@Goldminers said:
Any new word on the rest of the US Mint gold FH non-privy coins?
Since they have to be sold this year because they are coins, it is getting late in the game to market the other 7,500 or so, even if they were actually struck. The real question, is did they actually mint them all, or not? The Mint spokesman statement did not 100% confirm they did.
Any idea who sells the FH gold advance release PCGS 70 Reagan Legacy holders? A large total of 441 PCGS 70's were graded FDOI and FS, but I can't find where to buy them? Not seeing graded 70's for sale at collectpure either?
We should get the new mint sales report for Nov 25 week later today. Still no new 2025 product schedule.
Actually, the Mint spokesperson did definitely, 100% say that 17,500 were struck. Then again, the website showed the Product Limit as 17,500 until it didn't, so who knows?
From Coin World, November 8, 2024:
"Production of the limited-edition Proof 2024 230th Anniversary Flowing Hair, High Relief 1-ounce .9999 fine gold dollar is completed, with the maximum mintage of 17,500 coins executed at the West Point Mint in New York.
U.S. Mint spokesman Michael White confirmed to Coin World via email Oct. 30 that production of the entire authorized mintage was achieved. Retail pricing for the gold coin was to be announced by the U.S. Mint on Nov. 13, the day before the product is put on sale.
Orders will be restricted to one coin per household."
Key words there
"production of the entire authorized mintage"
So what was the "authorized mintage"?
Maximum mintage and authorized mintage might be completely different.
Coinworld makes statement in first paragraph and assumes Whites statement regarding authorized is also 17,500.
Previous post “ Actually, the Mint spokesperson did definitely, 100% say that 17,500 were struck” is not correct.
Not correct only if "entire authorized mintage" means something other than "mintage limit." Which is does not. At least not in English.
If you guys want to twist yourselves in knots to justify thinking nothing they say has its plain meaning, have at it and enjoy yourselves. I'm not playing.
LOL! I'm not playing. You a funny guy. 🤣
Like I said before "The mint will do whatever it wants." You just need to figure out what they mean, or you can just wait and the answer will reveal it's self. Which is what I like to do. So I don't need to justify anything. No knots here.
I'm sorry I forgot, you already know everything, and you haven't been wrong,yet 😂 about either of these Flowing Hair medal/ coins.
It's okay. Everyone makes mistakes. 🤣
It turns out that every mistake I have made relates directly to being given bad information by the Mint, and relying on it. Guilty as charged there.
The mint never gave any bad information. You made ASSumptions about what they told you.
Sure I did. Terrible ASSumption to ASSume they would produce to meet demand up to their announced limit. Because, after all, why would they when can leave literally millions of dollars on the table at the expense of the US Treasury? 🤣
That's on me. Going forward, I now know that what they say means nothing, so I will not pay attention.
All of their information has been 100% accurate. Why does it mean nothing to you? Maybe you should interpret the information for what it says, not what you hope or expect that it says and stop blaming others?
Whatever you say. But, where I come from, 75K =/= 50K, 17.5K =/= 10K, and changing Product Limits on the fly, after an on-sale date, is the exact opposite of "100% accurate." Of course, as with most things in life, YMMV.
Where did they publish those numbers as anything other than a limit? Do you understand what "limit" means? Maybe that's been the problem all along.
So as an example, if the speed limit is 55, you can drive any speed under that and legally be OK. That means you can go 10mph or you can go 40mph or you can go the full 55mph. It does not mean you have to go exactly 55mph.
Great. But this is not a speed limit.
If the mintage limit does not mean the amount the Mint is ready, willing and able to sell, assuming there is sufficient demand, then it means nothing at all, and they might as well say nothing and just do whatever they want. If they are going to produce arbitrary amounts without transparency, there is no reason to publish limits, since people cannot use them to make decisions, either to purchase or not to purchase.
Get a dictionary out, you have a few things to learn:
Mintage limit does not mean "the amount the Mint is ready, willing and able to sell, assuming there is sufficient demand."
"Meaning nothing" does not mean "inaccurate" or "not 100% accurate."
The mint publishes what it wants and it's all been accurate. Whether you take meaning from it is up to you. While your ASSumptions were reasonable, you still can't blame anyone but yourself for relying on them.
Again, whatever you say. If you think changing product limits after the fact is "accurate," I can't help you.
The meaning I take is the plain meaning of the words, according to the dictionary that I already have out, and at the ready. If "entire authorized mintage" does not mean every last coin set forth in the mintage limit, then, again, I can't help you.
If you want to parse every single word, debating the meaning of the word "is" to give credence to what the Mint is doing, I also can't help you.
If the mintage limit is nothing more than an arbitrary number that the Mint might or might not manufacture, at its discretion, based on undisclosed criteria, then, whatever it means to you, it means nothing at all to me. And I'm sure to plenty of others as well.
Which is why they go to trouble of disclosing the number in the first place, and generally sticking to it. We are expected to make buying decisions based on it.
Which is impossible if they don't stick to it, assuming there is demand. If you don't think buying decisions can be changed based on whether a given mintage for a given product at a given price is 10K versus 17.5K, or 50K versus 75K, again, I can't help you.
I'm not sure why they are doing what they are doing now, but they are not doing themselves any favors by not being straight with the people who ultimately give value to whatever they produce.
I hope you don't work in specifications or contracts. It's pretty clear that you don't.
@Rick5280 said:
"mintage limit' = Apple. Means nothing to me.
"entire authorized mintage" = Orange. Means something to me.
Why wouldn't "mintage limit" just mean "we don't make any more than x?" To my knowledge, the mint has never violated that.
Because it means absolutely nothing if it doesn't mean they are willing to make that many if there is demand. In the real world, limiting sales to an amount below the limit would mean that the limit was not really the limit.
That's why. The Mint "violated" the limit in this case by belatedly, after the fact, disclosing a product limit far below the mintage limit after first
@Rick5280 said:
jmlanzaf,
"The "mintage limit" is the "authorized mintage"."
Since when lol?
1) On 2/8/24 the L&B Gold went on sale. The "Mintage Limit" was established to be 10,000 coins max.
2) 30 days later, when orders ceased, approx 5600 coins had been ordered. No more orders were allowed in.
3) The Mint then began to strike the entire "authorized mintage" of approx 5600 coins.
4) Those 5600 coins, after 5 weeks of production began shipping in the middle of May.
5) Apples = Oranges = a good addition to one's diet!
6) I think I'm all "semantic'd" out at the moment!
7) Thank you for you viewpoints on everything, agreeable or not!
I for one, happen to support the Mint for finally doing a good thing with the L&B offer--Mint to demand! Maybe they could've done that with the FHG? Then whoever wanted one, got one, and the USM makes a killing(as if they haven't already).
I congratulated Ventris herself, in person regarding that release while walking past the Mint booth at the ANA show last March.
Today, I'm thinking $3020 per coin wasn't such a bad deal after all.....
That is not correct. Authorized mintage IS the mintage limit. That is how the term has always been used by the Mint. How many they actually strike is a different matter and is referred to as the "mintage" with no adjective . You arbitrarily defined (redefined) "authorized mintage" to mean the number struck. The authorization is determined by either Congress or the Mint when authorizing the issue. This is not really open to debate.
In your example of the L&B gold, only the 10,000 coins would be called the "authorized mintage". Can you show me anyone officially referring to the 5600 coins as "authorized"?
If you Google to three term, you will find that is how it is always used.
@Rick5280 said:
jmlanzaf,
"The "mintage limit" is the "authorized mintage"."
Since when lol?
1) On 2/8/24 the L&B Gold went on sale. The "Mintage Limit" was established to be 10,000 coins max.
2) 30 days later, when orders ceased, approx 5600 coins had been ordered. No more orders were allowed in.
3) The Mint then began to strike the entire "authorized mintage" of approx 5600 coins.
4) Those 5600 coins, after 5 weeks of production began shipping in the middle of May.
5) Apples = Oranges = a good addition to one's diet!
6) I think I'm all "semantic'd" out at the moment!
7) Thank you for you viewpoints on everything, agreeable or not!
I for one, happen to support the Mint for finally doing a good thing with the L&B offer--Mint to demand! Maybe they could've done that with the FHG? Then whoever wanted one, got one, and the USM makes a killing(as if they haven't already).
I congratulated Ventris herself, in person regarding that release while walking past the Mint booth at the ANA show last March.
Today, I'm thinking $3020 per coin wasn't such a bad deal after all.....
Here's a perfect example from the Mint itself. Not that the "authorized mintage" was 150,000 even though they chose to only Mint 30,000 coins.
Respectfully, you are simply misunderstanding what the term has always meant at the Mint.
Did not see any activity this morning and decided to remove my FHG from my bag. Catch & Release is fun but the only way to get one from the mint now is through their auction of the 230 privies!! Got a few thousand dollars sitting around?
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
@HATTRICK said:
It is clear the mint is testing the market to see if can make far more money by special auctions and deals with the big buyers.
It is also clear they have no ethics to follow the rules or care for the little collectors. Get ready for many changes !!!!!!
I don't know about that. Certainly the decision to make a coin variety with only 230 mintage is an elite offering that we could argue should not be made/sold, but I can think of no other fairer way to distribute such a prodcut. It certainly wouldn't be fair to just release them at noon on the website and have the world fight for the proverbial golden ticket that will instantly be worth multiples of the mint issue price for the lucky few (bots?) who get in virtual line first.
No argument about the auction as I said it was a test. However they should show correct Mintage Limits and Product Limits before coins go on sale and not days or weeks after. Also they should block Bots at all times.
Are you sure it was the test? Or just the most fair way to sell 230 special coins? Some people might think that putting 230 for sale on the mint website with a 1 HHL, first come, first serve would be fair (and it's not unfair) but I think an auction is a more fair and practical way to do this with the side effect of maximizing sales proceeds for the mint. I can see the argument that the mint had a profit motive but I will maintain that it was a secondary consideration to how to fairly sell the coins to the people who wanted them the most.
Again the point is they are testing how to maximize profits without regards to the individual buyers.
@Goldminers said:
Any new word on the rest of the US Mint gold FH non-privy coins?
Since they have to be sold this year because they are coins, it is getting late in the game to market the other 7,500 or so, even if they were actually struck. The real question, is did they actually mint them all, or not? The Mint spokesman statement did not 100% confirm they did.
Any idea who sells the FH gold advance release PCGS 70 Reagan Legacy holders? A large total of 441 PCGS 70's were graded FDOI and FS, but I can't find where to buy them? Not seeing graded 70's for sale at collectpure either?
We should get the new mint sales report for Nov 25 week later today. Still no new 2025 product schedule.
Actually, the Mint spokesperson did definitely, 100% say that 17,500 were struck. Then again, the website showed the Product Limit as 17,500 until it didn't, so who knows?
From Coin World, November 8, 2024:
"Production of the limited-edition Proof 2024 230th Anniversary Flowing Hair, High Relief 1-ounce .9999 fine gold dollar is completed, with the maximum mintage of 17,500 coins executed at the West Point Mint in New York.
U.S. Mint spokesman Michael White confirmed to Coin World via email Oct. 30 that production of the entire authorized mintage was achieved. Retail pricing for the gold coin was to be announced by the U.S. Mint on Nov. 13, the day before the product is put on sale.
Orders will be restricted to one coin per household."
Key words there
"production of the entire authorized mintage"
So what was the "authorized mintage"?
Maximum mintage and authorized mintage might be completely different.
Coinworld makes statement in first paragraph and assumes Whites statement regarding authorized is also 17,500.
Previous post “ Actually, the Mint spokesperson did definitely, 100% say that 17,500 were struck” is not correct.
Not correct only if "entire authorized mintage" means something other than "mintage limit." Which is does not. At least not in English.
If you guys want to twist yourselves in knots to justify thinking nothing they say has its plain meaning, have at it and enjoy yourselves. I'm not playing.
LOL! I'm not playing. You a funny guy. 🤣
Like I said before "The mint will do whatever it wants." You just need to figure out what they mean, or you can just wait and the answer will reveal it's self. Which is what I like to do. So I don't need to justify anything. No knots here.
I'm sorry I forgot, you already know everything, and you haven't been wrong,yet 😂 about either of these Flowing Hair medal/ coins.
It's okay. Everyone makes mistakes. 🤣
It turns out that every mistake I have made relates directly to being given bad information by the Mint, and relying on it. Guilty as charged there.
The mint never gave any bad information. You made ASSumptions about what they told you.
Sure I did. Terrible ASSumption to ASSume they would produce to meet demand up to their announced limit. Because, after all, why would they when can leave literally millions of dollars on the table at the expense of the US Treasury? 🤣
That's on me. Going forward, I now know that what they say means nothing, so I will not pay attention.
All of their information has been 100% accurate. Why does it mean nothing to you? Maybe you should interpret the information for what it says, not what you hope or expect that it says and stop blaming others?
Whatever you say. But, where I come from, 75K =/= 50K, 17.5K =/= 10K, and changing Product Limits on the fly, after an on-sale date, is the exact opposite of "100% accurate." Of course, as with most things in life, YMMV.
Where did they publish those numbers as anything other than a limit? Do you understand what "limit" means? Maybe that's been the problem all along.
So as an example, if the speed limit is 55, you can drive any speed under that and legally be OK. That means you can go 10mph or you can go 40mph or you can go the full 55mph. It does not mean you have to go exactly 55mph.
Great. But this is not a speed limit.
