anyone desiring to acquire one for their collection. It's reasonable to expect the usual 50-70% rate for modern issues, with no significant decrease due to the additional handling. The Mint knows what it is doing here.

    OTOH, if a substantial majority of them turn out perfect 70, perfect 70s won't carry a premium in the market, so that's not in anyone's interest. Other than maybe collectors who just want to buy one from the Mint at issue price and then spend a few bucks to have it slabbed. So that's also unlikely to happen."

    If you don't understand that "OTOH" is meant to distinguish what is about to be said from what was said before, and that a "substantial majority" in this context means substantially more than the 50-70% set forth in the previous paragraph, I'm afraid I can't help you. Are you seriously a teacher, given your difficulty understanding the written word?

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file