If the mintage limit does not mean the amount the Mint is ready, willing and able to sell, assuming there is sufficient demand, then it means nothing at all, and they might as well say nothing and just do whatever they want. If they are going to produce arbitrary amounts without transparency, there is no reason to publish limits, since people cannot use them to make decisions, either to purchase or not to purchase.
Get a dictionary out, you have a few things to learn:
Mintage limit does not mean "the amount the Mint is ready, willing and able to sell, assuming there is sufficient demand."
"Meaning nothing" does not mean "inaccurate" or "not 100% accurate."
The mint publishes what it wants and it's all been accurate. Whether you take meaning from it is up to you. While your ASSumptions were reasonable, you still can't blame anyone but yourself for relying on them.
Again, whatever you say. If you think changing product limits after the fact is "accurate," I can't help you.
The meaning I take is the plain meaning of the words, according to the dictionary that I already have out, and at the ready. If "entire authorized mintage" does not mean every last coin set forth in the mintage limit, then, again, I can't help you.
If you want to parse every single word, debating the meaning of the word "is" to give credence to what the Mint is doing, I also can't help you.
If the mintage limit is nothing more than an arbitrary number that the Mint might or might not manufacture, at its discretion, based on undisclosed criteria, then, whatever it means to you, it means nothing at all to me. And I'm sure to plenty of others as well.
So if a coin has a max mintage of 1M it doesn't mean anything to you compared to a coin with a max mintage of 1000, even knowing they may not make the full limit of either? I don't believe that. a US mint coin with a max mintage of 1M has no interest with me, while a coin with 1000 is quite intriguing.
Which is why they go to trouble of disclosing the number in the first place, and generally sticking to it. We are expected to make buying decisions based on it.
Which is impossible if they don't stick to it, assuming there is demand. If you don't think buying decisions can be changed based on whether a given mintage for a given product at a given price is 10K versus 17.5K, or 50K versus 75K, again, I can't help you.
Isn't it better if they make fewer of them? I don't see why you'd be upset at them making less than they said they would. That falls in the category of "nice surprise" not "stick in the eye."
@Goldminers said:
Any new word on the rest of the US Mint gold FH non-privy coins?
Since they have to be sold this year because they are coins, it is getting late in the game to market the other 7,500 or so, even if they were actually struck. The real question, is did they actually mint them all, or not? The Mint spokesman statement did not 100% confirm they did.
Any idea who sells the FH gold advance release PCGS 70 Reagan Legacy holders? A large total of 441 PCGS 70's were graded FDOI and FS, but I can't find where to buy them? Not seeing graded 70's for sale at collectpure either?
We should get the new mint sales report for Nov 25 week later today. Still no new 2025 product schedule.
Actually, the Mint spokesperson did definitely, 100% say that 17,500 were struck. Then again, the website showed the Product Limit as 17,500 until it didn't, so who knows?
From Coin World, November 8, 2024:
"Production of the limited-edition Proof 2024 230th Anniversary Flowing Hair, High Relief 1-ounce .9999 fine gold dollar is completed, with the maximum mintage of 17,500 coins executed at the West Point Mint in New York.
U.S. Mint spokesman Michael White confirmed to Coin World via email Oct. 30 that production of the entire authorized mintage was achieved. Retail pricing for the gold coin was to be announced by the U.S. Mint on Nov. 13, the day before the product is put on sale.
Orders will be restricted to one coin per household."
Key words there
"production of the entire authorized mintage"
So what was the "authorized mintage"?
Maximum mintage and authorized mintage might be completely different.
Coinworld makes statement in first paragraph and assumes Whites statement regarding authorized is also 17,500.
Previous post “ Actually, the Mint spokesperson did definitely, 100% say that 17,500 were struck” is not correct.
Not correct only if "entire authorized mintage" means something other than "mintage limit." Which is does not. At least not in English.
If you guys want to twist yourselves in knots to justify thinking nothing they say has its plain meaning, have at it and enjoy yourselves. I'm not playing.
LOL! I'm not playing. You a funny guy. 🤣
Like I said before "The mint will do whatever it wants." You just need to figure out what they mean, or you can just wait and the answer will reveal it's self. Which is what I like to do. So I don't need to justify anything. No knots here.
I'm sorry I forgot, you already know everything, and you haven't been wrong,yet 😂 about either of these Flowing Hair medal/ coins.
It's okay. Everyone makes mistakes. 🤣
It turns out that every mistake I have made relates directly to being given bad information by the Mint, and relying on it. Guilty as charged there.
The mint never gave any bad information. You made ASSumptions about what they told you.
Sure I did. Terrible ASSumption to ASSume they would produce to meet demand up to their announced limit. Because, after all, why would they when can leave literally millions of dollars on the table at the expense of the US Treasury? 🤣
That's on me. Going forward, I now know that what they say means nothing, so I will not pay attention.
All of their information has been 100% accurate. Why does it mean nothing to you? Maybe you should interpret the information for what it says, not what you hope or expect that it says and stop blaming others?
Whatever you say. But, where I come from, 75K =/= 50K, 17.5K =/= 10K, and changing Product Limits on the fly, after an on-sale date, is the exact opposite of "100% accurate." Of course, as with most things in life, YMMV.
Where did they publish those numbers as anything other than a limit? Do you understand what "limit" means? Maybe that's been the problem all along.
So as an example, if the speed limit is 55, you can drive any speed under that and legally be OK. That means you can go 10mph or you can go 40mph or you can go the full 55mph. It does not mean you have to go exactly 55mph.
Great. But this is not a speed limit.
If the mintage limit does not mean the amount the Mint is ready, willing and able to sell, assuming there is sufficient demand, then it means nothing at all, and they might as well say nothing and just do whatever they want. If they are going to produce arbitrary amounts without transparency, there is no reason to publish limits, since people cannot use them to make decisions, either to purchase or not to purchase.
Get a dictionary out, you have a few things to learn:
Mintage limit does not mean "the amount the Mint is ready, willing and able to sell, assuming there is sufficient demand."
"Meaning nothing" does not mean "inaccurate" or "not 100% accurate."
The mint publishes what it wants and it's all been accurate. Whether you take meaning from it is up to you. While your ASSumptions were reasonable, you still can't blame anyone but yourself for relying on them.
Again, whatever you say. If you think changing product limits after the fact is "accurate," I can't help you.
The meaning I take is the plain meaning of the words, according to the dictionary that I already have out, and at the ready. If "entire authorized mintage" does not mean every last coin set forth in the mintage limit, then, again, I can't help you.
If you want to parse every single word, debating the meaning of the word "is" to give credence to what the Mint is doing, I also can't help you.
If the mintage limit is nothing more than an arbitrary number that the Mint might or might not manufacture, at its discretion, based on undisclosed criteria, then, whatever it means to you, it means nothing at all to me. And I'm sure to plenty of others as well.
Which is why they go to trouble of disclosing the number in the first place, and generally sticking to it. We are expected to make buying decisions based on it.
Which is impossible if they don't stick to it, assuming there is demand. If you don't think buying decisions can be changed based on whether a given mintage for a given product at a given price is 10K versus 17.5K, or 50K versus 75K, again, I can't help you.
I'm not sure why they are doing what they are doing now, but they are not doing themselves any favors by not being straight with the people who ultimately give value to whatever they produce.
I hope you don't work in specifications or contracts. It's pretty clear that you don't.
@Rick5280 said:
"mintage limit' = Apple. Means nothing to me.
"entire authorized mintage" = Orange. Means something to me.
Why wouldn't "mintage limit" just mean "we don't make any more than x?" To my knowledge, the mint has never violated that.
That's why. The Mint "violated" the limit in this case by belatedly, after the fact, disclosing a product limit far below the mintage limit after first and second day sell outs of quantities far below published mintage limits.
You can't violate a limit by lowering the limit, only exceeding a limit. Here I'll help you:
lim·it
/ˈlimət/
noun
1. a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or pass.
2. a restriction on the size or amount of something permissible or possible.
@HATTRICK said:
It is clear the mint is testing the market to see if can make far more money by special auctions and deals with the big buyers.
It is also clear they have no ethics to follow the rules or care for the little collectors. Get ready for many changes !!!!!!
I don't know about that. Certainly the decision to make a coin variety with only 230 mintage is an elite offering that we could argue should not be made/sold, but I can think of no other fairer way to distribute such a prodcut. It certainly wouldn't be fair to just release them at noon on the website and have the world fight for the proverbial golden ticket that will instantly be worth multiples of the mint issue price for the lucky few (bots?) who get in virtual line first.
No argument about the auction as I said it was a test. However they should show correct Mintage Limits and Product Limits before coins go on sale and not days or weeks after. Also they should block Bots at all times.
Are you sure it was the test? Or just the most fair way to sell 230 special coins? Some people might think that putting 230 for sale on the mint website with a 1 HHL, first come, first serve would be fair (and it's not unfair) but I think an auction is a more fair and practical way to do this with the side effect of maximizing sales proceeds for the mint. I can see the argument that the mint had a profit motive but I will maintain that it was a secondary consideration to how to fairly sell the coins to the people who wanted them the most.
Again the point is they are testing how to maximize profits without regards to the individual buyers.
@Goldminers said:
Any new word on the rest of the US Mint gold FH non-privy coins?
Since they have to be sold this year because they are coins, it is getting late in the game to market the other 7,500 or so, even if they were actually struck. The real question, is did they actually mint them all, or not? The Mint spokesman statement did not 100% confirm they did.
Any idea who sells the FH gold advance release PCGS 70 Reagan Legacy holders? A large total of 441 PCGS 70's were graded FDOI and FS, but I can't find where to buy them? Not seeing graded 70's for sale at collectpure either?
We should get the new mint sales report for Nov 25 week later today. Still no new 2025 product schedule.
Actually, the Mint spokesperson did definitely, 100% say that 17,500 were struck. Then again, the website showed the Product Limit as 17,500 until it didn't, so who knows?
From Coin World, November 8, 2024:
"Production of the limited-edition Proof 2024 230th Anniversary Flowing Hair, High Relief 1-ounce .9999 fine gold dollar is completed, with the maximum mintage of 17,500 coins executed at the West Point Mint in New York.
U.S. Mint spokesman Michael White confirmed to Coin World via email Oct. 30 that production of the entire authorized mintage was achieved. Retail pricing for the gold coin was to be announced by the U.S. Mint on Nov. 13, the day before the product is put on sale.
Orders will be restricted to one coin per household."
Key words there
"production of the entire authorized mintage"
So what was the "authorized mintage"?
Maximum mintage and authorized mintage might be completely different.
Coinworld makes statement in first paragraph and assumes Whites statement regarding authorized is also 17,500.
Previous post “ Actually, the Mint spokesperson did definitely, 100% say that 17,500 were struck” is not correct.
Not correct only if "entire authorized mintage" means something other than "mintage limit." Which is does not. At least not in English.
If you guys want to twist yourselves in knots to justify thinking nothing they say has its plain meaning, have at it and enjoy yourselves. I'm not playing.
LOL! I'm not playing. You a funny guy. 🤣
Like I said before "The mint will do whatever it wants." You just need to figure out what they mean, or you can just wait and the answer will reveal it's self. Which is what I like to do. So I don't need to justify anything. No knots here.
I'm sorry I forgot, you already know everything, and you haven't been wrong,yet 😂 about either of these Flowing Hair medal/ coins.
It's okay. Everyone makes mistakes. 🤣
It turns out that every mistake I have made relates directly to being given bad information by the Mint, and relying on it. Guilty as charged there.
The mint never gave any bad information. You made ASSumptions about what they told you.
Sure I did. Terrible ASSumption to ASSume they would produce to meet demand up to their announced limit. Because, after all, why would they when can leave literally millions of dollars on the table at the expense of the US Treasury? 🤣
That's on me. Going forward, I now know that what they say means nothing, so I will not pay attention.
All of their information has been 100% accurate. Why does it mean nothing to you? Maybe you should interpret the information for what it says, not what you hope or expect that it says and stop blaming others?
Whatever you say. But, where I come from, 75K =/= 50K, 17.5K =/= 10K, and changing Product Limits on the fly, after an on-sale date, is the exact opposite of "100% accurate." Of course, as with most things in life, YMMV.
Where did they publish those numbers as anything other than a limit? Do you understand what "limit" means? Maybe that's been the problem all along.
So as an example, if the speed limit is 55, you can drive any speed under that and legally be OK. That means you can go 10mph or you can go 40mph or you can go the full 55mph. It does not mean you have to go exactly 55mph.
Great. But this is not a speed limit.
If the mintage limit does not mean the amount the Mint is ready, willing and able to sell, assuming there is sufficient demand, then it means nothing at all, and they might as well say nothing and just do whatever they want. If they are going to produce arbitrary amounts without transparency, there is no reason to publish limits, since people cannot use them to make decisions, either to purchase or not to purchase.
Get a dictionary out, you have a few things to learn:
Mintage limit does not mean "the amount the Mint is ready, willing and able to sell, assuming there is sufficient demand."
"Meaning nothing" does not mean "inaccurate" or "not 100% accurate."
The mint publishes what it wants and it's all been accurate. Whether you take meaning from it is up to you. While your ASSumptions were reasonable, you still can't blame anyone but yourself for relying on them.
Again, whatever you say. If you think changing product limits after the fact is "accurate," I can't help you.
The meaning I take is the plain meaning of the words, according to the dictionary that I already have out, and at the ready. If "entire authorized mintage" does not mean every last coin set forth in the mintage limit, then, again, I can't help you.
If you want to parse every single word, debating the meaning of the word "is" to give credence to what the Mint is doing, I also can't help you.
If the mintage limit is nothing more than an arbitrary number that the Mint might or might not manufacture, at its discretion, based on undisclosed criteria, then, whatever it means to you, it means nothing at all to me. And I'm sure to plenty of others as well.
So if a coin has a max mintage of 1M it doesn't mean anything to you compared to a coin with a max mintage of 1000, even knowing they may not make the full limit of either? I don't believe that. a US mint coin with a max mintage of 1M has no interest with me, while a coin with 1000 is quite intriguing.
Which is why they go to trouble of disclosing the number in the first place, and generally sticking to it. We are expected to make buying decisions based on it.
Which is impossible if they don't stick to it, assuming there is demand. If you don't think buying decisions can be changed based on whether a given mintage for a given product at a given price is 10K versus 17.5K, or 50K versus 75K, again, I can't help you.
Isn't it better if they make fewer of them? I don't see why you'd be upset at them making less than they said they would. That falls in the category of "nice surprise" not "stick in the eye."
@Goldminers said:
Any new word on the rest of the US Mint gold FH non-privy coins?
Since they have to be sold this year because they are coins, it is getting late in the game to market the other 7,500 or so, even if they were actually struck. The real question, is did they actually mint them all, or not? The Mint spokesman statement did not 100% confirm they did.
Any idea who sells the FH gold advance release PCGS 70 Reagan Legacy holders? A large total of 441 PCGS 70's were graded FDOI and FS, but I can't find where to buy them? Not seeing graded 70's for sale at collectpure either?
We should get the new mint sales report for Nov 25 week later today. Still no new 2025 product schedule.
Actually, the Mint spokesperson did definitely, 100% say that 17,500 were struck. Then again, the website showed the Product Limit as 17,500 until it didn't, so who knows?
From Coin World, November 8, 2024:
"Production of the limited-edition Proof 2024 230th Anniversary Flowing Hair, High Relief 1-ounce .9999 fine gold dollar is completed, with the maximum mintage of 17,500 coins executed at the West Point Mint in New York.
U.S. Mint spokesman Michael White confirmed to Coin World via email Oct. 30 that production of the entire authorized mintage was achieved. Retail pricing for the gold coin was to be announced by the U.S. Mint on Nov. 13, the day before the product is put on sale.
Orders will be restricted to one coin per household."
Key words there
"production of the entire authorized mintage"
So what was the "authorized mintage"?
Maximum mintage and authorized mintage might be completely different.
Coinworld makes statement in first paragraph and assumes Whites statement regarding authorized is also 17,500.
Previous post “ Actually, the Mint spokesperson did definitely, 100% say that 17,500 were struck” is not correct.
Not correct only if "entire authorized mintage" means something other than "mintage limit." Which is does not. At least not in English.
If you guys want to twist yourselves in knots to justify thinking nothing they say has its plain meaning, have at it and enjoy yourselves. I'm not playing.
LOL! I'm not playing. You a funny guy. 🤣
Like I said before "The mint will do whatever it wants." You just need to figure out what they mean, or you can just wait and the answer will reveal it's self. Which is what I like to do. So I don't need to justify anything. No knots here.
I'm sorry I forgot, you already know everything, and you haven't been wrong,yet 😂 about either of these Flowing Hair medal/ coins.
It's okay. Everyone makes mistakes. 🤣
It turns out that every mistake I have made relates directly to being given bad information by the Mint, and relying on it. Guilty as charged there.
The mint never gave any bad information. You made ASSumptions about what they told you.
Sure I did. Terrible ASSumption to ASSume they would produce to meet demand up to their announced limit. Because, after all, why would they when can leave literally millions of dollars on the table at the expense of the US Treasury? 🤣
That's on me. Going forward, I now know that what they say means nothing, so I will not pay attention.
All of their information has been 100% accurate. Why does it mean nothing to you? Maybe you should interpret the information for what it says, not what you hope or expect that it says and stop blaming others?
Whatever you say. But, where I come from, 75K =/= 50K, 17.5K =/= 10K, and changing Product Limits on the fly, after an on-sale date, is the exact opposite of "100% accurate." Of course, as with most things in life, YMMV.
Where did they publish those numbers as anything other than a limit? Do you understand what "limit" means? Maybe that's been the problem all along.
So as an example, if the speed limit is 55, you can drive any speed under that and legally be OK. That means you can go 10mph or you can go 40mph or you can go the full 55mph. It does not mean you have to go exactly 55mph.
Great. But this is not a speed limit.
If the mintage limit does not mean the amount the Mint is ready, willing and able to sell, assuming there is sufficient demand, then it means nothing at all, and they might as well say nothing and just do whatever they want. If they are going to produce arbitrary amounts without transparency, there is no reason to publish limits, since people cannot use them to make decisions, either to purchase or not to purchase.
Get a dictionary out, you have a few things to learn:
Mintage limit does not mean "the amount the Mint is ready, willing and able to sell, assuming there is sufficient demand."
"Meaning nothing" does not mean "inaccurate" or "not 100% accurate."
The mint publishes what it wants and it's all been accurate. Whether you take meaning from it is up to you. While your ASSumptions were reasonable, you still can't blame anyone but yourself for relying on them.
Again, whatever you say. If you think changing product limits after the fact is "accurate," I can't help you.
The meaning I take is the plain meaning of the words, according to the dictionary that I already have out, and at the ready. If "entire authorized mintage" does not mean every last coin set forth in the mintage limit, then, again, I can't help you.
If you want to parse every single word, debating the meaning of the word "is" to give credence to what the Mint is doing, I also can't help you.
If the mintage limit is nothing more than an arbitrary number that the Mint might or might not manufacture, at its discretion, based on undisclosed criteria, then, whatever it means to you, it means nothing at all to me. And I'm sure to plenty of others as well.
Which is why they go to trouble of disclosing the number in the first place, and generally sticking to it. We are expected to make buying decisions based on it.
Which is impossible if they don't stick to it, assuming there is demand. If you don't think buying decisions can be changed based on whether a given mintage for a given product at a given price is 10K versus 17.5K, or 50K versus 75K, again, I can't help you.
I'm not sure why they are doing what they are doing now, but they are not doing themselves any favors by not being straight with the people who ultimately give value to whatever they produce.
I hope you don't work in specifications or contracts. It's pretty clear that you don't.
@Rick5280 said:
"mintage limit' = Apple. Means nothing to me.
"entire authorized mintage" = Orange. Means something to me.
Why wouldn't "mintage limit" just mean "we don't make any more than x?" To my knowledge, the mint has never violated that.
That's why. The Mint "violated" the limit in this case by belatedly, after the fact, disclosing a product limit far below the mintage limit after first and second day sell outs of quantities far below published mintage limits.
You can't violate a limit by lowering the limit, only exceeding a limit. Here I'll help you:
lim·it
/ˈlimət/
noun
1. a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or pass.
2. a restriction on the size or amount of something permissible or possible.
🤣🤣🤣
Sure. Fair. Now they are concerned about "fair," after giving ABPP access to an over allocation of silver medals based on a mintage limit they had no intention of hitting, and then over seeded their sealed boxes with privys.
Now, they are interested in fairness, not extracting every last dollar of value to be extracted from their artificial rarity by sending the coins off to be graded before being offered to the highest bidder in an auction. Whatever you say.
As far as maximum mintages go, sure the delta between 1,000,000 and 1,000 is a little extreme, but both mean nothing if they are only going to be making 500 in each case. They owe us honesty and transparency. Not games.
In this case, I am quite sure there are people who would have been interested at 50K and 10K who took a pass at 75K and 17.5K, and are now unhappy. Just like others will be unhappy if the missing 25K and 7.5K appear at some point in the future.
Then, we can revisit "fair" and "100% accurate." In the meantime, I'd like to give a special shout-out to @jmlanzaf.
He was among the first to recognize the silver medals might have been capped at 50K, weeks before the Mint acknowledged it. He has been saying all along they can go back and make the missing 25K any time they want, even though the Mint has said they won't. The Mint reduced the Product Limit to 50K, but kept the Mintage Limit intact at 75K. Based on what the Mint later did with the gold coins, I am now more inclined to believe @jmlanzaf than the Mint.
The Mint has unequivocally stated they made 17.5K gold coins, even though they went back and revised the Product Limit to 10K. Put this together, along with everything the Mint isn't saying, and the fact that a bunch of similar product is going to be hitting the street between now and 2026, and it's not crazy to speculate that the unminted and unsold product is going to appear at some time in some form, likely packaged together, and maybe in a set with future offerings, rather than having the Mint, in the interest of "fairness" to people paying inflated prices on the secondary market based on current reported product limits and Mint statements, leave millions of dollars in unrealized profit on the table.
I am free to speculate because nothing the Mint has said about this product can be taken at face value, given the games they have been playing. Product limits changing after the fact. Items being minted and held back. Or not minted at all, after they announced to the press that they were. Privys being seeded in fewer medals than previously disclosed. Etc.
They really owe us explanations, but I'm not holding my breath.
@HATTRICK said:
It is clear the mint is testing the market to see if can make far more money by special auctions and deals with the big buyers.
It is also clear they have no ethics to follow the rules or care for the little collectors. Get ready for many changes !!!!!!
I don't know about that. Certainly the decision to make a coin variety with only 230 mintage is an elite offering that we could argue should not be made/sold, but I can think of no other fairer way to distribute such a prodcut. It certainly wouldn't be fair to just release them at noon on the website and have the world fight for the proverbial golden ticket that will instantly be worth multiples of the mint issue price for the lucky few (bots?) who get in virtual line first.
No argument about the auction as I said it was a test. However they should show correct Mintage Limits and Product Limits before coins go on sale and not days or weeks after. Also they should block Bots at all times.
Are you sure it was the test? Or just the most fair way to sell 230 special coins? Some people might think that putting 230 for sale on the mint website with a 1 HHL, first come, first serve would be fair (and it's not unfair) but I think an auction is a more fair and practical way to do this with the side effect of maximizing sales proceeds for the mint. I can see the argument that the mint had a profit motive but I will maintain that it was a secondary consideration to how to fairly sell the coins to the people who wanted them the most.
Again the point is they are testing how to maximize profits without regards to the individual buyers.
@Goldminers said:
Any new word on the rest of the US Mint gold FH non-privy coins?
Since they have to be sold this year because they are coins, it is getting late in the game to market the other 7,500 or so, even if they were actually struck. The real question, is did they actually mint them all, or not? The Mint spokesman statement did not 100% confirm they did.
Any idea who sells the FH gold advance release PCGS 70 Reagan Legacy holders? A large total of 441 PCGS 70's were graded FDOI and FS, but I can't find where to buy them? Not seeing graded 70's for sale at collectpure either?
We should get the new mint sales report for Nov 25 week later today. Still no new 2025 product schedule.
Actually, the Mint spokesperson did definitely, 100% say that 17,500 were struck. Then again, the website showed the Product Limit as 17,500 until it didn't, so who knows?
From Coin World, November 8, 2024:
"Production of the limited-edition Proof 2024 230th Anniversary Flowing Hair, High Relief 1-ounce .9999 fine gold dollar is completed, with the maximum mintage of 17,500 coins executed at the West Point Mint in New York.
U.S. Mint spokesman Michael White confirmed to Coin World via email Oct. 30 that production of the entire authorized mintage was achieved. Retail pricing for the gold coin was to be announced by the U.S. Mint on Nov. 13, the day before the product is put on sale.
Orders will be restricted to one coin per household."
Key words there
"production of the entire authorized mintage"
So what was the "authorized mintage"?
Maximum mintage and authorized mintage might be completely different.
Coinworld makes statement in first paragraph and assumes Whites statement regarding authorized is also 17,500.
Previous post “ Actually, the Mint spokesperson did definitely, 100% say that 17,500 were struck” is not correct.
Not correct only if "entire authorized mintage" means something other than "mintage limit." Which is does not. At least not in English.
If you guys want to twist yourselves in knots to justify thinking nothing they say has its plain meaning, have at it and enjoy yourselves. I'm not playing.
LOL! I'm not playing. You a funny guy. 🤣
Like I said before "The mint will do whatever it wants." You just need to figure out what they mean, or you can just wait and the answer will reveal it's self. Which is what I like to do. So I don't need to justify anything. No knots here.
I'm sorry I forgot, you already know everything, and you haven't been wrong,yet 😂 about either of these Flowing Hair medal/ coins.
It's okay. Everyone makes mistakes. 🤣
It turns out that every mistake I have made relates directly to being given bad information by the Mint, and relying on it. Guilty as charged there.
The mint never gave any bad information. You made ASSumptions about what they told you.
Sure I did. Terrible ASSumption to ASSume they would produce to meet demand up to their announced limit. Because, after all, why would they when can leave literally millions of dollars on the table at the expense of the US Treasury? 🤣
That's on me. Going forward, I now know that what they say means nothing, so I will not pay attention.
All of their information has been 100% accurate. Why does it mean nothing to you? Maybe you should interpret the information for what it says, not what you hope or expect that it says and stop blaming others?
Whatever you say. But, where I come from, 75K =/= 50K, 17.5K =/= 10K, and changing Product Limits on the fly, after an on-sale date, is the exact opposite of "100% accurate." Of course, as with most things in life, YMMV.
Where did they publish those numbers as anything other than a limit? Do you understand what "limit" means? Maybe that's been the problem all along.
So as an example, if the speed limit is 55, you can drive any speed under that and legally be OK. That means you can go 10mph or you can go 40mph or you can go the full 55mph. It does not mean you have to go exactly 55mph.
Great. But this is not a speed limit.
If the mintage limit does not mean the amount the Mint is ready, willing and able to sell, assuming there is sufficient demand, then it means nothing at all, and they might as well say nothing and just do whatever they want. If they are going to produce arbitrary amounts without transparency, there is no reason to publish limits, since people cannot use them to make decisions, either to purchase or not to purchase.
Get a dictionary out, you have a few things to learn:
Mintage limit does not mean "the amount the Mint is ready, willing and able to sell, assuming there is sufficient demand."
"Meaning nothing" does not mean "inaccurate" or "not 100% accurate."
The mint publishes what it wants and it's all been accurate. Whether you take meaning from it is up to you. While your ASSumptions were reasonable, you still can't blame anyone but yourself for relying on them.
Again, whatever you say. If you think changing product limits after the fact is "accurate," I can't help you.
The meaning I take is the plain meaning of the words, according to the dictionary that I already have out, and at the ready. If "entire authorized mintage" does not mean every last coin set forth in the mintage limit, then, again, I can't help you.
If you want to parse every single word, debating the meaning of the word "is" to give credence to what the Mint is doing, I also can't help you.
If the mintage limit is nothing more than an arbitrary number that the Mint might or might not manufacture, at its discretion, based on undisclosed criteria, then, whatever it means to you, it means nothing at all to me. And I'm sure to plenty of others as well.
So if a coin has a max mintage of 1M it doesn't mean anything to you compared to a coin with a max mintage of 1000, even knowing they may not make the full limit of either? I don't believe that. a US mint coin with a max mintage of 1M has no interest with me, while a coin with 1000 is quite intriguing.
Which is why they go to trouble of disclosing the number in the first place, and generally sticking to it. We are expected to make buying decisions based on it.
Which is impossible if they don't stick to it, assuming there is demand. If you don't think buying decisions can be changed based on whether a given mintage for a given product at a given price is 10K versus 17.5K, or 50K versus 75K, again, I can't help you.
Isn't it better if they make fewer of them? I don't see why you'd be upset at them making less than they said they would. That falls in the category of "nice surprise" not "stick in the eye."
@Goldminers said:
Any new word on the rest of the US Mint gold FH non-privy coins?
Since they have to be sold this year because they are coins, it is getting late in the game to market the other 7,500 or so, even if they were actually struck. The real question, is did they actually mint them all, or not? The Mint spokesman statement did not 100% confirm they did.
Any idea who sells the FH gold advance release PCGS 70 Reagan Legacy holders? A large total of 441 PCGS 70's were graded FDOI and FS, but I can't find where to buy them? Not seeing graded 70's for sale at collectpure either?
We should get the new mint sales report for Nov 25 week later today. Still no new 2025 product schedule.
Actually, the Mint spokesperson did definitely, 100% say that 17,500 were struck. Then again, the website showed the Product Limit as 17,500 until it didn't, so who knows?
From Coin World, November 8, 2024:
"Production of the limited-edition Proof 2024 230th Anniversary Flowing Hair, High Relief 1-ounce .9999 fine gold dollar is completed, with the maximum mintage of 17,500 coins executed at the West Point Mint in New York.
U.S. Mint spokesman Michael White confirmed to Coin World via email Oct. 30 that production of the entire authorized mintage was achieved. Retail pricing for the gold coin was to be announced by the U.S. Mint on Nov. 13, the day before the product is put on sale.
Orders will be restricted to one coin per household."
Key words there
"production of the entire authorized mintage"
So what was the "authorized mintage"?
Maximum mintage and authorized mintage might be completely different.
Coinworld makes statement in first paragraph and assumes Whites statement regarding authorized is also 17,500.
Previous post “ Actually, the Mint spokesperson did definitely, 100% say that 17,500 were struck” is not correct.
Not correct only if "entire authorized mintage" means something other than "mintage limit." Which is does not. At least not in English.
If you guys want to twist yourselves in knots to justify thinking nothing they say has its plain meaning, have at it and enjoy yourselves. I'm not playing.
LOL! I'm not playing. You a funny guy. 🤣
Like I said before "The mint will do whatever it wants." You just need to figure out what they mean, or you can just wait and the answer will reveal it's self. Which is what I like to do. So I don't need to justify anything. No knots here.
I'm sorry I forgot, you already know everything, and you haven't been wrong,yet 😂 about either of these Flowing Hair medal/ coins.
It's okay. Everyone makes mistakes. 🤣
It turns out that every mistake I have made relates directly to being given bad information by the Mint, and relying on it. Guilty as charged there.
The mint never gave any bad information. You made ASSumptions about what they told you.
Sure I did. Terrible ASSumption to ASSume they would produce to meet demand up to their announced limit. Because, after all, why would they when can leave literally millions of dollars on the table at the expense of the US Treasury? 🤣
That's on me. Going forward, I now know that what they say means nothing, so I will not pay attention.
All of their information has been 100% accurate. Why does it mean nothing to you? Maybe you should interpret the information for what it says, not what you hope or expect that it says and stop blaming others?
Whatever you say. But, where I come from, 75K =/= 50K, 17.5K =/= 10K, and changing Product Limits on the fly, after an on-sale date, is the exact opposite of "100% accurate." Of course, as with most things in life, YMMV.
Where did they publish those numbers as anything other than a limit? Do you understand what "limit" means? Maybe that's been the problem all along.
So as an example, if the speed limit is 55, you can drive any speed under that and legally be OK. That means you can go 10mph or you can go 40mph or you can go the full 55mph. It does not mean you have to go exactly 55mph.
Great. But this is not a speed limit.
If the mintage limit does not mean the amount the Mint is ready, willing and able to sell, assuming there is sufficient demand, then it means nothing at all, and they might as well say nothing and just do whatever they want. If they are going to produce arbitrary amounts without transparency, there is no reason to publish limits, since people cannot use them to make decisions, either to purchase or not to purchase.
Get a dictionary out, you have a few things to learn:
Mintage limit does not mean "the amount the Mint is ready, willing and able to sell, assuming there is sufficient demand."
"Meaning nothing" does not mean "inaccurate" or "not 100% accurate."
The mint publishes what it wants and it's all been accurate. Whether you take meaning from it is up to you. While your ASSumptions were reasonable, you still can't blame anyone but yourself for relying on them.
Again, whatever you say. If you think changing product limits after the fact is "accurate," I can't help you.
The meaning I take is the plain meaning of the words, according to the dictionary that I already have out, and at the ready. If "entire authorized mintage" does not mean every last coin set forth in the mintage limit, then, again, I can't help you.
If you want to parse every single word, debating the meaning of the word "is" to give credence to what the Mint is doing, I also can't help you.
If the mintage limit is nothing more than an arbitrary number that the Mint might or might not manufacture, at its discretion, based on undisclosed criteria, then, whatever it means to you, it means nothing at all to me. And I'm sure to plenty of others as well.
Which is why they go to trouble of disclosing the number in the first place, and generally sticking to it. We are expected to make buying decisions based on it.
Which is impossible if they don't stick to it, assuming there is demand. If you don't think buying decisions can be changed based on whether a given mintage for a given product at a given price is 10K versus 17.5K, or 50K versus 75K, again, I can't help you.
I'm not sure why they are doing what they are doing now, but they are not doing themselves any favors by not being straight with the people who ultimately give value to whatever they produce.
I hope you don't work in specifications or contracts. It's pretty clear that you don't.
@Rick5280 said:
"mintage limit' = Apple. Means nothing to me.
"entire authorized mintage" = Orange. Means something to me.
Why wouldn't "mintage limit" just mean "we don't make any more than x?" To my knowledge, the mint has never violated that.
That's why. The Mint "violated" the limit in this case by belatedly, after the fact, disclosing a product limit far below the mintage limit after first and second day sell outs of quantities far below published mintage limits.
You can't violate a limit by lowering the limit, only exceeding a limit. Here I'll help you:
lim·it
/ˈlimət/
noun
1. a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or pass.
2. a restriction on the size or amount of something permissible or possible.
🤣🤣🤣
Sure. Fair. Now they are concerned about "fair," after giving ABPP access to an over allocation of silver medals based on a mintage limit they had no intention of hitting, and then over seeded their sealed boxes with privys.
Now, they are interested in fairness, not extracting every last dollar of value to be extracted from their artificial rarity by sending the coins off to be graded before being offered to the highest bidder in an auction. Whatever you say.
As far as maximum mintages go, sure the delta between 1,000,000 and 1,000 is a little extreme, but both mean nothing if they are only going to be making 500 in each case. They owe us honesty and transparency. Not games.
In this case, I am quite sure there are people who would have been interested at 50K and 10K who took a pass at 75K and 17.5K, and are now unhappy. Just like others will be unhappy if the missing 25K and 7.5K appear at some point in the future.
Then, we can revisit "fair" and "100% accurate." In the meantime, I'd like to give a special shout-out to @jmlanzaf.
He was among the first to recognize the silver medals might have been capped at 50K, weeks before the Mint acknowledged it. He has been saying all along they can go back and make the missing 25K any time they want, even though the Mint has said they won't. The Mint reduced the Product Limit to 50K, but kept the Mintage Limit intact at 75K. Based on what the Mint later did with the gold coins, I am now more inclined to believe @jmlanzaf than the Mint.
The Mint has unequivocally stated they made 17.5K gold coins, even though they went back and revised the Product Limit to 10K. Put this together, along with everything the Mint isn't saying, and the fact that a bunch of similar product is going to be hitting the street between now and 2026, and it's not crazy to speculate that the unminted and unsold product is going to appear at some time in some form, likely packaged together, and maybe in a set with future offerings, rather than having the Mint, in the interest of "fairness" to people paying inflated prices on the secondary market based on current reported product limits and Mint statements, leave millions of dollars in unrealized profit on the table.
I am free to speculate because nothing the Mint has said about this product can be taken at face value, given the games they have been playing. Product limits changing after the fact. Items being minted and held back. Or not minted at all, after they announced to the press that they were. Privys being seeded in fewer medals than previously disclosed. Etc.
They really owe us explanations, but I'm not holding my breath.
So much misinformation being spread regarding limits and misperceived idea that mint is obligated to mint up to limits. The mint never said they produced 17,500 gold. Coinworld presented that the mint relayed that information.
Limits are limits. Not always production numbers.
For the people that comprehend this here is a case study where mintages can be compared:
@Liquidated said:
So much misinformation being spread regarding limits and misperceived idea that mint is obligated to mint up to limits. The mint never said they produced 17,500 gold. Coinworld presented that the mint relayed that information.
Limits are limits. Not always production numbers.
For the people that comprehend this here is a case study where mintages can be compared:
Yes, the Mint literally said they produced 17,500 gold. Just because Ventris didn't personally call you to deliver the news does not mean that the Mint never said it. An authorized Mint spokesperson announced it to the world via Coin World.
"Production of the limited-edition Proof 2024 230th Anniversary Flowing Hair, High Relief 1-ounce .9999 fine gold dollar is completed, with the maximum mintage of 17,500 coins executed at the West Point Mint in New York.
U.S. Mint spokesman Michael White confirmed to Coin World via email Oct. 30 that production of the entire authorized mintage was achieved."
Coin World published this on November 8, 2024. It is now November 28, 2024. There has been no subsequent correction or retraction because anyone at the Mint thinks that "entire authorized mintage" means anything other than 17,500 coins.
And, sure, while limits are not production numbers, failure to reach a limit when there is demand requires an explanation. Otherwise, the limit really is meaningless if it's not meant to be an indication of the maximum that will be produced and sold, should demand warrant. If they intend to make less, regardless of demand, that really is the effective limit, and should be communicated as such.
In this case, given all the wordsmithing and games, it is becoming obvious that more is going on than meets the eye. Under the circumstances, it is extremely to reasonable to speculate that we have not seen the last of either of these two products from the Mint, since Product Limits have been reduced to correspond to what they have made available for sale to date, but Mintage Limits have not been reduced accordingly.
Also, do you even understand what is set forth in the link you posted? The Product Limit is 10K lower than the Mintage Limit for each individual coin because they also made exactly 10K coins of each denomination available in a 4 coin set. In 2006, they made available for sale exactly the number of coins they said they would.
If you understood this, you probably wouldn't have posted it, because it proves my point, not yours! Maybe next time you will take the time to "comprehend" your own "case study" before posting.
They will likely do the same thing here with respect to Product Limits and Mintage Limits, i.e., make the missing mintage available in the form of another product, given that there is still unsatisfied demand. Except now, there is no transparency and no announcement.
Just a lot of rationalizations by some on this forum, and rampant speculation due to misleading and conflicting information provided by the Mint. Mintage Limits initially equaled Product Limits for both the gold and silver.
Then they went on sale, in an amount below the published limits. This was not announced ahead of time. Product Limits were later revised downward, but not Mintage Limits. Bad information and no transparency.
@Liquidated said:
So much misinformation being spread regarding limits and misperceived idea that mint is obligated to mint up to limits. The mint never said they produced 17,500 gold. Coinworld presented that the mint relayed that information.
Limits are limits. Not always production numbers.
Yes, the Mint literally said they produced 17,500 gold. Just because Ventris didn't personally call you to deliver the news does not mean that the Mint never said it. An authorized Mint spokesperson announced it to the world via Coin World.
I was at the Baltimore Whitman Coin Expo and bought one Au FH on Thursday, November 14th.
I returned the next day and asked the Mint representative behind the counter, "How many of the Gold FH coins were sold?"
Without hesitation he said, "We sold 17,500 coins."
I then rephrased the question and asked, "No, I meant how many were sold at this show?"
He then said, "We sold 500 coins here in Baltimore."
@Liquidated said:
So much misinformation being spread regarding limits and misperceived idea that mint is obligated to mint up to limits. The mint never said they produced 17,500 gold. Coinworld presented that the mint relayed that information.
Limits are limits. Not always production numbers.
For the people that comprehend this here is a case study where mintages can be compared:
Yes, the Mint literally said they produced 17,500 gold. Just because Ventris didn't personally call you to deliver the news does not mean that the Mint never said it. An authorized Mint spokesperson announced it to the world via Coin World.
"Production of the limited-edition Proof 2024 230th Anniversary Flowing Hair, High Relief 1-ounce .9999 fine gold dollar is completed, with the maximum mintage of 17,500 coins executed at the West Point Mint in New York.
U.S. Mint spokesman Michael White confirmed to Coin World via email Oct. 30 that production of the entire authorized mintage was achieved."
Coin World published this on November 8, 2024. It is now November 28, 2024. There has been no subsequent correction or retraction because anyone at the Mint thinks that "entire authorized mintage" means anything other than 17,500 coins.
And, sure, while limits are not production numbers, failure to reach a limit when there is demand requires an explanation. Otherwise, the limit really is meaningless if it's not meant to be an indication of the maximum that will be produced and sold, should demand warrant. If they intend to make less, regardless of demand, that really is the effective limit, and should be communicated as such.
In this case, given all the wordsmithing and games, it is becoming obvious that more is going on than meets the eye. Under the circumstances, it is extremely to reasonable to speculate that we have not seen the last of either of these two products from the Mint, since Product Limits have been reduced to correspond to what they have made available for sale to date, but Mintage Limits have not been reduced accordingly.
Also, do you even understand what is set forth in the link you posted? The Product Limit is 10K lower than the Mintage Limit for each individual coin because they also made exactly 10K coins of each denomination available in a 4 coin set. In 2006, they made available for sale exactly the number of coins they said they would.
If you understood this, you probably wouldn't have posted it, because it proves my point, not yours! Maybe next time you will take the time to "comprehend" your own "case study" before posting.
They will likely do the same thing here with respect to Product Limits and Mintage Limits, i.e., make the missing mintage available in the form of another product, given that there is still unsatisfied demand. Except now, there is no transparency and no announcement. Just a lot of rationalizations by some on this forum, and rampant speculation due to misleading and conflicting information provided by the Mint.
@Liquidated said:
So much misinformation being spread regarding limits and misperceived idea that mint is obligated to mint up to limits. The mint never said they produced 17,500 gold. Coinworld presented that the mint relayed that information.
Limits are limits. Not always production numbers.
Yes, the Mint literally said they produced 17,500 gold. Just because Ventris didn't personally call you to deliver the news does not mean that the Mint never said it. An authorized Mint spokesperson announced it to the world via Coin World.
I was at the Baltimore Whitman Coin Expo and bought one Au FH on Thursday, November 14th.
I returned the next day and asked the Mint representative behind the counter, "How many of the Gold FH coins were sold?"
Without hesitation he said, "We sold 17,500 coins."
I then rephrased the question and asked, "No, I meant how many were sold at this show?"
He then said, "We sold 500 coins here in Baltimore."
Unfortunately, all that means is that the Mint representative at the show was out of the loop with respect to them holding back 7,500 coins. He would know what sold at the show because he personally handled that.
Like the rest of us, though, he apparently didn't know about the missing 7,500 until the Mint published its weekly sales report, and then revised the Product Limit on the website. This is only confirmation that it's a mess all the way around, and that people at the Mint making decisions are failing to communicate them internally, as well as to the rest of us.
I think, once again, that @jmlanzaf is onto something here. The Mint appears to have been very deliberate in getting the word out that all 17,500 coins have been produced, because, if they are to be produced, they need to be made in 2024.
No such announcement with the medals, because they can be made anytime. This very well might be to address potential screaming in the future when a product is announced that contains the coins and/or medals.
They never reduced Mintage Limits, so everyone is on notice that more product could hit the market in the future. Of course, with no actual transparency regarding their plans to do so.
Rest assured, however, if they made the gold coins, they are going to sell them for $1,000+ premiums to spot rather than melting them back down. The only question, given the games they have been playing, is whether or not they actually minted them.
Either they have, or Michael White gave bad information to Coin World, like the Mint representative in Baltimore gave bad information to you, and hasn't bothered to correct it. My bet is on Coin World getting it right.
As I said before, I think @jmlanzaf has been right all along, and more product up to the Mintage Limits is coming in another form at some point in the future. Might not be until 2026, but it's coming.
So you admit and accept one mint representative was out of the loop and was wrong about how many were sold, but you don’t think it’s possible that there was confusion/assumption/ miscommunication when a representative talked to coin world about how many were already minted?
@Liquidated said:
So much misinformation being spread regarding limits and misperceived idea that mint is obligated to mint up to limits. The mint never said they produced 17,500 gold. Coinworld presented that the mint relayed that information.
Limits are limits. Not always production numbers.
Yes, the Mint literally said they produced 17,500 gold. Just because Ventris didn't personally call you to deliver the news does not mean that the Mint never said it. An authorized Mint spokesperson announced it to the world via Coin World.
I was at the Baltimore Whitman Coin Expo and bought one Au FH on Thursday, November 14th.
I returned the next day and asked the Mint representative behind the counter, "How many of the Gold FH coins were sold?"
Without hesitation he said, "We sold 17,500 coins."
I then rephrased the question and asked, "No, I meant how many were sold at this show?"
He then said, "We sold 500 coins here in Baltimore."
Unfortunately, all that means is that the Mint representative at the show was out of the loop with respect to them holding back 7,500 coins. He would know what sold at the show because he personally handled that.
Like the rest of us, though, he apparently didn't know about the missing 7,500 until the Mint published its weekly sales report, and then revised the Product Limit on the website. This is only confirmation that it's a mess all the way around, and that people at the Mint making decisions are failing to communicate them internally, as well as to the rest of us.
I think, once again, that @jmlanzaf is onto something here. The Mint appears to have been very deliberate in getting the word out that all 17,500 coins have been produced, because, if they are to be produced, they need to be made in 2024.
No such announcement with the medals, because they can be made anytime. This very well might be to address potential screaming in the future when a product is announced that contains the coins and/or medals.
They never reduced Mintage Limits, so everyone is on notice that more product could hit the market in the future. Of course, with no actual transparency regarding their plans to do so.
Rest assured, however, if they made the gold coins, they are going to sell them for $1,000+ premiums to spot rather than melting them back down. The only question, given the games they have been playing, is whether or not they actually minted them.
Either they have, or Michael White gave bad information to Coin World, like the Mint representative in Baltimore gave bad information to you, and hasn't bothered to correct it. My bet is on Coin World getting it right.
As I said before, I think @jmlanzaf has been right all along, and more product up to the Mintage Limits is coming in another form at some point in the future. Might not be until 2026, but it's coming.
@jwitten said:
So you admit and accept one mint representative was out of the loop and was wrong about how many were sold, but you don’t think it’s positive that there was confusion/assumption/ miscommunication when a representative talked to coin world about how many were already minted?
@Liquidated said:
So much misinformation being spread regarding limits and misperceived idea that mint is obligated to mint up to limits. The mint never said they produced 17,500 gold. Coinworld presented that the mint relayed that information.
Limits are limits. Not always production numbers.
Yes, the Mint literally said they produced 17,500 gold. Just because Ventris didn't personally call you to deliver the news does not mean that the Mint never said it. An authorized Mint spokesperson announced it to the world via Coin World.
I was at the Baltimore Whitman Coin Expo and bought one Au FH on Thursday, November 14th.
I returned the next day and asked the Mint representative behind the counter, "How many of the Gold FH coins were sold?"
Without hesitation he said, "We sold 17,500 coins."
I then rephrased the question and asked, "No, I meant how many were sold at this show?"
He then said, "We sold 500 coins here in Baltimore."
Unfortunately, all that means is that the Mint representative at the show was out of the loop with respect to them holding back 7,500 coins. He would know what sold at the show because he personally handled that.
Like the rest of us, though, he apparently didn't know about the missing 7,500 until the Mint published its weekly sales report, and then revised the Product Limit on the website. This is only confirmation that it's a mess all the way around, and that people at the Mint making decisions are failing to communicate them internally, as well as to the rest of us.
I think, once again, that @jmlanzaf is onto something here. The Mint appears to have been very deliberate in getting the word out that all 17,500 coins have been produced, because, if they are to be produced, they need to be made in 2024.
No such announcement with the medals, because they can be made anytime. This very well might be to address potential screaming in the future when a product is announced that contains the coins and/or medals.
They never reduced Mintage Limits, so everyone is on notice that more product could hit the market in the future. Of course, with no actual transparency regarding their plans to do so.
Rest assured, however, if they made the gold coins, they are going to sell them for $1,000+ premiums to spot rather than melting them back down. The only question, given the games they have been playing, is whether or not they actually minted them.
Either they have, or Michael White gave bad information to Coin World, like the Mint representative in Baltimore gave bad information to you, and hasn't bothered to correct it. My bet is on Coin World getting it right.
As I said before, I think @jmlanzaf has been right all along, and more product up to the Mintage Limits is coming in another form at some point in the future. Might not be until 2026, but it's coming.
To be fair, the one who talked to Coin World issued an official press release. The Mint employee manning the sales floor in Baltimore could be a minimum wage employee who doesnt have access to the executive suite.
Edited to add: but they both could be wrong if we don't find the other 7500 coins. Lol.
@jwitten said:
On a side note, I’m really wanting to grade mine, but I’ve been out of the grading loop awhile. Looks like it would be over $200 😭 That’s insane
Service level fee: $70
First Strike: $18
Handling Fee: $10
Return Shipping Fee: $33
Total: $131
edited to add: Forgot to add your shipping inbound
@jwitten said:
On a side note, I’m really wanting to grade mine, but I’ve been out of the grading loop awhile. Looks like it would be over $200 😭 That’s insane
Service level fee: $70
First Strike: $18
Handling Fee: $10
Return Shipping Fee: $33
Total: $131
edited to add: Forgot to add your shipping inbound
and if out of the loop for a while: new membership fee
To be fair, the one who talked to Coin World issued an official press release. The Mint employee manning the sales floor in Baltimore could be a minimum wage employee who doesnt have access to the executive suite.
Edited to add: but they both could be wrong if we don't find the other 7500 coins. Lol.
The Mint employee wasn't a minimum wage employee, he rang up $1,820,000 in sales at the Baltimore Whitman Expo with intense police surveillance. No way to know if he was part of the 'executive suite.'
Like someone else pointed out, my membership has expired, so another $70 to join. And I haven’t bought or sold enough coins to really warrant being a member lately. So a little over $200 to grade one coin. Ugh.
@jwitten said:
On a side note, I’m really wanting to grade mine, but I’ve been out of the grading loop awhile. Looks like it would be over $200 😭 That’s insane
Service level fee: $70
First Strike: $18
Handling Fee: $10
Return Shipping Fee: $33
Total: $131
edited to add: Forgot to add your shipping inbound
the guys at the show are the same as those at the mint hq sales counter
their job is sales and balancing the sales counter books
they, like us, are the last to know. this even applies to the schedule
the sales counters have to order from the same website as us. they do the ordering. they say 500, then it was 500. but as far as mint plans and and inner workings, they don't get much insight from the higher ups. it's not surprising they thought all 17,500 were sold.
@jwitten said:
So you admit and accept one mint representative was out of the loop and was wrong about how many were sold, but you don’t think it’s positive that there was confusion/assumption/ miscommunication when a representative talked to coin world about how many were already minted?
@Liquidated said:
So much misinformation being spread regarding limits and misperceived idea that mint is obligated to mint up to limits. The mint never said they produced 17,500 gold. Coinworld presented that the mint relayed that information.
Limits are limits. Not always production numbers.
Yes, the Mint literally said they produced 17,500 gold. Just because Ventris didn't personally call you to deliver the news does not mean that the Mint never said it. An authorized Mint spokesperson announced it to the world via Coin World.
I was at the Baltimore Whitman Coin Expo and bought one Au FH on Thursday, November 14th.
I returned the next day and asked the Mint representative behind the counter, "How many of the Gold FH coins were sold?"
Without hesitation he said, "We sold 17,500 coins."
I then rephrased the question and asked, "No, I meant how many were sold at this show?"
He then said, "We sold 500 coins here in Baltimore."
Unfortunately, all that means is that the Mint representative at the show was out of the loop with respect to them holding back 7,500 coins. He would know what sold at the show because he personally handled that.
Like the rest of us, though, he apparently didn't know about the missing 7,500 until the Mint published its weekly sales report, and then revised the Product Limit on the website. This is only confirmation that it's a mess all the way around, and that people at the Mint making decisions are failing to communicate them internally, as well as to the rest of us.
I think, once again, that @jmlanzaf is onto something here. The Mint appears to have been very deliberate in getting the word out that all 17,500 coins have been produced, because, if they are to be produced, they need to be made in 2024.
No such announcement with the medals, because they can be made anytime. This very well might be to address potential screaming in the future when a product is announced that contains the coins and/or medals.
They never reduced Mintage Limits, so everyone is on notice that more product could hit the market in the future. Of course, with no actual transparency regarding their plans to do so.
Rest assured, however, if they made the gold coins, they are going to sell them for $1,000+ premiums to spot rather than melting them back down. The only question, given the games they have been playing, is whether or not they actually minted them.
Either they have, or Michael White gave bad information to Coin World, like the Mint representative in Baltimore gave bad information to you, and hasn't bothered to correct it. My bet is on Coin World getting it right.
As I said before, I think @jmlanzaf has been right all along, and more product up to the Mintage Limits is coming in another form at some point in the future. Might not be until 2026, but it's coming.
Yes. I admit and accept that the representative running the sales booth at a coin show might not have been fully informed with respect to what the powers that be are up to.
I don't think it's "positive" that a designated spokesperson gave misinformation to a national numismatic publication, and then failed to correct or retract it in the following three weeks. No, I do not believe that is "positive."
So, I do not believe the information was incorrect. I believe it was intentional, to let the world know that the coins were minted in 2024, so there is no question regarding where they came from when they turn up in another product in a subsequent year.
Notice they never went out of their way to give a statement to Coin World, one way or the other, regarding the mintage of the silver medals. That's because they can make them at any time in the future they want, so they are leaving things open for now. The exact opposite of transparency.
Mintage Limit, 75K. Product Limit, 50K. Future release? Radio silence, other than to say they aren't coming any time soon in a standalone product, because people might get confused and think they have a shot at a privy when they don't.
Great! Would have been nice to know only 50K were going to be initially released with 1794 privys planted among them when that decision was made weeks or months before the release date. But that would have required a level of transparency they feel no compunction to provide. Take it or leave it, we're the US Mint.
If they were really shutting things down at 10K, they would have revised the Mintage Limit along with the Product Limit. They didn't.
And, if it is "positive," all that would mean is that nothing they ever say can ever be taken at face value. Nothing.
We already can't rely on published Product Limits that are changed after the fact. If statements given to the press cannot be relied upon as accurate, then they are nothing at all, other than either information or misinformation.
Newbie here. In simple terms, it seems like there should be three numbers: a) what the Mint was authorized to make, b) what the Mint has actually made to date, and c) what the Mint has actually sold to date .
If I understand this thread correctly, a = the 17,500 mintage limit as posted on US Mint website, b = the 10,000 product limit as shown on the same website, and c is being debated in this thread.
What the mint has done with this whole thing stinks. They are a public service, not a private institution for profit. Something about making an instant rarity just for the sake of it is unethical.
I’m starting to think all mint offerings need to be mint to demand. Set an ordering window, take orders, close window, mint and ship product, announce mintages end of story
the color blue is being debated here. also stop sign meanings.
answers to your a,b,c
a - authorized to make. it was the hq decision to make these and they chose to limit it to 17,500
b) per a mint email reported by coin world all 17,500 were made. these ar dated 2024 and come 1/1/2025 no more could be legally be struck even if they wanted
c} reporting has also said 10,000 were sold. the mint changed the product page to indicate a product limit of 10,000, leaving 7,500 unsold under this product code
@cinque1543 said:
Newbie here. In simple terms, it seems like there should be three numbers: a) what the Mint was authorized to make, b) what the Mint has actually made to date, and c) what the Mint has actually sold to date .
If I understand this thread correctly, a = the 17,500 mintage limit as posted on US Mint website, b = the 10,000 product limit as shown on the same website, and c is being debated in this thread.
Is this correct?
Basically. "C" isn't being debated because it is disclosed in a weekly Mint sales report. The issue is that "b" was neither published nor disclosed until after 10K were sold out 4 minutes after they went on sale.
The debate is regarding why that is, why they aren't making available for purchase the maximum authorized, and whether or not a statement made to Coin World by a Mint representative that the "production of the entire authorized mintage was achieved" means 17,500 were actually made, with 7,500 being held back for release in another product at another time in the future, since the Product Limit is now 10K, not the initial 17.5K.
@Martin said:
What the mint has done with this whole thing stinks. They are a public service, not a private institution for profit. Something about making an instant rarity just for the sake of it is unethical.
I’m starting to think all mint offerings need to be mint to demand. Set an ordering window, take orders, close window, mint and ship product, announce mintages end of story
Martin
I basically agree with you. Especially with respect to artificial rarities.
OTOH, past experience has shown that people want what they can't have a lot more than things that are easily obtainable. As a result, minting to demand kills secondary market values, which ultimately kills demand, which serves no one's purposes. So the Mint tries to right size mintages, and pricing, to satisfy as many people as possible while maximizing profit for the Mint and still generating sell outs that support dealers and secondary market values.
What stinks about this is not mintages, at any of the numbers being tossed around. It's the lack of transparency regarding what they were doing, so people could make buying decisions based on accurate information.
The Mint would have been in the same place regardless, although ABPP purchasers would have received less product if their allocations were based on actual Product Limits rather than inflated Mintage Limits. Accordingly, some additional product would have been made available to the public.
More importantly, ABPP purchasers would have received slightly less advantage than otherwise, and people could have made informed buying and flipping decisions based on accurate data that has been available to the Mint from the get-go. Lots of ill will generated by the Mint, for absolutely no benefit other than a small additional advantage for select Big Boys who don't really need it.
‘’ U.S. Mint spokesman Michael White confirmed to Coin World via email Oct. 30 that production of the entire authorized mintage was achieved."
Michael was being vague and his statement is open to interpretation if he wanted to be accurate it should’ve been stated that 17,500 coins were minted, anything short of that is just toeing the line, As in not committing to a number. Furthermore, the interviewer should’ve questioned , so 17,500 were minted?
@goldbuffalo said:
‘’ U.S. Mint spokesman Michael White confirmed to Coin World via email Oct. 30 that production of the entire authorized mintage was achieved."
Michael was being vague and his statement is open to interpretation if he wanted to be accurate it should’ve been stated that 17,500 coins were minted, anything short of that is just toeing the line, As in not committing to a number. Furthermore, the interviewer should’ve questioned , so 17,500 were minted?
Failure on follow up.
Only "open to interpretation" if you want to debate the meaning of the word "is." Otherwise, "six" = "half a dozen," "today" = "November 29, 2024," and "the entire authorized mintage of the 2024 FH gold coin" = "17,500."
Nothing is really "open to interpretation," except here, where everything seems to be open to interpretation.
Coin World literally said "Production of the limited-edition Proof 2024 230th Anniversary Flowing Hair, High Relief 1-ounce .9999 fine gold dollar is completed, with the maximum mintage of 17,500 coins executed at the West Point Mint in New York" in the immediately preceding sentence of its article.
There has neither been a correction nor a retraction since it was published three weeks ago. One would think that if anything was incorrect, or "open to interpretation," that it would have been corrected or interpreted by now. No?
"Failure on follow up."
"Michael was being vague and his statement is open to interpretation"
Bingo.
Unfortunately, the pissing contest participants will beg to differ with what you've said above, as they have their minds made up as to how many coins were minted. You are wrong, and they are right.
End of story.
@goldbuffalo said:
‘’ U.S. Mint spokesman Michael White confirmed to Coin World via email Oct. 30 that production of the entire authorized mintage was achieved."
Michael was being vague and his statement is open to interpretation if he wanted to be accurate it should’ve been stated that 17,500 coins were minted, anything short of that is just toeing the line, As in not committing to a number. Furthermore, the interviewer should’ve questioned , so 17,500 were minted?
Failure on follow up.
Except the "authorized mintage" was and is 17,500. That's not at all "vague" even if it proves to be incorrect.
Raw SILVER 230 PRIVY - SIGNED CERT closes on ebay for 5530.00. Looks like the higher prices are taking a nose dive for these.
I still say for the majority of the 230 GOLD PRIVIES - over 10k is gonna be a stretch. (This is of course excluding the #1 w/dies; and fancy numbers i.e. 230; possibly first 10 or 20 numbered)
These ARE NOT viewed in the same light as the enormously popular and long running set of Gold Eagle Proofs - not and will not be as popular as the 2020-W V75 Gold.
@coiner said:
Raw SILVER 230 PRIVY - SIGNED CERT closes on ebay for 5530.00. Looks like the higher prices are taking a nose dive for these.
I still say for the majority of the 230 GOLD PRIVIES - over 10k is gonna be a stretch. (This is of course excluding the #1 w/dies; and fancy numbers i.e. 230; possibly first 10 or 20 numbered)
We'll see. Nice to see you sticking to your guns, but it sure looks to me like the least expensive of these are actually going to have a difficult time staying under $20K, rather than stretching to hit $10K.
I will admit, though, that I am very surprised that you are sticking with what you have been saying all along after seeing the early bidding. No way 230 isn't going to be worth far more than 1945, just because one is part of a series while the other is not. In fact, one can make the case that the one-off is worth even more because of the fact that it is a one and done.
We are far enough apart that one is clearly going to be right while the other is clearly wrong. Nothing vague or open to interpretations about that. 😀
For all of the haters, hopefully some will give me a little credit for getting this one right from the beginning once the final hammer drops.
@coiner said:
Raw SILVER 230 PRIVY - SIGNED CERT closes on ebay for 5530.00. Looks like the higher prices are taking a nose dive for these.
what you have been saying all along after seeing the early bidding. No way 230 isn't going to be worth far more than 1945, just because one is part of a series while the other is not. In f
Really? Compare the price of any ASE with a mintage of 200,000 to the price of any modern commem with a mintage of 100,000 or even 50,000.
Why is an SVDB cent worth more than most classic commems with mintages of only 10,000? Because it is part of a widely collected series.
The only things that make the hammer price of the privies hard to determine is that they aren't really just a modern commem and it's hard to gauge the effect of the current hype.
I will say with greater certainty that 2 or 3 years from now, other than the special #s, these will be selling well below the V75.
@coiner said:
for the #1 with dies - lets see - what does the potential high bidder have in mind for the dies? Maybe a cancelled strike in Silver?
Most likely there will be private restrikes, in silver and gold.
In my humble opinion, having dealt with uncancelled dies, cancelled dies, dies certified by NGC, and striking restrikes, these 2 dies are at least worth half of the price realized.
Currently the bid on this lot (the first struck and the 2 dies) is $170k. My estimate for this is a minimum of $250k.
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
@coiner said:
Raw SILVER 230 PRIVY - SIGNED CERT closes on ebay for 5530.00. Looks like the higher prices are taking a nose dive for these.
what you have been saying all along after seeing the early bidding. No way 230 isn't going to be worth far more than 1945, just because one is part of a series while the other is not. In f
Really? Compare the price of any ASE with a mintage of 200,000 to the price of any modern commem with a mintage of 100,000 or even 50,000.
Why is an SVDB cent worth more than most classic commems with mintages of only 10,000? Because it is part of a widely collected series.
The only things that make the hammer price of the privies hard to determine is that they aren't really just a modern commem and it's hard to gauge the effect of the current hype.
I will say with greater certainty that 2 or 3 years from now, other than the special #s, these will be selling well below the V75.
Current hammer, hard to say
I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I don't see them ever selling below V75s, apples to apples (i.e., 69 to 69 and 70 to 70), and, of course, special numbers will be excluded.
What will not be excluded, however, are numbered and signed COAs that the market seems to value. Are you forgetting about them, or also just discounting them?
@coiner said:
Raw SILVER 230 PRIVY - SIGNED CERT closes on ebay for 5530.00. Looks like the higher prices are taking a nose dive for these.
That was a short 3 day sale ending on t-giving, not a great shopping day in itself, and the dealer left 3-4K on the table. The buyer could go flip it again and regain what the seller chose to loose. The lowest active listing is at 8.1K and the remaining ones are 10K+. I doubt a bunch are going to flood the market at 5K, unless a bunch of sellers like to leave money on the table.
@coiner said:
Raw SILVER 230 PRIVY - SIGNED CERT closes on ebay for 5530.00. Looks like the higher prices are taking a nose dive for these.
I still say for the majority of the 230 GOLD PRIVIES - over 10k is gonna be a stretch. (This is of course excluding the #1 w/dies; and fancy numbers i.e. 230; possibly first 10 or 20 numbered)
We'll see. Nice to see you sticking to your guns, but it sure looks to me like the least expensive of these are actually going to have a difficult time staying under $20K, rather than stretching to hit $10K.
Check across all 230 auctions. They are not all over 20k - not even close. Again, im sticking to my prediction- the vast majority (other than special numbering, etc) will have a hard time closing over 10k. The 69's are probably gonna go for 7,000.
If you see over 10k-- youre gonna see a whole bunch grouped in the 10-12k range.
It will not eclipse the V75 Gold Eagle.
By the way - im sure many do not know - you must be "cleared" by the auction house for any bids over $5k. Some may not even gain clearance which will limit the pool of bidders.
@coiner said:
Raw SILVER 230 PRIVY - SIGNED CERT closes on ebay for 5530.00. Looks like the higher prices are taking a nose dive for these.
I still say for the majority of the 230 GOLD PRIVIES - over 10k is gonna be a stretch. (This is of course excluding the #1 w/dies; and fancy numbers i.e. 230; possibly first 10 or 20 numbered)
We'll see. Nice to see you sticking to your guns, but it sure looks to me like the least expensive of these are actually going to have a difficult time staying under $20K, rather than stretching to hit $10K.
Check across all 230 auctions. They are not all over 20k - not even close. Again, im sticking to my prediction- the vast majority (other than special numbering, etc) will have a hard time closing over 10k. The 69's are probably gonna go for 7,000.
If you see over 10k-- youre gonna see a whole bunch grouped in the 10-12k range.
It will not eclipse the V75 Gold Eagle.
By the way - im sure many do not know - you must be "cleared" by the auction house for any bids over $5k. Some may not even gain clearance which will limit the pool of bidders.
I'm afraid you just don't understand how these auctions work, but you are going to learn in the next 2 weeks. This does, however, explain why the early results have not altered your view.
Serious bidders are not going to get involved until the live auction starts. They don't show their hands weeks ahead of time. This isn't eBay.
Nothing is going to go for anywhere near $10K. They will all eclipse comparable V75 ASEs. The pool of bidders is SB's worldwide customer base. Not people who are ineligible to receive at least $25K in credit from SB. No one who fails to be approved to participate in this auction is going to move the needle on final results. Not even a little.
People here thinking they are going to be getting a deal are going to be irrelevant. They just don't realize it yet, and will be shocked when bidding reaches multiples of their high bids.
When this is over, I just hope you are as quick to come back and admit you were wrong as you were to point out I was wrong when the Product Limits turned out to be an undisclosed fraction of the Mintage Limits.
The U. S. Mint will have StacksBowers auction cancelled dies from previous issues of U.S. classic vintage coins struck in gold. And upcoming issues as well.
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
@coiner said:
Raw SILVER 230 PRIVY - SIGNED CERT closes on ebay for 5530.00. Looks like the higher prices are taking a nose dive for these.
I still say for the majority of the 230 GOLD PRIVIES - over 10k is gonna be a stretch. (This is of course excluding the #1 w/dies; and fancy numbers i.e. 230; possibly first 10 or 20 numbered)
We'll see. Nice to see you sticking to your guns, but it sure looks to me like the least expensive of these are actually going to have a difficult time staying under $20K, rather than stretching to hit $10K.
Check across all 230 auctions. They are not all over 20k - not even close. Again, im sticking to my prediction- the vast majority (other than special numbering, etc) will have a hard time closing over 10k. The 69's are probably gonna go for 7,000.
If you see over 10k-- youre gonna see a whole bunch grouped in the 10-12k range.
It will not eclipse the V75 Gold Eagle.
By the way - im sure many do not know - you must be "cleared" by the auction house for any bids over $5k. Some may not even gain clearance which will limit the pool of bidders.
I'm afraid you just don't understand how these auctions work, but you are going to learn in the next 2 weeks. This does, however, explain why the early results have not altered your view.
Serious bidders are not going to get involved until the live auction starts. They don't show their hands weeks ahead of time. This isn't eBay.
Nothing is going to go for anywhere near $10K. They will all eclipse comparable V75 ASEs. The pool of bidders is SB's worldwide customer base. Not people who are ineligible to receive at least $25K in credit from SB. No one who fails to be approved to participate in this auction is going to move the needle on final results. Not even a little.
People here thinking they are going to be getting a deal are going to be irrelevant. They just don't realize it yet, and will be shocked when bidding reaches multiples of their high bids.
When this is over, I just hope you are as quick to come back and admit you were wrong as you were to point out I was wrong when the Product Limits turned out to be an undisclosed fraction of the Mintage Limits.
There you go again with your ZERO batting average.
I think I know how auctions work - i've been at this game more that 50 years.
How about you? You certainly keep digging a bigger hole with all your bad advice. Im surprised you can see ground level or light from how deep you are in the hole..........
Instead of these tribute issues in gold - why not do an actual tribute - true to size and metal content
Like a nice $20 gold tribute; side by side Liberty and St Gaudens - .916 gold; .9675 AGW.
@coiner said:
Raw SILVER 230 PRIVY - SIGNED CERT closes on ebay for 5530.00. Looks like the higher prices are taking a nose dive for these.
I still say for the majority of the 230 GOLD PRIVIES - over 10k is gonna be a stretch. (This is of course excluding the #1 w/dies; and fancy numbers i.e. 230; possibly first 10 or 20 numbered)
We'll see. Nice to see you sticking to your guns, but it sure looks to me like the least expensive of these are actually going to have a difficult time staying under $20K, rather than stretching to hit $10K.
Check across all 230 auctions. They are not all over 20k - not even close. Again, im sticking to my prediction- the vast majority (other than special numbering, etc) will have a hard time closing over 10k. The 69's are probably gonna go for 7,000.
If you see over 10k-- youre gonna see a whole bunch grouped in the 10-12k range.
It will not eclipse the V75 Gold Eagle.
By the way - im sure many do not know - you must be "cleared" by the auction house for any bids over $5k. Some may not even gain clearance which will limit the pool of bidders.
I'm afraid you just don't understand how these auctions work, but you are going to learn in the next 2 weeks. This does, however, explain why the early results have not altered your view.
Serious bidders are not going to get involved until the live auction starts. They don't show their hands weeks ahead of time. This isn't eBay.
Nothing is going to go for anywhere near $10K. They will all eclipse comparable V75 ASEs. The pool of bidders is SB's worldwide customer base. Not people who are ineligible to receive at least $25K in credit from SB. No one who fails to be approved to participate in this auction is going to move the needle on final results. Not even a little.
People here thinking they are going to be getting a deal are going to be irrelevant. They just don't realize it yet, and will be shocked when bidding reaches multiples of their high bids.
When this is over, I just hope you are as quick to come back and admit you were wrong as you were to point out I was wrong when the Product Limits turned out to be an undisclosed fraction of the Mintage Limits.
There you go again with your ZERO batting average.
I think I know how auctions work - i've been at this game more that 50 years.
How about you? You certainly keep digging a bigger hole with all your bad advice. Im surprised you can see ground level or light from how deep you are in the hole..........
We'll see. I think I have been spot on so far with the privy auction. 🤣
Wasn't it you who thought the coins would be offered raw, allowing bidders to capture the premium associated with 70s, when I said that would never happen? And now, two weeks out, seeing #1 with the dies already at $170K, you think "the vast majority (other than special numbering, etc) will have a hard time closing over 10k. The 69's are probably gonna go for 7,000."
The writing is clearly on the wall that you are going to be wrong. By a lot, because, having "been at this game more that 50 years," you still think early auction bids two weeks out mean anything at all. They don't. #1 is going to close far above $170K, and #172 is going to close far above $5K.
The only doubt is going to be the level of humility you express when acknowledging how your 50 years of experience did nothing for your ability to see what was right before you all along. I'm thinking it will be little to none, but we'll see.
Comments
How do you know it was an accident?
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
batman investigation
That is not correct. Authorized mintage IS the mintage limit. That is how the term has always been used by the Mint. How many they actually strike is a different matter and is referred to as the "mintage" with no adjective . You arbitrarily defined (redefined) "authorized mintage" to mean the number struck. The authorization is determined by either Congress or the Mint when authorizing the issue. This is not really open to debate.
In your example of the L&B gold, only the 10,000 coins would be called the "authorized mintage". Can you show me anyone officially referring to the 5600 coins as "authorized"?
If you Google to three term, you will find that is how it is always used.
Here's a perfect example from the Mint itself. Not that the "authorized mintage" was 150,000 even though they chose to only Mint 30,000 coins.
Respectfully, you are simply misunderstanding what the term has always meant at the Mint.
Did not see any activity this morning and decided to remove my FHG from my bag. Catch & Release is fun but the only way to get one from the mint now is through their auction of the 230 privies!! Got a few thousand dollars sitting around?
Incredibly exciting!
Are you sure it was the test? Or just the most fair way to sell 230 special coins? Some people might think that putting 230 for sale on the mint website with a 1 HHL, first come, first serve would be fair (and it's not unfair) but I think an auction is a more fair and practical way to do this with the side effect of maximizing sales proceeds for the mint. I can see the argument that the mint had a profit motive but I will maintain that it was a secondary consideration to how to fairly sell the coins to the people who wanted them the most.
So if a coin has a max mintage of 1M it doesn't mean anything to you compared to a coin with a max mintage of 1000, even knowing they may not make the full limit of either? I don't believe that. a US mint coin with a max mintage of 1M has no interest with me, while a coin with 1000 is quite intriguing.
Isn't it better if they make fewer of them? I don't see why you'd be upset at them making less than they said they would. That falls in the category of "nice surprise" not "stick in the eye."
You can't violate a limit by lowering the limit, only exceeding a limit. Here I'll help you:
lim·it
/ˈlimət/
noun
1. a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or pass.
2. a restriction on the size or amount of something permissible or possible.
🤣🤣🤣
Sure. Fair. Now they are concerned about "fair," after giving ABPP access to an over allocation of silver medals based on a mintage limit they had no intention of hitting, and then over seeded their sealed boxes with privys.
Now, they are interested in fairness, not extracting every last dollar of value to be extracted from their artificial rarity by sending the coins off to be graded before being offered to the highest bidder in an auction. Whatever you say.
As far as maximum mintages go, sure the delta between 1,000,000 and 1,000 is a little extreme, but both mean nothing if they are only going to be making 500 in each case. They owe us honesty and transparency. Not games.
In this case, I am quite sure there are people who would have been interested at 50K and 10K who took a pass at 75K and 17.5K, and are now unhappy. Just like others will be unhappy if the missing 25K and 7.5K appear at some point in the future.
Then, we can revisit "fair" and "100% accurate." In the meantime, I'd like to give a special shout-out to @jmlanzaf.
He was among the first to recognize the silver medals might have been capped at 50K, weeks before the Mint acknowledged it. He has been saying all along they can go back and make the missing 25K any time they want, even though the Mint has said they won't. The Mint reduced the Product Limit to 50K, but kept the Mintage Limit intact at 75K. Based on what the Mint later did with the gold coins, I am now more inclined to believe @jmlanzaf than the Mint.
The Mint has unequivocally stated they made 17.5K gold coins, even though they went back and revised the Product Limit to 10K. Put this together, along with everything the Mint isn't saying, and the fact that a bunch of similar product is going to be hitting the street between now and 2026, and it's not crazy to speculate that the unminted and unsold product is going to appear at some time in some form, likely packaged together, and maybe in a set with future offerings, rather than having the Mint, in the interest of "fairness" to people paying inflated prices on the secondary market based on current reported product limits and Mint statements, leave millions of dollars in unrealized profit on the table.
I am free to speculate because nothing the Mint has said about this product can be taken at face value, given the games they have been playing. Product limits changing after the fact. Items being minted and held back. Or not minted at all, after they announced to the press that they were. Privys being seeded in fewer medals than previously disclosed. Etc.
They really owe us explanations, but I'm not holding my breath.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
So much misinformation being spread regarding limits and misperceived idea that mint is obligated to mint up to limits. The mint never said they produced 17,500 gold. Coinworld presented that the mint relayed that information.
Limits are limits. Not always production numbers.
For the people that comprehend this here is a case study where mintages can be compared:
https://www.usmint.gov/news/press-releases/20060323-american-eagle-platinum-proof-coins-available?srsltid=AfmBOopLZzRJbiBfRPFf0QzjWO_d-ZCWOhEtLVZyfHKpkJTTSrwQs13f
Yes, the Mint literally said they produced 17,500 gold. Just because Ventris didn't personally call you to deliver the news does not mean that the Mint never said it. An authorized Mint spokesperson announced it to the world via Coin World.
"Production of the limited-edition Proof 2024 230th Anniversary Flowing Hair, High Relief 1-ounce .9999 fine gold dollar is completed, with the maximum mintage of 17,500 coins executed at the West Point Mint in New York.
U.S. Mint spokesman Michael White confirmed to Coin World via email Oct. 30 that production of the entire authorized mintage was achieved."
Coin World published this on November 8, 2024. It is now November 28, 2024. There has been no subsequent correction or retraction because anyone at the Mint thinks that "entire authorized mintage" means anything other than 17,500 coins.
And, sure, while limits are not production numbers, failure to reach a limit when there is demand requires an explanation. Otherwise, the limit really is meaningless if it's not meant to be an indication of the maximum that will be produced and sold, should demand warrant. If they intend to make less, regardless of demand, that really is the effective limit, and should be communicated as such.
In this case, given all the wordsmithing and games, it is becoming obvious that more is going on than meets the eye. Under the circumstances, it is extremely to reasonable to speculate that we have not seen the last of either of these two products from the Mint, since Product Limits have been reduced to correspond to what they have made available for sale to date, but Mintage Limits have not been reduced accordingly.
Also, do you even understand what is set forth in the link you posted? The Product Limit is 10K lower than the Mintage Limit for each individual coin because they also made exactly 10K coins of each denomination available in a 4 coin set. In 2006, they made available for sale exactly the number of coins they said they would.
If you understood this, you probably wouldn't have posted it, because it proves my point, not yours! Maybe next time you will take the time to "comprehend" your own "case study" before posting.
They will likely do the same thing here with respect to Product Limits and Mintage Limits, i.e., make the missing mintage available in the form of another product, given that there is still unsatisfied demand. Except now, there is no transparency and no announcement.
Just a lot of rationalizations by some on this forum, and rampant speculation due to misleading and conflicting information provided by the Mint. Mintage Limits initially equaled Product Limits for both the gold and silver.
Then they went on sale, in an amount below the published limits. This was not announced ahead of time. Product Limits were later revised downward, but not Mintage Limits. Bad information and no transparency.
I was at the Baltimore Whitman Coin Expo and bought one Au FH on Thursday, November 14th.
I returned the next day and asked the Mint representative behind the counter, "How many of the Gold FH coins were sold?"
Without hesitation he said, "We sold 17,500 coins."
I then rephrased the question and asked, "No, I meant how many were sold at this show?"
He then said, "We sold 500 coins here in Baltimore."
I'm with NJ on this one.
Unfortunately, all that means is that the Mint representative at the show was out of the loop with respect to them holding back 7,500 coins. He would know what sold at the show because he personally handled that.
Like the rest of us, though, he apparently didn't know about the missing 7,500 until the Mint published its weekly sales report, and then revised the Product Limit on the website. This is only confirmation that it's a mess all the way around, and that people at the Mint making decisions are failing to communicate them internally, as well as to the rest of us.
I think, once again, that @jmlanzaf is onto something here. The Mint appears to have been very deliberate in getting the word out that all 17,500 coins have been produced, because, if they are to be produced, they need to be made in 2024.
No such announcement with the medals, because they can be made anytime. This very well might be to address potential screaming in the future when a product is announced that contains the coins and/or medals.
They never reduced Mintage Limits, so everyone is on notice that more product could hit the market in the future. Of course, with no actual transparency regarding their plans to do so.
Rest assured, however, if they made the gold coins, they are going to sell them for $1,000+ premiums to spot rather than melting them back down. The only question, given the games they have been playing, is whether or not they actually minted them.
Either they have, or Michael White gave bad information to Coin World, like the Mint representative in Baltimore gave bad information to you, and hasn't bothered to correct it. My bet is on Coin World getting it right.
As I said before, I think @jmlanzaf has been right all along, and more product up to the Mintage Limits is coming in another form at some point in the future. Might not be until 2026, but it's coming.
So you admit and accept one mint representative was out of the loop and was wrong about how many were sold, but you don’t think it’s possible that there was confusion/assumption/ miscommunication when a representative talked to coin world about how many were already minted?
On a side note, I’m really wanting to grade mine, but I’ve been out of the grading loop awhile. Looks like it would be over $200 😭 That’s insane
To be fair, the one who talked to Coin World issued an official press release. The Mint employee manning the sales floor in Baltimore could be a minimum wage employee who doesnt have access to the executive suite.
Edited to add: but they both could be wrong if we don't find the other 7500 coins. Lol.
Service level fee: $70
First Strike: $18
Handling Fee: $10
Return Shipping Fee: $33
Total: $131
edited to add: Forgot to add your shipping inbound
and if out of the loop for a while: new membership fee
The Mint employee wasn't a minimum wage employee, he rang up $1,820,000 in sales at the Baltimore Whitman Expo with intense police surveillance. No way to know if he was part of the 'executive suite.'
Like someone else pointed out, my membership has expired, so another $70 to join. And I haven’t bought or sold enough coins to really warrant being a member lately. So a little over $200 to grade one coin. Ugh.
the guys at the show are the same as those at the mint hq sales counter
their job is sales and balancing the sales counter books
they, like us, are the last to know. this even applies to the schedule
the sales counters have to order from the same website as us. they do the ordering. they say 500, then it was 500. but as far as mint plans and and inner workings, they don't get much insight from the higher ups. it's not surprising they thought all 17,500 were sold.
Yes. I admit and accept that the representative running the sales booth at a coin show might not have been fully informed with respect to what the powers that be are up to.
I don't think it's "positive" that a designated spokesperson gave misinformation to a national numismatic publication, and then failed to correct or retract it in the following three weeks. No, I do not believe that is "positive."
So, I do not believe the information was incorrect. I believe it was intentional, to let the world know that the coins were minted in 2024, so there is no question regarding where they came from when they turn up in another product in a subsequent year.
Notice they never went out of their way to give a statement to Coin World, one way or the other, regarding the mintage of the silver medals. That's because they can make them at any time in the future they want, so they are leaving things open for now. The exact opposite of transparency.
Mintage Limit, 75K. Product Limit, 50K. Future release? Radio silence, other than to say they aren't coming any time soon in a standalone product, because people might get confused and think they have a shot at a privy when they don't.
Great! Would have been nice to know only 50K were going to be initially released with 1794 privys planted among them when that decision was made weeks or months before the release date. But that would have required a level of transparency they feel no compunction to provide. Take it or leave it, we're the US Mint.
If they were really shutting things down at 10K, they would have revised the Mintage Limit along with the Product Limit. They didn't.
And, if it is "positive," all that would mean is that nothing they ever say can ever be taken at face value. Nothing.
We already can't rely on published Product Limits that are changed after the fact. If statements given to the press cannot be relied upon as accurate, then they are nothing at all, other than either information or misinformation.
Newbie here. In simple terms, it seems like there should be three numbers: a) what the Mint was authorized to make, b) what the Mint has actually made to date, and c) what the Mint has actually sold to date .
If I understand this thread correctly, a = the 17,500 mintage limit as posted on US Mint website, b = the 10,000 product limit as shown on the same website, and c is being debated in this thread.
Is this correct?
What the mint has done with this whole thing stinks. They are a public service, not a private institution for profit. Something about making an instant rarity just for the sake of it is unethical.
I’m starting to think all mint offerings need to be mint to demand. Set an ordering window, take orders, close window, mint and ship product, announce mintages end of story
Martin
the color blue is being debated here. also stop sign meanings.
answers to your a,b,c
a - authorized to make. it was the hq decision to make these and they chose to limit it to 17,500
b) per a mint email reported by coin world all 17,500 were made. these ar dated 2024 and come 1/1/2025 no more could be legally be struck even if they wanted
c} reporting has also said 10,000 were sold. the mint changed the product page to indicate a product limit of 10,000, leaving 7,500 unsold under this product code
Basically. "C" isn't being debated because it is disclosed in a weekly Mint sales report. The issue is that "b" was neither published nor disclosed until after 10K were sold out 4 minutes after they went on sale.
The debate is regarding why that is, why they aren't making available for purchase the maximum authorized, and whether or not a statement made to Coin World by a Mint representative that the "production of the entire authorized mintage was achieved" means 17,500 were actually made, with 7,500 being held back for release in another product at another time in the future, since the Product Limit is now 10K, not the initial 17.5K.
Thank you for clarifying.
I basically agree with you. Especially with respect to artificial rarities.
OTOH, past experience has shown that people want what they can't have a lot more than things that are easily obtainable. As a result, minting to demand kills secondary market values, which ultimately kills demand, which serves no one's purposes. So the Mint tries to right size mintages, and pricing, to satisfy as many people as possible while maximizing profit for the Mint and still generating sell outs that support dealers and secondary market values.
What stinks about this is not mintages, at any of the numbers being tossed around. It's the lack of transparency regarding what they were doing, so people could make buying decisions based on accurate information.
The Mint would have been in the same place regardless, although ABPP purchasers would have received less product if their allocations were based on actual Product Limits rather than inflated Mintage Limits. Accordingly, some additional product would have been made available to the public.
More importantly, ABPP purchasers would have received slightly less advantage than otherwise, and people could have made informed buying and flipping decisions based on accurate data that has been available to the Mint from the get-go. Lots of ill will generated by the Mint, for absolutely no benefit other than a small additional advantage for select Big Boys who don't really need it.
I understand the point you were making. But this is absolutely not true.
‘’ U.S. Mint spokesman Michael White confirmed to Coin World via email Oct. 30 that production of the entire authorized mintage was achieved."
Michael was being vague and his statement is open to interpretation if he wanted to be accurate it should’ve been stated that 17,500 coins were minted, anything short of that is just toeing the line, As in not committing to a number. Furthermore, the interviewer should’ve questioned , so 17,500 were minted?
Failure on follow up.
Only "open to interpretation" if you want to debate the meaning of the word "is." Otherwise, "six" = "half a dozen," "today" = "November 29, 2024," and "the entire authorized mintage of the 2024 FH gold coin" = "17,500."
Nothing is really "open to interpretation," except here, where everything seems to be open to interpretation.
Coin World literally said "Production of the limited-edition Proof 2024 230th Anniversary Flowing Hair, High Relief 1-ounce .9999 fine gold dollar is completed, with the maximum mintage of 17,500 coins executed at the West Point Mint in New York" in the immediately preceding sentence of its article.
There has neither been a correction nor a retraction since it was published three weeks ago. One would think that if anything was incorrect, or "open to interpretation," that it would have been corrected or interpreted by now. No?
"Failure on follow up."
"Michael was being vague and his statement is open to interpretation"
Bingo.
Unfortunately, the pissing contest participants will beg to differ with what you've said above, as they have their minds made up as to how many coins were minted. You are wrong, and they are right.
End of story.
Except the "authorized mintage" was and is 17,500. That's not at all "vague" even if it proves to be incorrect.
Raw SILVER 230 PRIVY - SIGNED CERT closes on ebay for 5530.00. Looks like the higher prices are taking a nose dive for these.
I still say for the majority of the 230 GOLD PRIVIES - over 10k is gonna be a stretch. (This is of course excluding the #1 w/dies; and fancy numbers i.e. 230; possibly first 10 or 20 numbered)
These ARE NOT viewed in the same light as the enormously popular and long running set of Gold Eagle Proofs - not and will not be as popular as the 2020-W V75 Gold.
for the #1 with dies - lets see - what does the potential high bidder have in mind for the dies? Maybe a cancelled strike in Silver?
We'll see. Nice to see you sticking to your guns, but it sure looks to me like the least expensive of these are actually going to have a difficult time staying under $20K, rather than stretching to hit $10K.
I will admit, though, that I am very surprised that you are sticking with what you have been saying all along after seeing the early bidding. No way 230 isn't going to be worth far more than 1945, just because one is part of a series while the other is not. In fact, one can make the case that the one-off is worth even more because of the fact that it is a one and done.
We are far enough apart that one is clearly going to be right while the other is clearly wrong. Nothing vague or open to interpretations about that. 😀
For all of the haters, hopefully some will give me a little credit for getting this one right from the beginning once the final hammer drops.
Really? Compare the price of any ASE with a mintage of 200,000 to the price of any modern commem with a mintage of 100,000 or even 50,000.
Why is an SVDB cent worth more than most classic commems with mintages of only 10,000? Because it is part of a widely collected series.
The only things that make the hammer price of the privies hard to determine is that they aren't really just a modern commem and it's hard to gauge the effect of the current hype.
I will say with greater certainty that 2 or 3 years from now, other than the special #s, these will be selling well below the V75.
Current hammer, hard to say
Most likely there will be private restrikes, in silver and gold.
In my humble opinion, having dealt with uncancelled dies, cancelled dies, dies certified by NGC, and striking restrikes, these 2 dies are at least worth half of the price realized.
Currently the bid on this lot (the first struck and the 2 dies) is $170k. My estimate for this is a minimum of $250k.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I don't see them ever selling below V75s, apples to apples (i.e., 69 to 69 and 70 to 70), and, of course, special numbers will be excluded.
What will not be excluded, however, are numbered and signed COAs that the market seems to value. Are you forgetting about them, or also just discounting them?
That was a short 3 day sale ending on t-giving, not a great shopping day in itself, and the dealer left 3-4K on the table. The buyer could go flip it again and regain what the seller chose to loose. The lowest active listing is at 8.1K and the remaining ones are 10K+. I doubt a bunch are going to flood the market at 5K, unless a bunch of sellers like to leave money on the table.
Check across all 230 auctions. They are not all over 20k - not even close. Again, im sticking to my prediction- the vast majority (other than special numbering, etc) will have a hard time closing over 10k. The 69's are probably gonna go for 7,000.
If you see over 10k-- youre gonna see a whole bunch grouped in the 10-12k range.
It will not eclipse the V75 Gold Eagle.
By the way - im sure many do not know - you must be "cleared" by the auction house for any bids over $5k. Some may not even gain clearance which will limit the pool of bidders.
I'm afraid you just don't understand how these auctions work, but you are going to learn in the next 2 weeks. This does, however, explain why the early results have not altered your view.
Serious bidders are not going to get involved until the live auction starts. They don't show their hands weeks ahead of time. This isn't eBay.
Nothing is going to go for anywhere near $10K. They will all eclipse comparable V75 ASEs. The pool of bidders is SB's worldwide customer base. Not people who are ineligible to receive at least $25K in credit from SB. No one who fails to be approved to participate in this auction is going to move the needle on final results. Not even a little.
People here thinking they are going to be getting a deal are going to be irrelevant. They just don't realize it yet, and will be shocked when bidding reaches multiples of their high bids.
When this is over, I just hope you are as quick to come back and admit you were wrong as you were to point out I was wrong when the Product Limits turned out to be an undisclosed fraction of the Mintage Limits.
Just my opinion:
The U. S. Mint will have StacksBowers auction cancelled dies from previous issues of U.S. classic vintage coins struck in gold. And upcoming issues as well.
There you go again with your ZERO batting average.
I think I know how auctions work - i've been at this game more that 50 years.
How about you? You certainly keep digging a bigger hole with all your bad advice. Im surprised you can see ground level or light from how deep you are in the hole..........
And BTW - I think ive been pretty much on game with these issues.
Lots of talk but no action from you - just how much did you profit from your bad predictions thus far? Hmmm?
Instead of these tribute issues in gold - why not do an actual tribute - true to size and metal content
Like a nice $20 gold tribute; side by side Liberty and St Gaudens - .916 gold; .9675 AGW.
We'll see. I think I have been spot on so far with the privy auction. 🤣
Wasn't it you who thought the coins would be offered raw, allowing bidders to capture the premium associated with 70s, when I said that would never happen? And now, two weeks out, seeing #1 with the dies already at $170K, you think "the vast majority (other than special numbering, etc) will have a hard time closing over 10k. The 69's are probably gonna go for 7,000."
The writing is clearly on the wall that you are going to be wrong. By a lot, because, having "been at this game more that 50 years," you still think early auction bids two weeks out mean anything at all. They don't. #1 is going to close far above $170K, and #172 is going to close far above $5K.
The only doubt is going to be the level of humility you express when acknowledging how your 50 years of experience did nothing for your ability to see what was right before you all along. I'm thinking it will be little to none, but we'll see.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh