Three of the most sought after gold coins from the modern Mint and just consider the mintages.
The total mintage of the 2009 Ultra High Relief (UHR) Double Eagle gold coin was 114,427. After (15) years, the coin is worth about $200 - $250 over spot.
The total mintage of the 2006-W Reverse Proof $50 Gold coin was around 9,998. After (18) years, the coin is worth about $500 - $600 over spot.
The total mintage of the 2024 Flowing Hair high relief gold coin is currently 9,935. It is currently worth about $1,250 - $1,400 over spot.
Wondercoin
This is all well and good, but why not be transparent about they were going to do up front, if they are finally listening to collector concerns about retaining value in the future?
In this case, I have been saying from the beginning that 12.5K would be the right number, based on the American Liberty High Relief Gold series. And that 17.5K was aggressive at a $1K+ premium to spot. And that it would not likely sell out at all, or if, so, not for days or weeks after release.
A 4 minute sell out made me confess I was wrong. Followed by the disclosure that they only made 10K available for sale. I'm still not sure more won't be coming later, in another product.
But, if 10K really is all that there is ever going to be, why not let people know ahead of time? All they accomplished was damaging their credibility, and angering people who passed at 17.5K but would have jumped in at 10K.
For what purpose, other than maybe to benefit ABPP buyers with a disproportionate share of what was destined from the very beginning to be an unexpectedly low mintage? Not exactly a formula for making friends and influencing people long term, since without engaged end users who don't feel as though they are being played, these are all nothing more than bullion.
I don't know your background but I don't think you understand the bureacratic nature of the government and how these things come to fruition. I'm not an expert either but I have to believe that a lot of time passes between the time the coin is planned and scheduled, blanks ordered, dies made, packaging designed and ordered, and production begins and all kinds of departments from the executive suite to production, marketing, and sales work together to make a product happen. And during that time plans can and do change. And it's very possible and perhaps I am giving the mint too much benefit of the doubt, but I believe that many people did not know that production numbers had changed and that lead to the misleading statements to the press. Yes, the mint should get is "stuff" together, but I don't think you appreciate how hard it is for a government entity to do that.
Three of the most sought after gold coins from the modern Mint and just consider the mintages.
The total mintage of the 2009 Ultra High Relief (UHR) Double Eagle gold coin was 114,427. After (15) years, the coin is worth about $200 - $250 over spot.
The total mintage of the 2006-W Reverse Proof $50 Gold coin was around 9,998. After (18) years, the coin is worth about $500 - $600 over spot.
The total mintage of the 2024 Flowing Hair high relief gold coin is currently 9,935. It is currently worth about $1,250 - $1,400 over spot.
Wondercoin
This is all well and good, but why not be transparent about they were going to do up front, if they are finally listening to collector concerns about retaining value in the future?
In this case, I have been saying from the beginning that 12.5K would be the right number, based on the American Liberty High Relief Gold series. And that 17.5K was aggressive at a $1K+ premium to spot. And that it would not likely sell out at all, or if, so, not for days or weeks after release.
A 4 minute sell out made me confess I was wrong. Followed by the disclosure that they only made 10K available for sale. I'm still not sure more won't be coming later, in another product.
But, if 10K really is all that there is ever going to be, why not let people know ahead of time? All they accomplished was damaging their credibility, and angering people who passed at 17.5K but would have jumped in at 10K.
For what purpose, other than maybe to benefit ABPP buyers with a disproportionate share of what was destined from the very beginning to be an unexpectedly low mintage? Not exactly a formula for making friends and influencing people long term, since without engaged end users who don't feel as though they are being played, these are all nothing more than bullion.
I don't know your background but I don't think you understand the bureacratic nature of the government and how these things come to fruition. I'm not an expert either but I have to believe that a lot of time passes between the time the coin is planned and scheduled, blanks ordered, dies made, packaging designed and ordered, and production begins and all kinds of departments from the executive suite to production, marketing, and sales work together to make a product happen. And during that time plans can and do change. And it's very possible and perhaps I am giving the mint too much benefit of the doubt, but I believe that many people did not know that production numbers had changed and that lead to the misleading statements to the press. Yes, the mint should get is "stuff" together, but I don't think you appreciate how hard it is for a government entity to do that.
No, I don't appreciate it. Because whatever it is, decisions are made and are implemented.
There is no reason they cannot be properly communicated. Both on their website and via the press.
None whatsoever. To me, it looks like intentional obfuscation, wordsmithing, etc.
To the detriment of the collecting public, and possibly for the benefit of select large customers. It is entirely possible that the bureaucracy means it takes them a year to do what a private business can do in a week or a month.
But that does not mean that they can't get their story straight when communicating with the public. If anything, longer lead times and more plodding progress means they have more time to accurately communicate what it is they are doing, not less. And that it is easier, not more complicated, to get it right, if indeed "a lot of time passes between the time the coin is planned and scheduled, blanks ordered, dies made, packaging designed and ordered, and production begins and all kinds of departments from the executive suite to production, marketing, and sales work together to make a product happen."
I do believe that their designated spokesperson is not intentionally putting his name on misstatement after misstatement. Rather, it appears as though he is totally out of the loop, and is only communicating that which is fed to him. Which means what he says has no value whatsoever, to the extent it is inaccurate, and then only reflects after the fact what has been publicly reported elsewhere.
Which is why I now put no stock in his representations that the Mint is voluntarily forgoing sales of high demand products that have not reached their authorized mintage limits and have no external issues impacting the Mint's ability to produce. Because, if true, it would be the first time ever that that was the case. And because it makes no sense, economic or common.
So, time will tell. In the meantime, the Mint went to the trouble of revising Product Limits downward on its website for both the silver medal and gold coin, while not touching the Mintage Limits, which would have been the obvious move if the Mint was truly done with these. After all, neither is apparently written in stone.
That means a lot more to me than anything Mr. White is saying to Mr. Golino or to Mr. Gilkes. Or anything my critics are saying to me here.
“To be fair - most of these lower mintage modern golds that have a premium to spot when they are released get swallowed up when spot gold rises quickly, the premium is smaller and smaller.”
Exactly. And, that will likely continue- yes? Meaning- WITH RARE EXCEPTION, it’s better to collect NOTHING in the way of precious metal coins any longer and simply “flip” coins for the instant profits (or not waste your time at all getting involved with the new, over-priced, Mint products). The Mint (IMHO) has hurt the collector-base for most precious metal coins via their actions over the past decade. I acknowledge one can still make money “flipping” these coins, and, in some cases, lots of it!
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@NJCoin said:
I'm sticking by my prediction, because the alternative makes no economic sense for the Mint.
Can you repeat that prediction vis a vis the pricing premium the Flowing Hair Gold Coin now enjoys ? Thanks !
I guess that a modern coin....which is a copy of a popularly-collected coin that has lots of classic collectors a fan of...with low mintage....is a sure-fire winner. That's why the mintage didn't matter on the First Spoises or Tubman coins -- totally modern, no base of support among classic collectors.
‘’I guess that a modern coin....which is a copy of a popularly-collected coin that has lots of classic collectors a fan of...with low mintage....is a sure-fire winner. That's why the mintage didn't matter on the First Spoises or Tubman coins -- totally modern, no base of support among classic collectors.’’
Then, why are the SLQ gold quarters and Walking Liberty Half 50C gold coins worth little more than melt? Not to mention the beautifully designed 4 classic gold coins in the spouse series where the President had no wife?
In case you didn’t know, by way of example, the Van Buren MS “spouse” gold coin has the obverse design of a Liberty Seated Dime between 1837 and 1891 designed and sculpted by Christian Gobrecht. With a mintage of around 3,826 specimens!!
Nice try though. 😉
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@NJCoin said:
I'm sticking by my prediction, because the alternative makes no economic sense for the Mint.
Can you repeat that prediction vis a vis the pricing premium the Flowing Hair Gold Coin now enjoys ? Thanks !
I guess that a modern coin....which is a copy of a popularly-collected coin that has lots of classic collectors a fan of...with low mintage....is a sure-fire winner. That's why the mintage didn't matter on the First Spoises or Tubman coins -- totally modern, no base of support among classic collectors.
The prediction is that the missing 7500 are going to turn up at some point in the future. Because it makes no economic sense for the Mint to have not sold them at a $1K+ premium to spot when they clearly could have.
And because the Mint does not benefit, at all, from the pricing premium the FH Gold Coin now enjoys. All the Mint did by not making 7500 coins it was authorized to make, that it previously said had already been made (not that it would make, or could make, but that it had already made), and that it could have sold, was screw the American taxpayers out of $7.5+ million in unrealized profits.
To support a secondary market valuation for the benefit of 10K collectors and/or dealers. After the fact. When it had no obligation to do so.
At the expense of 7.5K collectors who will have to pay more for the coins than if they were able to buy them from the Mint at the issue price. Sounds great. And makes a lot of sense. 😀
The mint did the Liberty & Britannia Silver Medal earlier this year, with a 75,000 limit, and only made 33,200. None of the military one ounce medals have sold over 22,000 this year. 2023 Liberty silver medal is stuck at 36,000 medals a year later. So from other recent products the mint must have determined that 75,000 was a stretch, and they didn't want to be selling them for five years (whether anyone thinks this is right or wrong, it only matters that this is what the mint determined.)
The gold coin, I imagine they looked at the recent Gold Liberty sales, and see they have topped out at about 12,000. Proof gold eagles are at about 16,000. Gold eagle UNC coins have not broken over 10,000 in many years. 2024 proof Gold Buffalo is still under 10,000 in sales. Platinum eagle is only at 5,000 in sales.
So the mint wrongly determined from recent sales to limit the production for gold as well. I can see the medal going at 50k, but the gold at 10k was below some recent sales and is the head scratcher. Since they were not seeding them with privy marks like they did with the medals, they must have thought they would sell even fewer. This is life and has happened before with the mint. They over-produce and under-produce. The commemoratives this year were badly overproduced, and thousands will have to be waffled and packaging burnt up as a result. Maybe they need to do a preoder for products from now on with one month to order, then make what is ordered. No waste, but it will never happen. Instead we play the mint roulette wheel and they will forever guess how much we want to buy.
I'm just relaying/conveying/interpreting the vagueness that was displayed in the original CW article, and trying to make some sense of it all.
Thanks...
@Rc5280 said:
I'm just relaying/conveying/interpreting the vagueness that was displayed in the original CW article, and trying to make some sense of it all.
Thanks...
Based on a statement that the Mint itself has repudiated. [See links above. ]
@Rc5280 said:
What is the maximum amount that they can Mint?
17,500 was the "maximum authorized Mintage."
Well how many did they Mint?
The "authorized mintage" of 10,000 coins was achieved.
Still no. "Authorization" is the enabling legislation not the work order sent to production as demonstrated by every Mint statement ever.
Still waiting for ONE example of "authorized mintage" being used for anything other than the maximum mintage in the enabling legislation. There's a reason you can't find one. It would be best for future newbies if you not continue to spin misinformation.
@Rc5280 said:
I'm just relaying/conveying/interpreting the vagueness that was displayed in the original CW article, and trying to make some sense of it all.
Thanks...
There is no doubt that original statement is either incorrect or misreported as the recent Mint statement and the ANA and Coin World articles point out... with specific reference to the "authorized mintage of 17,500".
Edited to add: it is also worth pointing out that if you define "authorized mintage" the way you are trying to use it, the original Coin World article contains zero information. White saying we struck the full authorized mintage could mean any number between 0 and 17,500. It's because the term means "maximum mintage" that the article had relevant, though incorrect, information.
@ProofCollection said:
You have no idea how the government works and think they are more competent than they are.
Perhaps. But my point remains.
If they are so incompetent that they cannot send their spokesperson out to the press with accurate information, and cannot post accurate information on their website until after the fact, nothing they say or do really matters, and all we can do is close our eyes, guess, and hope we get it right.
Or just get disgusted to the point that we choose to disengage from them altogether, and either find other things to collect, or wait for things to settle on whatever it is that they issue, and then buy on the secondary market.
@Martin said:
Mint shenanigans. Been going on for ever. Nothing new.
Martin
Edited to add glad i decided not to buy one from the mint and did what Freddie quarter suggested. I got my new marine electronics and will
Get out and enjoy the river.
Coin collecting is supposed to be fun not stressful to buy a coin from the
Mint. And not arguing just to get the last word in
Nice job and I am glad you are happy with your decision! I am counting down the days for our Shad seasonal run to begin in March! Coins are fun but nothing beats the relaxation and comraderie of fishing!🎣🎣🎣
You’re happy you didn’t buy this coin or put another way glad you didn’t make an easy $600 before you went fishing. Wrong decision own it.
I’m actually happy I didn’t go through the frustration of trying to get one ordered. Not worth the anxiety (at least for me). It’s a win win someone got the coin I might have gotten😃 and I didn’t have to put up with the mint
However getting the electronics hooked up may cause more frustration
Than 15 minutes of mint madness. However in the end I will get it hooked up. With the mint I might have swung and missed
@Rc5280 said:
I'm just relaying/conveying/interpreting the vagueness that was displayed in the original CW article, and trying to make some sense of it all.
Thanks...
There is no doubt that original statement is either incorrect or misreported as the recent Mint statement and the ANA and Coin World articles point out... with specific reference to the "authorized mintage of 17,500".
Edited to add: it is also worth pointing out that if you define "authorized mintage" the way you are trying to use it, the original Coin World article contains zero information. White saying we struck the full authorized mintage could mean any number between 0 and 17,500. It's because the term means "maximum mintage" that the article had relevant, though incorrect, information.
Or not, and what White recent told Golino is incorrect. Because he seems to have no better information than the representative at the Mint booth in Baltimore, and all he is doing is confirming what we already know.
"Sold out" because the product is currently Unavailable. 10K, because that is the Product Limit. No more, because no one told him there will be more.
Not because there actually will not be more. Just like "entire authorized mintage" meant 17,500 on November 8th, and now means 10,000. There will be no more, unless and until there actually is more. At which point he will give a statement to the press confirming what we already know, because the Mint will have put it up on their website.
Maybe everyone is right, and 10K is the final number, for no obvious reason, and there never will be any more. Maybe not, since that outcome makes no sense for the Mint.
Yes, it will support secondary market values, but no more than if they had just announced it upfront, or at any time between when the decision was made to limit production to a number below the maximum and when they were placed on sale. The announcement not only never came, but White affirmatively, deliberately confirmed, in writing, in response to a direct question a week before release, that 17,500 were made.
If that was a misstatement, it was a whopper that made some people some money at the expense of others who were misled into not chasing the coin. I'm sorry, but there was absolutely no reason for the Mint to limit mintage like this, or to hide it for a month if they actually did do it. Only to later confirm it through Golino.
So, again, given the fact that I don't trust anything White says, I'm going with what makes sense to me. Not what he tells Golino or Gilkes.
That's what happens when what you say keeps turning out to be wrong. Anyone here who thinks I have a .000 batting average and that nothing I say should be considered to have any value should understand exactly where I am coming from here.
I'm going to wait until the Mint releases its "Best of the Mint" coin collection in 2026. If 25,000 of whatever they release in silver, and/or 7,500 of the gold releases, are not included in a set along with the missing 2024 releases, it will turn out that I was delusional.
Otherwise, it will have turned out to have been a very long time to have had to wait for an apology from @Liquidated. But it is the outcome that makes the most sense to me right now.
Apologies to anyone who disagrees, but this is what happens when inconsistent statements that make no sense are put out by government agencies. Skepticism and disbelief. I'll wait until 2026 to ingest my Kool-Aid.
@wondercoin said:
‘’I guess that a modern coin....which is a copy of a popularly-collected coin that has lots of classic collectors a fan of...with low mintage....is a sure-fire winner. That's why the mintage didn't matter on the First Spoises or Tubman coins -- totally modern, no base of support among classic collectors.’’
Then, why are the SLQ gold quarters and Walking Liberty Half 50C gold coins worth little more than melt? Not to mention the beautifully designed 4 classic gold coins in the spouse series where the President had no wife?
In case you didn’t know, by way of example, the Van Buren MS “spouse” gold coin has the obverse design of a Liberty Seated Dime between 1837 and 1891 designed and sculpted by Christian Gobrecht. With a mintage of around 3,826 specimens!!
Nice try though. 😉
Wondercoin
Very true. It's hard to pinpoint which issue will have some legs in the future.
However, the 2016 re-issues in GOLD had a pretty high mintage therefore very little secondary market demand after issue.
Demand is the Key. The spouses had very little demand then and less now.
A low mintage key in an ongoing popular series (like the v75 GOLD) is a coin that always had potential from the start.
However, that is until the next low issue key is created by the USM.....
@Rc5280 said: @jmlanzaf ,
"White saying we struck the full authorized mintage could mean any number between 0 and 17,500. "
Bingo!
Well, yeah. Even though @jmlanzaf is 1,000,000% correct regarding the definition of "entire authorized mintage," it turns out that White has no first hand information, and is no better informed than a representative at a booth at a coin show.
So anything he says at any given point in time could mean anything, and "entire authorized mintage" could literally mean any number at all.
Including now, when he says 10K is all there will ever be. Like the previous statement about the "entire authorized mintage" being made, it will be true, unless and until it later turns out not to be true.
@Rc5280 said: @jmlanzaf ,
"White saying we struck the full authorized mintage could mean any number between 0 and 17,500. "
Bingo!
Except that ISN'T what it means and every credible numismatic source to it to mean 17,500 which is the ONLY AUTHORIZED mintage.
There is an actual definition and facts matter.
I've provided you numerous references. Your refusal to either read them or offer a reference to support your alleged position means you're either stubborn or simply trolling at this point.
@ProofCollection said:
You have no idea how the government works and think they are more competent than they are.
Perhaps. But my point remains.
If they are so incompetent that they cannot send their spokesperson out to the press with accurate information, and cannot post accurate information on their website until after the fact, nothing they say or do really matters, and all we can do is close our eyes, guess, and hope we get it right.
Or just get disgusted to the point that we choose to disengage from them altogether, and either find other things to collect, or wait for things to settle on whatever it is that they issue, and then buy on the secondary market.
You're finally catching on.
The mint does whatever it wants.😊
We know the answer now. Is there a need to go back and forth on "Authorized" vs "Actual" mintage.
I said many pages ago that the "wording" of the statements led to questions on the actual numbers. Then CW published an article that seemed to nail it down - however, that was BAD reporting on their part (entire authorized mintage of 17,500 was completed).
The USM has been playing games for years with their reported sales, mintages, authorized mintages, etc etc etc.
Back in 2008 with respect to the 2008-W Burnished Plats - when we suspected they short struck the coin; they still had a sales report that said over 3600 coins were minted for the 1/4 oz unc plat.
It took a FOIA request ---worded the exact way to not let them play games with their response--such as "how many coins were actually struck" , no wording around minatges, sales, returns, etc. to get them to admit that on the order of 2,300 were struck/minted. A 50+% overstatement on released sales data. The USM contended with all email communication that 3600 was the number. It was clearly NOT.
We need more clear communication from the USM. Let's hope Michael White is reading these posts.
From official sources, "On December 2, in response to an inquiry for this piece, Michael White at the United States Mint confirmed that the coin has indeed sold out. He explained that while the mint could strike as many as 17,500 of these gold coins, they decided not to exercise that option. Instead, they limited the coin to only 10,000, making it one of the lowest mintage gold coins in U.S. Mint history."
Reminds me of the SS Central America coins and gold, and THOSE had a legit kick-ass story behind them.
I remember the restrikes (which used original gold but were NOT original coins) were offered for $5,000 when gold was at $300 or so. With 2 1/2 ounces of gold almost, the premium was about 700%.
About a decade later I bought one of the restrikes for about a 10% premium to gold when it was about $1,600 an ounce. The premium had just melted away once the hype ended.
My cousin has a $10 piece I believe, original coin, and I know despite the rising price of gold he was still underwater a few years ago. I think he paid like $3,000 at the time when gold was ~ $325 an ounce.
@Rc5280 said:
I'm just relaying/conveying/interpreting the vagueness that was displayed in the original CW article, and trying to make some sense of it all.
Thanks...
There is no doubt that original statement is either incorrect or misreported as the recent Mint statement and the ANA and Coin World articles point out... with specific reference to the "authorized mintage of 17,500".
Edited to add: it is also worth pointing out that if you define "authorized mintage" the way you are trying to use it, the original Coin World article contains zero information. White saying we struck the full authorized mintage could mean any number between 0 and 17,500. It's because the term means "maximum mintage" that the article had relevant, though incorrect, information.
Or not, and what White recent told Golino is incorrect. Because he seems to have no better information than the representative at the Mint booth in Baltimore, and all he is doing is confirming what we already know.
"Sold out" because the product is currently Unavailable. 10K, because that is the Product Limit. No more, because no one told him there will be more.
Not because there actually will not be more. Just like "entire authorized mintage" meant 17,500 on November 8th, and now means 10,000. There will be no more, unless and until there actually is more. At which point he will give a statement to the press confirming what we already know, because the Mint will have put it up on their website.
Maybe everyone is right, and 10K is the final number, for no obvious reason, and there never will be any more. Maybe not, since that outcome makes no sense for the Mint.
Yes, it will support secondary market values, but no more than if they had just announced it upfront, or at any time between when the decision was made to limit production to a number below the maximum and when they were placed on sale. The announcement not only never came, but White affirmatively, deliberately confirmed, in writing, in response to a direct question a week before release, that 17,500 were made.
If that was a misstatement, it was a whopper that made some people some money at the expense of others who were misled into not chasing the coin. I'm sorry, but there was absolutely no reason for the Mint to limit mintage like this, or to hide it for a month if they actually did do it. Only to later confirm it through Golino.
So, again, given the fact that I don't trust anything White says, I'm going with what makes sense to me. Not what he tells Golino or Gilkes.
That's what happens when what you say keeps turning out to be wrong. Anyone here who thinks I have a .000 batting average and that nothing I say should be considered to have any value should understand exactly where I am coming from here.
I'm going to wait until the Mint releases its "Best of the Mint" coin collection in 2026. If 25,000 of whatever they release in silver, and/or 7,500 of the gold releases, are not included in a set along with the missing 2024 releases, it will turn out that I was delusional.
Otherwise, it will have turned out to have been a very long time to have had to wait for an apology from @Liquidated. But it is the outcome that makes the most sense to me right now.
Apologies to anyone who disagrees, but this is what happens when inconsistent statements that make no sense are put out by government agencies. Skepticism and disbelief. I'll wait until 2026 to ingest my Kool-Aid.
Dude. The Mint did correct the statement to the ANA. We don't need to wait until 2026 to know you are incorrect.
@Rc5280 said: @jmlanzaf ,
"White saying we struck the full authorized mintage could mean any number between 0 and 17,500. "
Bingo!
Well, yeah. Even though @jmlanzaf is 1,000,000% correct regarding the definition of "entire authorized mintage," it turns out that White has no first hand information, and is no better informed than a representative at a booth at a coin show.
So anything he says at any given point in time could mean anything, and "entire authorized mintage" could literally mean any number at all.
Including now, when he says 10K is all there will ever be. Like the previous statement about the "entire authorized mintage" being made, it will be true, unless and until it later turns out not to be true.
White is just the press room guy. Do you expect the White House spokesperson to be a decision maker?
Thanks to everyone for the spirited and informative conversation. I can appreciate all of your comments, opinions, and facts that you've taken the time to present to me/us. I take it all under advisement. No hard feelings on my end. Clarity is key, thanks again.
@coiner said:
We know the answer now. Is there a need to go back and forth on "Authorized" vs "Actual" mintage.
I said many pages ago that the "wording" of the statements led to questions on the actual numbers. Then CW published an article that seemed to nail it down - however, that was BAD reporting on their part (entire authorized mintage of 17,500 was completed).
The USM has been playing games for years with their reported sales, mintages, authorized mintages, etc etc etc.
Back in 2008 with respect to the 2008-W Burnished Plats - when we suspected they short struck the coin; they still had a sales report that said over 3600 coins were minted for the 1/4 oz unc plat.
It took a FOIA request ---worded the exact way to not let them play games with their response--such as "how many coins were actually struck" , no wording around minatges, sales, returns, etc. to get them to admit that on the order of 2,300 were struck/minted. A 50+% overstatement on released sales data. The USM contended with all email communication that 3600 was the number. It was clearly NOT.
We need more clear communication from the USM. Let's hope Michael White is reading these posts.
Agreed. But don't count Michael White reading anything. Or caring if he is reading.
The statements to Coin World were left hanging out there, uncorrected and unrefuted, until contradictory information was provided to another journalist in another publication a month later, three weeks after release of the coin. They really don't care. Because they take us for granted.
@Rc5280 said:
I'm just relaying/conveying/interpreting the vagueness that was displayed in the original CW article, and trying to make some sense of it all.
Thanks...
There is no doubt that original statement is either incorrect or misreported as the recent Mint statement and the ANA and Coin World articles point out... with specific reference to the "authorized mintage of 17,500".
Edited to add: it is also worth pointing out that if you define "authorized mintage" the way you are trying to use it, the original Coin World article contains zero information. White saying we struck the full authorized mintage could mean any number between 0 and 17,500. It's because the term means "maximum mintage" that the article had relevant, though incorrect, information.
Or not, and what White recent told Golino is incorrect. Because he seems to have no better information than the representative at the Mint booth in Baltimore, and all he is doing is confirming what we already know.
"Sold out" because the product is currently Unavailable. 10K, because that is the Product Limit. No more, because no one told him there will be more.
Not because there actually will not be more. Just like "entire authorized mintage" meant 17,500 on November 8th, and now means 10,000. There will be no more, unless and until there actually is more. At which point he will give a statement to the press confirming what we already know, because the Mint will have put it up on their website.
Maybe everyone is right, and 10K is the final number, for no obvious reason, and there never will be any more. Maybe not, since that outcome makes no sense for the Mint.
Yes, it will support secondary market values, but no more than if they had just announced it upfront, or at any time between when the decision was made to limit production to a number below the maximum and when they were placed on sale. The announcement not only never came, but White affirmatively, deliberately confirmed, in writing, in response to a direct question a week before release, that 17,500 were made.
If that was a misstatement, it was a whopper that made some people some money at the expense of others who were misled into not chasing the coin. I'm sorry, but there was absolutely no reason for the Mint to limit mintage like this, or to hide it for a month if they actually did do it. Only to later confirm it through Golino.
So, again, given the fact that I don't trust anything White says, I'm going with what makes sense to me. Not what he tells Golino or Gilkes.
That's what happens when what you say keeps turning out to be wrong. Anyone here who thinks I have a .000 batting average and that nothing I say should be considered to have any value should understand exactly where I am coming from here.
I'm going to wait until the Mint releases its "Best of the Mint" coin collection in 2026. If 25,000 of whatever they release in silver, and/or 7,500 of the gold releases, are not included in a set along with the missing 2024 releases, it will turn out that I was delusional.
Otherwise, it will have turned out to have been a very long time to have had to wait for an apology from @Liquidated. But it is the outcome that makes the most sense to me right now.
Apologies to anyone who disagrees, but this is what happens when inconsistent statements that make no sense are put out by government agencies. Skepticism and disbelief. I'll wait until 2026 to ingest my Kool-Aid.
Dude. The Mint did correct the statement to the ANA. We don't need to wait until 2026 to know you are incorrect.
Many of us don’t need to wait until 2026, but he might. In fact, he might need to wait even longer than that. Because for all he knows, the Mint (and/or the ANA) could be lying or they might change their mind or this or that or even this and that. 😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Rc5280 said:
I'm just relaying/conveying/interpreting the vagueness that was displayed in the original CW article, and trying to make some sense of it all.
Thanks...
There is no doubt that original statement is either incorrect or misreported as the recent Mint statement and the ANA and Coin World articles point out... with specific reference to the "authorized mintage of 17,500".
Edited to add: it is also worth pointing out that if you define "authorized mintage" the way you are trying to use it, the original Coin World article contains zero information. White saying we struck the full authorized mintage could mean any number between 0 and 17,500. It's because the term means "maximum mintage" that the article had relevant, though incorrect, information.
Or not, and what White recent told Golino is incorrect. Because he seems to have no better information than the representative at the Mint booth in Baltimore, and all he is doing is confirming what we already know.
"Sold out" because the product is currently Unavailable. 10K, because that is the Product Limit. No more, because no one told him there will be more.
Not because there actually will not be more. Just like "entire authorized mintage" meant 17,500 on November 8th, and now means 10,000. There will be no more, unless and until there actually is more. At which point he will give a statement to the press confirming what we already know, because the Mint will have put it up on their website.
Maybe everyone is right, and 10K is the final number, for no obvious reason, and there never will be any more. Maybe not, since that outcome makes no sense for the Mint.
Yes, it will support secondary market values, but no more than if they had just announced it upfront, or at any time between when the decision was made to limit production to a number below the maximum and when they were placed on sale. The announcement not only never came, but White affirmatively, deliberately confirmed, in writing, in response to a direct question a week before release, that 17,500 were made.
If that was a misstatement, it was a whopper that made some people some money at the expense of others who were misled into not chasing the coin. I'm sorry, but there was absolutely no reason for the Mint to limit mintage like this, or to hide it for a month if they actually did do it. Only to later confirm it through Golino.
So, again, given the fact that I don't trust anything White says, I'm going with what makes sense to me. Not what he tells Golino or Gilkes.
That's what happens when what you say keeps turning out to be wrong. Anyone here who thinks I have a .000 batting average and that nothing I say should be considered to have any value should understand exactly where I am coming from here.
I'm going to wait until the Mint releases its "Best of the Mint" coin collection in 2026. If 25,000 of whatever they release in silver, and/or 7,500 of the gold releases, are not included in a set along with the missing 2024 releases, it will turn out that I was delusional.
Otherwise, it will have turned out to have been a very long time to have had to wait for an apology from @Liquidated. But it is the outcome that makes the most sense to me right now.
Apologies to anyone who disagrees, but this is what happens when inconsistent statements that make no sense are put out by government agencies. Skepticism and disbelief. I'll wait until 2026 to ingest my Kool-Aid.
Dude. The Mint did correct the statement to the ANA. We don't need to wait until 2026 to know you are incorrect.
YOU don't need to wait. I'm going to sit in the pumpkin patch waiting.
Because the correction did not come with an explanation, and because it makes no sense to me. My prerogative. The Mintage Limit has not been revised downward, along with the Product Limit.
All the statement told me is that the Product Limit was reached, and no more product is going to be made available for sale.
"He explained that while the mint could strike as many as 17,500 of these gold coins, they decided not to exercise that option. Instead, they limited the coin to only 10,000, making it one of the lowest mintage gold coins in U.S. Mint history." Maybe if he reconciled this with "U.S. Mint spokesman Michael White confirmed to Coin World via email Oct. 30 that production of the entire authorized mintage was achieved," I'd consider giving weight to the latest statement.
As it is, I do mean what I've been saying -- the Mint has lost credibility with me. I'm not going by anything they say, and am going to trust my own gut, for better or worse.
I think the missing coins were made, and will show up in some form in the future. Unless and until Gilkes or Golino get a specific statement from the Mint specifically addressing the contradictory information previously provided, rather than just confirming what we can see with our own eyes, i.e., they have not yet been made available for sale, and they were either made or they weren't, because while they can make them, they chose not to, for no particular reason.
@Rc5280 said: @jmlanzaf ,
"White saying we struck the full authorized mintage could mean any number between 0 and 17,500. "
Bingo!
Well, yeah. Even though @jmlanzaf is 1,000,000% correct regarding the definition of "entire authorized mintage," it turns out that White has no first hand information, and is no better informed than a representative at a booth at a coin show.
So anything he says at any given point in time could mean anything, and "entire authorized mintage" could literally mean any number at all.
Including now, when he says 10K is all there will ever be. Like the previous statement about the "entire authorized mintage" being made, it will be true, unless and until it later turns out not to be true.
White is just the press room guy. Do you expect the White House spokesperson to be a decision maker?
No. But, as an official designated spokesperson, I expect him to be in a position to communicate accurate, authoritative information.
Otherwise, he is nothing more than another clerk who works at the Mint, and there is no reason for the press to waste time speaking with him. As it is, there IS no reason for the press to waste time speaking with him, because the information he provides has been shown to be inaccurate, and there is no follow-up, by either party, to correct the record and explain inconsistencies.
Same goes for the White House spokesperson. The only difference being, the press corps does challenge them, and make them squirm, when prior statements turn out to be false.
And because a real press works anonymous sources to get actual information when official channels are not forthcoming. No such thing happens here. So we get what we get, and it's accurate unless it isn't.
@Rc5280 said:
I'm just relaying/conveying/interpreting the vagueness that was displayed in the original CW article, and trying to make some sense of it all.
Thanks...
There is no doubt that original statement is either incorrect or misreported as the recent Mint statement and the ANA and Coin World articles point out... with specific reference to the "authorized mintage of 17,500".
Edited to add: it is also worth pointing out that if you define "authorized mintage" the way you are trying to use it, the original Coin World article contains zero information. White saying we struck the full authorized mintage could mean any number between 0 and 17,500. It's because the term means "maximum mintage" that the article had relevant, though incorrect, information.
Or not, and what White recent told Golino is incorrect. Because he seems to have no better information than the representative at the Mint booth in Baltimore, and all he is doing is confirming what we already know.
"Sold out" because the product is currently Unavailable. 10K, because that is the Product Limit. No more, because no one told him there will be more.
Not because there actually will not be more. Just like "entire authorized mintage" meant 17,500 on November 8th, and now means 10,000. There will be no more, unless and until there actually is more. At which point he will give a statement to the press confirming what we already know, because the Mint will have put it up on their website.
Maybe everyone is right, and 10K is the final number, for no obvious reason, and there never will be any more. Maybe not, since that outcome makes no sense for the Mint.
Yes, it will support secondary market values, but no more than if they had just announced it upfront, or at any time between when the decision was made to limit production to a number below the maximum and when they were placed on sale. The announcement not only never came, but White affirmatively, deliberately confirmed, in writing, in response to a direct question a week before release, that 17,500 were made.
If that was a misstatement, it was a whopper that made some people some money at the expense of others who were misled into not chasing the coin. I'm sorry, but there was absolutely no reason for the Mint to limit mintage like this, or to hide it for a month if they actually did do it. Only to later confirm it through Golino.
So, again, given the fact that I don't trust anything White says, I'm going with what makes sense to me. Not what he tells Golino or Gilkes.
That's what happens when what you say keeps turning out to be wrong. Anyone here who thinks I have a .000 batting average and that nothing I say should be considered to have any value should understand exactly where I am coming from here.
I'm going to wait until the Mint releases its "Best of the Mint" coin collection in 2026. If 25,000 of whatever they release in silver, and/or 7,500 of the gold releases, are not included in a set along with the missing 2024 releases, it will turn out that I was delusional.
Otherwise, it will have turned out to have been a very long time to have had to wait for an apology from @Liquidated. But it is the outcome that makes the most sense to me right now.
Apologies to anyone who disagrees, but this is what happens when inconsistent statements that make no sense are put out by government agencies. Skepticism and disbelief. I'll wait until 2026 to ingest my Kool-Aid.
Dude. The Mint did correct the statement to the ANA. We don't need to wait until 2026 to know you are incorrect.
Many of us don’t need to wait until 2026, but he might. In fact, he might need to wait even longer than that. Because for all he knows, the Mint (and/or the ANA) could be lying or they might change their mind or this or that or even this and that. 😉
But rest assured, he won't take the initiative to start his own thread. He just likes to hijack other members threads!😉
@Rc5280 said:
I'm just relaying/conveying/interpreting the vagueness that was displayed in the original CW article, and trying to make some sense of it all.
Thanks...
There is no doubt that original statement is either incorrect or misreported as the recent Mint statement and the ANA and Coin World articles point out... with specific reference to the "authorized mintage of 17,500".
Edited to add: it is also worth pointing out that if you define "authorized mintage" the way you are trying to use it, the original Coin World article contains zero information. White saying we struck the full authorized mintage could mean any number between 0 and 17,500. It's because the term means "maximum mintage" that the article had relevant, though incorrect, information.
Or not, and what White recent told Golino is incorrect. Because he seems to have no better information than the representative at the Mint booth in Baltimore, and all he is doing is confirming what we already know.
"Sold out" because the product is currently Unavailable. 10K, because that is the Product Limit. No more, because no one told him there will be more.
Not because there actually will not be more. Just like "entire authorized mintage" meant 17,500 on November 8th, and now means 10,000. There will be no more, unless and until there actually is more. At which point he will give a statement to the press confirming what we already know, because the Mint will have put it up on their website.
Maybe everyone is right, and 10K is the final number, for no obvious reason, and there never will be any more. Maybe not, since that outcome makes no sense for the Mint.
Yes, it will support secondary market values, but no more than if they had just announced it upfront, or at any time between when the decision was made to limit production to a number below the maximum and when they were placed on sale. The announcement not only never came, but White affirmatively, deliberately confirmed, in writing, in response to a direct question a week before release, that 17,500 were made.
If that was a misstatement, it was a whopper that made some people some money at the expense of others who were misled into not chasing the coin. I'm sorry, but there was absolutely no reason for the Mint to limit mintage like this, or to hide it for a month if they actually did do it. Only to later confirm it through Golino.
So, again, given the fact that I don't trust anything White says, I'm going with what makes sense to me. Not what he tells Golino or Gilkes.
That's what happens when what you say keeps turning out to be wrong. Anyone here who thinks I have a .000 batting average and that nothing I say should be considered to have any value should understand exactly where I am coming from here.
I'm going to wait until the Mint releases its "Best of the Mint" coin collection in 2026. If 25,000 of whatever they release in silver, and/or 7,500 of the gold releases, are not included in a set along with the missing 2024 releases, it will turn out that I was delusional.
Otherwise, it will have turned out to have been a very long time to have had to wait for an apology from @Liquidated. But it is the outcome that makes the most sense to me right now.
Apologies to anyone who disagrees, but this is what happens when inconsistent statements that make no sense are put out by government agencies. Skepticism and disbelief. I'll wait until 2026 to ingest my Kool-Aid.
Dude. The Mint did correct the statement to the ANA. We don't need to wait until 2026 to know you are incorrect.
Many of us don’t need to wait until 2026, but he might. In fact, he might need to wait even longer than that. Because for all he knows, the Mint (and/or the ANA) could be lying or they might change their mind or this or that or even this and that. 😉
EXACTLY!!!! But 2026 will do it for me, because my theory is tied to the "Best of the Mint" coins to be released then. Not anything to be released at any time from here to infinity and beyond.
Because yes, they have now engaged in a pattern and practice of either lying or arbitrarily changing their mind from statement to statement, without rhyme or reason. On November 8th, when White told Coin World that 17,500 gold coins were made, someone at the Mint knew that only 10,000 coins were either made and/or going to be released on November 14th.
That was not communicated by White, as it should have been, as their designated spokesperson giving a statement to the numismatic press a week before product release. Which was the whole point behind publishing the article in the first place.
To provide information to the public ahead of the release. Accurate information that was known at the time. Not misleading nonsense.
Lie, misstatement, mistake. Call it whatever you want. It was misleading, and led some to make bad decisions in reliance on information that turned out to false. As a result, his now saying anything means nothing to me.
At least not without an explanation for and reconciliation of past misstatements. As far as I'm concerned, current statements are as likely to be accurate as past statements. Which means, they will be correct until they aren't.
Because the explanation could be as simple as he doesn't actually know anything, and only repeats what he is told, which might or might not be correct at any given point in time. Including right now. Meaning he is not actually qualified to give statements about anything.
This only applies to the Mint. I 1,000,000 believe, and always have believed, that Coin World, and now Golino, are accurately reporting what they are told. Their only sin seems to be placing their relationship with the Mint, and Mr. White specifically, above putting his feet to the fire and getting explanations for clear inconsistencies between his various statements.
Rude as it might be, they owe it to their readers. Otherwise, they are providing no value, and their publications are nothing more than advertising vehicles and a collection of press releases, if they just regurgitate whatever they are told without challenge or question.
@Rc5280 said:
I'm just relaying/conveying/interpreting the vagueness that was displayed in the original CW article, and trying to make some sense of it all.
Thanks...
There is no doubt that original statement is either incorrect or misreported as the recent Mint statement and the ANA and Coin World articles point out... with specific reference to the "authorized mintage of 17,500".
Edited to add: it is also worth pointing out that if you define "authorized mintage" the way you are trying to use it, the original Coin World article contains zero information. White saying we struck the full authorized mintage could mean any number between 0 and 17,500. It's because the term means "maximum mintage" that the article had relevant, though incorrect, information.
Or not, and what White recent told Golino is incorrect. Because he seems to have no better information than the representative at the Mint booth in Baltimore, and all he is doing is confirming what we already know.
"Sold out" because the product is currently Unavailable. 10K, because that is the Product Limit. No more, because no one told him there will be more.
Not because there actually will not be more. Just like "entire authorized mintage" meant 17,500 on November 8th, and now means 10,000. There will be no more, unless and until there actually is more. At which point he will give a statement to the press confirming what we already know, because the Mint will have put it up on their website.
Maybe everyone is right, and 10K is the final number, for no obvious reason, and there never will be any more. Maybe not, since that outcome makes no sense for the Mint.
Yes, it will support secondary market values, but no more than if they had just announced it upfront, or at any time between when the decision was made to limit production to a number below the maximum and when they were placed on sale. The announcement not only never came, but White affirmatively, deliberately confirmed, in writing, in response to a direct question a week before release, that 17,500 were made.
If that was a misstatement, it was a whopper that made some people some money at the expense of others who were misled into not chasing the coin. I'm sorry, but there was absolutely no reason for the Mint to limit mintage like this, or to hide it for a month if they actually did do it. Only to later confirm it through Golino.
So, again, given the fact that I don't trust anything White says, I'm going with what makes sense to me. Not what he tells Golino or Gilkes.
That's what happens when what you say keeps turning out to be wrong. Anyone here who thinks I have a .000 batting average and that nothing I say should be considered to have any value should understand exactly where I am coming from here.
I'm going to wait until the Mint releases its "Best of the Mint" coin collection in 2026. If 25,000 of whatever they release in silver, and/or 7,500 of the gold releases, are not included in a set along with the missing 2024 releases, it will turn out that I was delusional.
Otherwise, it will have turned out to have been a very long time to have had to wait for an apology from @Liquidated. But it is the outcome that makes the most sense to me right now.
Apologies to anyone who disagrees, but this is what happens when inconsistent statements that make no sense are put out by government agencies. Skepticism and disbelief. I'll wait until 2026 to ingest my Kool-Aid.
Dude. The Mint did correct the statement to the ANA. We don't need to wait until 2026 to know you are incorrect.
Many of us don’t need to wait until 2026, but he might. In fact, he might need to wait even longer than that. Because for all he knows, the Mint (and/or the ANA) could be lying or they might change their mind or this or that or even this and that. 😉
EXACTLY!!!! But 2026 will do it for me, because my theory is tied to the "Best of the Mint" coins to be released then. Not anything to be released at any time from here to infinity and beyond.
Because yes, they have now engaged in a pattern and practice of either lying or arbitrarily changing their mind from statement to statement, without rhyme or reason. On November 8th, when White told Coin World that 17,500 gold coins were made, someone at the Mint knew that only 10,000 coins were either made and/or going to be released on November 14th.
That was not communicated by White, as it should have been, as their designated spokesperson giving a statement to the numismatic press a week before product release. Which was the whole point behind publishing the article in the first place.
To provide information to the public ahead of the release. Accurate information that was known at the time. Not misleading nonsense.
Lie, misstatement, mistake. Call it whatever you want. It was misleading, and led some to make bad decisions in reliance on information that turned out to false. As a result, his now saying anything means nothing to me.
At least not without an explanation for and reconciliation of past misstatements. As far as I'm concerned, current statements are as likely to be accurate as past statements. Which means, they will be correct until they aren't.
Because the explanation could be as simple as he doesn't actually know anything, and only repeats what he is told, which might or might not be correct at any given point in time. Including right now. Meaning he is not actually qualified to give statements about anything.
This only applies to the Mint. I 1,000,000 believe, and always have believed, that Coin World, and now Golino, are accurately reporting what they are told. Their only sin seems to be placing their relationship with the Mint, and Mr. White specifically, above putting his feet to the fire and getting explanations for clear inconsistencies between his various statements.
Rude as it might be, they owe it to their readers. Otherwise, they are providing no value, and their publications are nothing more than advertising vehicles and a collection of press releases, if they just regurgitate whatever they are told without challenge or question.
It’s great to see you post something different for a change instead of mostly the same thing, over and over again. Oops, on second thought, I take it back, as that’s what you did.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Rc5280 said: @jmlanzaf ,
"White saying we struck the full authorized mintage could mean any number between 0 and 17,500. "
Bingo!
Well, yeah. Even though @jmlanzaf is 1,000,000% correct regarding the definition of "entire authorized mintage," it turns out that White has no first hand information, and is no better informed than a representative at a booth at a coin show.
So anything he says at any given point in time could mean anything, and "entire authorized mintage" could literally mean any number at all.
Including now, when he says 10K is all there will ever be. Like the previous statement about the "entire authorized mintage" being made, it will be true, unless and until it later turns out not to be true.
White is just the press room guy. Do you expect the White House spokesperson to be a decision maker?
@Rc5280 said:
I'm just relaying/conveying/interpreting the vagueness that was displayed in the original CW article, and trying to make some sense of it all.
Thanks...
There is no doubt that original statement is either incorrect or misreported as the recent Mint statement and the ANA and Coin World articles point out... with specific reference to the "authorized mintage of 17,500".
Edited to add: it is also worth pointing out that if you define "authorized mintage" the way you are trying to use it, the original Coin World article contains zero information. White saying we struck the full authorized mintage could mean any number between 0 and 17,500. It's because the term means "maximum mintage" that the article had relevant, though incorrect, information.
Or not, and what White recent told Golino is incorrect. Because he seems to have no better information than the representative at the Mint booth in Baltimore, and all he is doing is confirming what we already know.
"Sold out" because the product is currently Unavailable. 10K, because that is the Product Limit. No more, because no one told him there will be more.
Not because there actually will not be more. Just like "entire authorized mintage" meant 17,500 on November 8th, and now means 10,000. There will be no more, unless and until there actually is more. At which point he will give a statement to the press confirming what we already know, because the Mint will have put it up on their website.
Maybe everyone is right, and 10K is the final number, for no obvious reason, and there never will be any more. Maybe not, since that outcome makes no sense for the Mint.
Yes, it will support secondary market values, but no more than if they had just announced it upfront, or at any time between when the decision was made to limit production to a number below the maximum and when they were placed on sale. The announcement not only never came, but White affirmatively, deliberately confirmed, in writing, in response to a direct question a week before release, that 17,500 were made.
If that was a misstatement, it was a whopper that made some people some money at the expense of others who were misled into not chasing the coin. I'm sorry, but there was absolutely no reason for the Mint to limit mintage like this, or to hide it for a month if they actually did do it. Only to later confirm it through Golino.
So, again, given the fact that I don't trust anything White says, I'm going with what makes sense to me. Not what he tells Golino or Gilkes.
That's what happens when what you say keeps turning out to be wrong. Anyone here who thinks I have a .000 batting average and that nothing I say should be considered to have any value should understand exactly where I am coming from here.
I'm going to wait until the Mint releases its "Best of the Mint" coin collection in 2026. If 25,000 of whatever they release in silver, and/or 7,500 of the gold releases, are not included in a set along with the missing 2024 releases, it will turn out that I was delusional.
Otherwise, it will have turned out to have been a very long time to have had to wait for an apology from @Liquidated. But it is the outcome that makes the most sense to me right now.
Apologies to anyone who disagrees, but this is what happens when inconsistent statements that make no sense are put out by government agencies. Skepticism and disbelief. I'll wait until 2026 to ingest my Kool-Aid.
Dude. The Mint did correct the statement to the ANA. We don't need to wait until 2026 to know you are incorrect.
Many of us don’t need to wait until 2026, but he might. In fact, he might need to wait even longer than that. Because for all he knows, the Mint (and/or the ANA) could be lying or they might change their mind or this or that or even this and that. 😉
But rest assured, he won't take the initiative to start his own thread. He just likes to hijack other members threads!😉
Yes. Pot, meet kettle.
FOMO much? I'm commenting. Not hijacking.
You, OTOH, seem committed to jumping in with snarky comments about me, rather than having anything at all to say about the topic at hand, whenever the opportunity presents itself. Why not just stick to the Ignoring you publicly lobbied others to join you in? And complaining to mods, publicly announcing that as well?
Or, just hear me out, maybe get a life that does not revolve around obsessing on what I post on a coin forum? 😉
@Rc5280 said:
I'm just relaying/conveying/interpreting the vagueness that was displayed in the original CW article, and trying to make some sense of it all.
Thanks...
There is no doubt that original statement is either incorrect or misreported as the recent Mint statement and the ANA and Coin World articles point out... with specific reference to the "authorized mintage of 17,500".
Edited to add: it is also worth pointing out that if you define "authorized mintage" the way you are trying to use it, the original Coin World article contains zero information. White saying we struck the full authorized mintage could mean any number between 0 and 17,500. It's because the term means "maximum mintage" that the article had relevant, though incorrect, information.
Or not, and what White recent told Golino is incorrect. Because he seems to have no better information than the representative at the Mint booth in Baltimore, and all he is doing is confirming what we already know.
"Sold out" because the product is currently Unavailable. 10K, because that is the Product Limit. No more, because no one told him there will be more.
Not because there actually will not be more. Just like "entire authorized mintage" meant 17,500 on November 8th, and now means 10,000. There will be no more, unless and until there actually is more. At which point he will give a statement to the press confirming what we already know, because the Mint will have put it up on their website.
Maybe everyone is right, and 10K is the final number, for no obvious reason, and there never will be any more. Maybe not, since that outcome makes no sense for the Mint.
Yes, it will support secondary market values, but no more than if they had just announced it upfront, or at any time between when the decision was made to limit production to a number below the maximum and when they were placed on sale. The announcement not only never came, but White affirmatively, deliberately confirmed, in writing, in response to a direct question a week before release, that 17,500 were made.
If that was a misstatement, it was a whopper that made some people some money at the expense of others who were misled into not chasing the coin. I'm sorry, but there was absolutely no reason for the Mint to limit mintage like this, or to hide it for a month if they actually did do it. Only to later confirm it through Golino.
So, again, given the fact that I don't trust anything White says, I'm going with what makes sense to me. Not what he tells Golino or Gilkes.
That's what happens when what you say keeps turning out to be wrong. Anyone here who thinks I have a .000 batting average and that nothing I say should be considered to have any value should understand exactly where I am coming from here.
I'm going to wait until the Mint releases its "Best of the Mint" coin collection in 2026. If 25,000 of whatever they release in silver, and/or 7,500 of the gold releases, are not included in a set along with the missing 2024 releases, it will turn out that I was delusional.
Otherwise, it will have turned out to have been a very long time to have had to wait for an apology from @Liquidated. But it is the outcome that makes the most sense to me right now.
Apologies to anyone who disagrees, but this is what happens when inconsistent statements that make no sense are put out by government agencies. Skepticism and disbelief. I'll wait until 2026 to ingest my Kool-Aid.
Dude. The Mint did correct the statement to the ANA. We don't need to wait until 2026 to know you are incorrect.
Many of us don’t need to wait until 2026, but he might. In fact, he might need to wait even longer than that. Because for all he knows, the Mint (and/or the ANA) could be lying or they might change their mind or this or that or even this and that. 😉
EXACTLY!!!! But 2026 will do it for me, because my theory is tied to the "Best of the Mint" coins to be released then. Not anything to be released at any time from here to infinity and beyond.
Because yes, they have now engaged in a pattern and practice of either lying or arbitrarily changing their mind from statement to statement, without rhyme or reason. On November 8th, when White told Coin World that 17,500 gold coins were made, someone at the Mint knew that only 10,000 coins were either made and/or going to be released on November 14th.
That was not communicated by White, as it should have been, as their designated spokesperson giving a statement to the numismatic press a week before product release. Which was the whole point behind publishing the article in the first place.
To provide information to the public ahead of the release. Accurate information that was known at the time. Not misleading nonsense.
Lie, misstatement, mistake. Call it whatever you want. It was misleading, and led some to make bad decisions in reliance on information that turned out to false. As a result, his now saying anything means nothing to me.
At least not without an explanation for and reconciliation of past misstatements. As far as I'm concerned, current statements are as likely to be accurate as past statements. Which means, they will be correct until they aren't.
Because the explanation could be as simple as he doesn't actually know anything, and only repeats what he is told, which might or might not be correct at any given point in time. Including right now. Meaning he is not actually qualified to give statements about anything.
This only applies to the Mint. I 1,000,000 believe, and always have believed, that Coin World, and now Golino, are accurately reporting what they are told. Their only sin seems to be placing their relationship with the Mint, and Mr. White specifically, above putting his feet to the fire and getting explanations for clear inconsistencies between his various statements.
Rude as it might be, they owe it to their readers. Otherwise, they are providing no value, and their publications are nothing more than advertising vehicles and a collection of press releases, if they just regurgitate whatever they are told without challenge or question.
It’s great to see you post something different for a change instead of mostly the same thing, over and over again. Oops, on second thought, I take it back, as that’s what you did.
"Mostly the same thing." Like Where's Waldo?, I embed little nuggets to keep you alert. 😀
In trying to get details from responsible authoritative personnel at the USM (not the call center or clerks) they have been very evasive to tell the correct story.
I suspect they are trying to avoid a huge run on certain issues, they obviously had as part of their mission statement a few years back to get these numismatic issues into the hands of a broad group of collectors - widespread distribution. They didnt want these to be manipulated by a few.
Hence the HH limits, waiting rooms, etc etc etc.
All we ask is truthfulness and transparency. Maybe there is a need to replace some at the USM by the new incoming administration.
@Rc5280 said:
I'm just relaying/conveying/interpreting the vagueness that was displayed in the original CW article, and trying to make some sense of it all.
Thanks...
There is no doubt that original statement is either incorrect or misreported as the recent Mint statement and the ANA and Coin World articles point out... with specific reference to the "authorized mintage of 17,500".
Edited to add: it is also worth pointing out that if you define "authorized mintage" the way you are trying to use it, the original Coin World article contains zero information. White saying we struck the full authorized mintage could mean any number between 0 and 17,500. It's because the term means "maximum mintage" that the article had relevant, though incorrect, information.
Or not, and what White recent told Golino is incorrect. Because he seems to have no better information than the representative at the Mint booth in Baltimore, and all he is doing is confirming what we already know.
"Sold out" because the product is currently Unavailable. 10K, because that is the Product Limit. No more, because no one told him there will be more.
Not because there actually will not be more. Just like "entire authorized mintage" meant 17,500 on November 8th, and now means 10,000. There will be no more, unless and until there actually is more. At which point he will give a statement to the press confirming what we already know, because the Mint will have put it up on their website.
Maybe everyone is right, and 10K is the final number, for no obvious reason, and there never will be any more. Maybe not, since that outcome makes no sense for the Mint.
Yes, it will support secondary market values, but no more than if they had just announced it upfront, or at any time between when the decision was made to limit production to a number below the maximum and when they were placed on sale. The announcement not only never came, but White affirmatively, deliberately confirmed, in writing, in response to a direct question a week before release, that 17,500 were made.
If that was a misstatement, it was a whopper that made some people some money at the expense of others who were misled into not chasing the coin. I'm sorry, but there was absolutely no reason for the Mint to limit mintage like this, or to hide it for a month if they actually did do it. Only to later confirm it through Golino.
So, again, given the fact that I don't trust anything White says, I'm going with what makes sense to me. Not what he tells Golino or Gilkes.
That's what happens when what you say keeps turning out to be wrong. Anyone here who thinks I have a .000 batting average and that nothing I say should be considered to have any value should understand exactly where I am coming from here.
I'm going to wait until the Mint releases its "Best of the Mint" coin collection in 2026. If 25,000 of whatever they release in silver, and/or 7,500 of the gold releases, are not included in a set along with the missing 2024 releases, it will turn out that I was delusional.
Otherwise, it will have turned out to have been a very long time to have had to wait for an apology from @Liquidated. But it is the outcome that makes the most sense to me right now.
Apologies to anyone who disagrees, but this is what happens when inconsistent statements that make no sense are put out by government agencies. Skepticism and disbelief. I'll wait until 2026 to ingest my Kool-Aid.
Dude. The Mint did correct the statement to the ANA. We don't need to wait until 2026 to know you are incorrect.
YOU don't need to wait. I'm going to sit in the pumpkin patch waiting.
Because the correction did not come with an explanation, and because it makes no sense to me. My prerogative. The Mintage Limit has not been revised downward, along with the Product Limit.
There's no need to revise a limit downward. Limit means "not to exceed." If you make less than that, you are compliant with the limit and there is no need for revision. See how that works? If I limit you to 3 cookies for dinner and you only eat 2, I don't need to revise the limit downward. You still complied with the limit.
As it is, I do mean what I've been saying -- the Mint has lost credibility with me. I'm not going by anything they say, and am going to trust my own gut, for better or worse.
You can always trust that they won't exceed the stated limit. They may however, only eat 2 out of a 3 cookie limit. This should not be as upsetting to you as it has become.
@Rc5280 said:
I'm just relaying/conveying/interpreting the vagueness that was displayed in the original CW article, and trying to make some sense of it all.
Thanks...
There is no doubt that original statement is either incorrect or misreported as the recent Mint statement and the ANA and Coin World articles point out... with specific reference to the "authorized mintage of 17,500".
Edited to add: it is also worth pointing out that if you define "authorized mintage" the way you are trying to use it, the original Coin World article contains zero information. White saying we struck the full authorized mintage could mean any number between 0 and 17,500. It's because the term means "maximum mintage" that the article had relevant, though incorrect, information.
Or not, and what White recent told Golino is incorrect. Because he seems to have no better information than the representative at the Mint booth in Baltimore, and all he is doing is confirming what we already know.
"Sold out" because the product is currently Unavailable. 10K, because that is the Product Limit. No more, because no one told him there will be more.
Not because there actually will not be more. Just like "entire authorized mintage" meant 17,500 on November 8th, and now means 10,000. There will be no more, unless and until there actually is more. At which point he will give a statement to the press confirming what we already know, because the Mint will have put it up on their website.
Maybe everyone is right, and 10K is the final number, for no obvious reason, and there never will be any more. Maybe not, since that outcome makes no sense for the Mint.
Yes, it will support secondary market values, but no more than if they had just announced it upfront, or at any time between when the decision was made to limit production to a number below the maximum and when they were placed on sale. The announcement not only never came, but White affirmatively, deliberately confirmed, in writing, in response to a direct question a week before release, that 17,500 were made.
If that was a misstatement, it was a whopper that made some people some money at the expense of others who were misled into not chasing the coin. I'm sorry, but there was absolutely no reason for the Mint to limit mintage like this, or to hide it for a month if they actually did do it. Only to later confirm it through Golino.
So, again, given the fact that I don't trust anything White says, I'm going with what makes sense to me. Not what he tells Golino or Gilkes.
That's what happens when what you say keeps turning out to be wrong. Anyone here who thinks I have a .000 batting average and that nothing I say should be considered to have any value should understand exactly where I am coming from here.
I'm going to wait until the Mint releases its "Best of the Mint" coin collection in 2026. If 25,000 of whatever they release in silver, and/or 7,500 of the gold releases, are not included in a set along with the missing 2024 releases, it will turn out that I was delusional.
Otherwise, it will have turned out to have been a very long time to have had to wait for an apology from @Liquidated. But it is the outcome that makes the most sense to me right now.
Apologies to anyone who disagrees, but this is what happens when inconsistent statements that make no sense are put out by government agencies. Skepticism and disbelief. I'll wait until 2026 to ingest my Kool-Aid.
Dude. The Mint did correct the statement to the ANA. We don't need to wait until 2026 to know you are incorrect.
YOU don't need to wait. I'm going to sit in the pumpkin patch waiting.
Because the correction did not come with an explanation, and because it makes no sense to me. My prerogative. The Mintage Limit has not been revised downward, along with the Product Limit.
There's no need to revise a limit downward. Limit means "not to exceed." If you make less than that, you are compliant with the limit and there is no need for revision. See how that works? If I limit you to 3 cookies for dinner and you only eat 2, I don't need to revise the limit downward. You still complied with the limit.
As it is, I do mean what I've been saying -- the Mint has lost credibility with me. I'm not going by anything they say, and am going to trust my own gut, for better or worse.
You can always trust that they won't exceed the stated limit. They may however, only eat 2 out of a 3 cookie limit. This should not be as upsetting to you as it has become.
Similarly, there's no need to revise a Product Limit downward. OTHER THAN TRANSPARENCY!!!!!!
Otherwise, all Mintage Limits can simply be 100 million, with no Product Limits, and they can always then just do anything they want, with no need for statements to Coin World or Louis Golino. And Michael White's salary can then be the first contribution to Elon's DOGE fund.
You are getting one half of the equation correct, while totally missing the other, but equally important side. People who bought based on a 17,500 Mintage Limit would certainly be upset if they arbitrarily decide, after the fact, to make and sell 30,000. We all can agree on that.
But why can't you see that people not buying based on a 17,500 Mintage Limit would also be upset if they arbitrarily decide, after the fact, to only make and sell 10,000? It's crystal clear to me!!!
If these numbers didn't mean anything, there would be no reason to publish them. Or sales reports, for that matter.
Since they do mean something, it's important that they be accurate. This isn't "The Price Is Right," and the only important metric is not not going over the limit. It's also having the limit be accurate.
Which means making and selling that amount, if demand warrants. They can set the number wherever they choose. No argument there. The only argument is regarding their obligation to accurately disseminate the correct number. And to then stick to it.
This isn't dinner and cookies. Some missed out on a 10K coin because they were led to believe that it was going to be a 17.5K coin.
That's not okay, even though they did not exceed the limit. It's just as bad, on the other side, as if they DID exceed the limit. In which case you would certainly all be screaming.
Not hitting a limit because there is insufficient demand is perfectly fine. Not hitting a limit because someone arbitrarily decides not to make that many, AND fails to communicate that fact before the on-sale date, is NOT fine. Nor is distributing a quantity to ABPP dealers based on a Mintage Limit they know they will not be making or distributing. Also not fine.
Change the limits, both Mintage and Product, to "N/A," and the ABPP formula to "whatever we want," and then everything will be fine, and the market will react accordingly. If they keep playing these games, we'll eventually get there anyway, so it's not really going to matter in the long run.
Oh, and right now, I can't "always trust" anything they say. They say there will be no more gold coins.
But they also say the Mintage Limit is 7500 higher than the Product Limit. I don't trust more won't hit the market at some point, even though they are now saying that won't happen. In fact, I actually expect it. That's what happens when you play games with words and lose credibility. Even though 3 cookies were not eaten. Yet.
@coiner said:
In trying to get details from responsible authoritative personnel at the USM (not the call center or clerks) they have been very evasive to tell the correct story.
I suspect they are trying to avoid a huge run on certain issues, they obviously had as part of their mission statement a few years back to get these numismatic issues into the hands of a broad group of collectors - widespread distribution. They didnt want these to be manipulated by a few.
Hence the HH limits, waiting rooms, etc etc etc.
All we ask is truthfulness and transparency. Maybe there is a need to replace some at the USM by the new incoming administration.
This is all very true. There was absolutely no reason not to communicate 10K to the world, before release, if that was the number. Or say nothing, and leave us all guessing, rather than publish an inaccurate number, and have people make unexpectedly good or unexpectedly bad decisions based on misleading information.
And to tell the world that the new ABPP number is 20%, or whatever it is, rather than leaving it at 10% and then just doing whatever they want. All this does is destroy their credibility. I'm the biggest and most persistent mouth here giving voice to this, but I know I am not alone in feeling this way.
No one is challenging their right to do whatever they want. But failure to consistently provide accurate information to the market, as opposed to "we can do whatever we want, as long as we don't go over," is not going to end well for them when people get tired and move on.
This isn't food, fuel or shelter. It's rocks refined into shiny metals sold at a very significant premium to their intrinsic value. Absolutely no one needs any of it. They should probably think about that a little before they send Michael White out with bad information to disseminate to the world.
Comments
did you ever accept the cookies?
I don't know your background but I don't think you understand the bureacratic nature of the government and how these things come to fruition. I'm not an expert either but I have to believe that a lot of time passes between the time the coin is planned and scheduled, blanks ordered, dies made, packaging designed and ordered, and production begins and all kinds of departments from the executive suite to production, marketing, and sales work together to make a product happen. And during that time plans can and do change. And it's very possible and perhaps I am giving the mint too much benefit of the doubt, but I believe that many people did not know that production numbers had changed and that lead to the misleading statements to the press. Yes, the mint should get is "stuff" together, but I don't think you appreciate how hard it is for a government entity to do that.
No, I don't appreciate it. Because whatever it is, decisions are made and are implemented.
There is no reason they cannot be properly communicated. Both on their website and via the press.
None whatsoever. To me, it looks like intentional obfuscation, wordsmithing, etc.
To the detriment of the collecting public, and possibly for the benefit of select large customers. It is entirely possible that the bureaucracy means it takes them a year to do what a private business can do in a week or a month.
But that does not mean that they can't get their story straight when communicating with the public. If anything, longer lead times and more plodding progress means they have more time to accurately communicate what it is they are doing, not less. And that it is easier, not more complicated, to get it right, if indeed "a lot of time passes between the time the coin is planned and scheduled, blanks ordered, dies made, packaging designed and ordered, and production begins and all kinds of departments from the executive suite to production, marketing, and sales work together to make a product happen."
I do believe that their designated spokesperson is not intentionally putting his name on misstatement after misstatement. Rather, it appears as though he is totally out of the loop, and is only communicating that which is fed to him. Which means what he says has no value whatsoever, to the extent it is inaccurate, and then only reflects after the fact what has been publicly reported elsewhere.
Which is why I now put no stock in his representations that the Mint is voluntarily forgoing sales of high demand products that have not reached their authorized mintage limits and have no external issues impacting the Mint's ability to produce. Because, if true, it would be the first time ever that that was the case. And because it makes no sense, economic or common.
So, time will tell. In the meantime, the Mint went to the trouble of revising Product Limits downward on its website for both the silver medal and gold coin, while not touching the Mintage Limits, which would have been the obvious move if the Mint was truly done with these. After all, neither is apparently written in stone.
That means a lot more to me than anything Mr. White is saying to Mr. Golino or to Mr. Gilkes. Or anything my critics are saying to me here.
i guess there is a chance mw was wrong on both statements
“To be fair - most of these lower mintage modern golds that have a premium to spot when they are released get swallowed up when spot gold rises quickly, the premium is smaller and smaller.”
Exactly. And, that will likely continue- yes? Meaning- WITH RARE EXCEPTION, it’s better to collect NOTHING in the way of precious metal coins any longer and simply “flip” coins for the instant profits (or not waste your time at all getting involved with the new, over-priced, Mint products). The Mint (IMHO) has hurt the collector-base for most precious metal coins via their actions over the past decade. I acknowledge one can still make money “flipping” these coins, and, in some cases, lots of it!
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
Can you repeat that prediction vis a vis the pricing premium the Flowing Hair Gold Coin now enjoys ? Thanks !
I guess that a modern coin....which is a copy of a popularly-collected coin that has lots of classic collectors a fan of...with low mintage....is a sure-fire winner. That's why the mintage didn't matter on the First Spoises or Tubman coins -- totally modern, no base of support among classic collectors.
what's the premium on a coin that doesn't sell?
‘’I guess that a modern coin....which is a copy of a popularly-collected coin that has lots of classic collectors a fan of...with low mintage....is a sure-fire winner. That's why the mintage didn't matter on the First Spoises or Tubman coins -- totally modern, no base of support among classic collectors.’’
Then, why are the SLQ gold quarters and Walking Liberty Half 50C gold coins worth little more than melt? Not to mention the beautifully designed 4 classic gold coins in the spouse series where the President had no wife?
In case you didn’t know, by way of example, the Van Buren MS “spouse” gold coin has the obverse design of a Liberty Seated Dime between 1837 and 1891 designed and sculpted by Christian Gobrecht. With a mintage of around 3,826 specimens!!
Nice try though. 😉
Wondercoin
The prediction is that the missing 7500 are going to turn up at some point in the future. Because it makes no economic sense for the Mint to have not sold them at a $1K+ premium to spot when they clearly could have.
And because the Mint does not benefit, at all, from the pricing premium the FH Gold Coin now enjoys. All the Mint did by not making 7500 coins it was authorized to make, that it previously said had already been made (not that it would make, or could make, but that it had already made), and that it could have sold, was screw the American taxpayers out of $7.5+ million in unrealized profits.
To support a secondary market valuation for the benefit of 10K collectors and/or dealers. After the fact. When it had no obligation to do so.
At the expense of 7.5K collectors who will have to pay more for the coins than if they were able to buy them from the Mint at the issue price. Sounds great. And makes a lot of sense. 😀
No. Lol
Now its a high mintage gold commem.
Martin
You have no idea how the government works and think they are more competent than they are.
The mint did the Liberty & Britannia Silver Medal earlier this year, with a 75,000 limit, and only made 33,200. None of the military one ounce medals have sold over 22,000 this year. 2023 Liberty silver medal is stuck at 36,000 medals a year later. So from other recent products the mint must have determined that 75,000 was a stretch, and they didn't want to be selling them for five years (whether anyone thinks this is right or wrong, it only matters that this is what the mint determined.)
The gold coin, I imagine they looked at the recent Gold Liberty sales, and see they have topped out at about 12,000. Proof gold eagles are at about 16,000. Gold eagle UNC coins have not broken over 10,000 in many years. 2024 proof Gold Buffalo is still under 10,000 in sales. Platinum eagle is only at 5,000 in sales.
So the mint wrongly determined from recent sales to limit the production for gold as well. I can see the medal going at 50k, but the gold at 10k was below some recent sales and is the head scratcher. Since they were not seeding them with privy marks like they did with the medals, they must have thought they would sell even fewer. This is life and has happened before with the mint. They over-produce and under-produce. The commemoratives this year were badly overproduced, and thousands will have to be waffled and packaging burnt up as a result. Maybe they need to do a preoder for products from now on with one month to order, then make what is ordered. No waste, but it will never happen. Instead we play the mint roulette wheel and they will forever guess how much we want to buy.
What is the maximum amount that they can Mint?
17,500 was the "maximum authorized Mintage."
Well how many did they Mint?
The "authorized mintage" of 10,000 coins was achieved.
I'm just relaying/conveying/interpreting the vagueness that was displayed in the original CW article, and trying to make some sense of it all.
Thanks...
Based on a statement that the Mint itself has repudiated. [See links above. ]
Still no. "Authorization" is the enabling legislation not the work order sent to production as demonstrated by every Mint statement ever.
Still waiting for ONE example of "authorized mintage" being used for anything other than the maximum mintage in the enabling legislation. There's a reason you can't find one. It would be best for future newbies if you not continue to spin misinformation.
There is no doubt that original statement is either incorrect or misreported as the recent Mint statement and the ANA and Coin World articles point out... with specific reference to the "authorized mintage of 17,500".
Edited to add: it is also worth pointing out that if you define "authorized mintage" the way you are trying to use it, the original Coin World article contains zero information. White saying we struck the full authorized mintage could mean any number between 0 and 17,500. It's because the term means "maximum mintage" that the article had relevant, though incorrect, information.
Perhaps. But my point remains.
If they are so incompetent that they cannot send their spokesperson out to the press with accurate information, and cannot post accurate information on their website until after the fact, nothing they say or do really matters, and all we can do is close our eyes, guess, and hope we get it right.
Or just get disgusted to the point that we choose to disengage from them altogether, and either find other things to collect, or wait for things to settle on whatever it is that they issue, and then buy on the secondary market.
I’m actually happy I didn’t go through the frustration of trying to get one ordered. Not worth the anxiety (at least for me). It’s a win win someone got the coin I might have gotten😃 and I didn’t have to put up with the mint
However getting the electronics hooked up may cause more frustration
Than 15 minutes of mint madness. However in the end I will get it hooked up. With the mint I might have swung and missed
Martin
Or not, and what White recent told Golino is incorrect. Because he seems to have no better information than the representative at the Mint booth in Baltimore, and all he is doing is confirming what we already know.
"Sold out" because the product is currently Unavailable. 10K, because that is the Product Limit. No more, because no one told him there will be more.
Not because there actually will not be more. Just like "entire authorized mintage" meant 17,500 on November 8th, and now means 10,000. There will be no more, unless and until there actually is more. At which point he will give a statement to the press confirming what we already know, because the Mint will have put it up on their website.
Maybe everyone is right, and 10K is the final number, for no obvious reason, and there never will be any more. Maybe not, since that outcome makes no sense for the Mint.
Yes, it will support secondary market values, but no more than if they had just announced it upfront, or at any time between when the decision was made to limit production to a number below the maximum and when they were placed on sale. The announcement not only never came, but White affirmatively, deliberately confirmed, in writing, in response to a direct question a week before release, that 17,500 were made.
If that was a misstatement, it was a whopper that made some people some money at the expense of others who were misled into not chasing the coin. I'm sorry, but there was absolutely no reason for the Mint to limit mintage like this, or to hide it for a month if they actually did do it. Only to later confirm it through Golino.
So, again, given the fact that I don't trust anything White says, I'm going with what makes sense to me. Not what he tells Golino or Gilkes.
That's what happens when what you say keeps turning out to be wrong. Anyone here who thinks I have a .000 batting average and that nothing I say should be considered to have any value should understand exactly where I am coming from here.
I'm going to wait until the Mint releases its "Best of the Mint" coin collection in 2026. If 25,000 of whatever they release in silver, and/or 7,500 of the gold releases, are not included in a set along with the missing 2024 releases, it will turn out that I was delusional.
Otherwise, it will have turned out to have been a very long time to have had to wait for an apology from @Liquidated. But it is the outcome that makes the most sense to me right now.
Apologies to anyone who disagrees, but this is what happens when inconsistent statements that make no sense are put out by government agencies. Skepticism and disbelief. I'll wait until 2026 to ingest my Kool-Aid.
Very true. It's hard to pinpoint which issue will have some legs in the future.
However, the 2016 re-issues in GOLD had a pretty high mintage therefore very little secondary market demand after issue.
Demand is the Key. The spouses had very little demand then and less now.
A low mintage key in an ongoing popular series (like the v75 GOLD) is a coin that always had potential from the start.
However, that is until the next low issue key is created by the USM.....
@jmlanzaf ,
"White saying we struck the full authorized mintage could mean any number between 0 and 17,500. "
Bingo!
Well, yeah. Even though @jmlanzaf is 1,000,000% correct regarding the definition of "entire authorized mintage," it turns out that White has no first hand information, and is no better informed than a representative at a booth at a coin show.
So anything he says at any given point in time could mean anything, and "entire authorized mintage" could literally mean any number at all.
Including now, when he says 10K is all there will ever be. Like the previous statement about the "entire authorized mintage" being made, it will be true, unless and until it later turns out not to be true.
Except that ISN'T what it means and every credible numismatic source to it to mean 17,500 which is the ONLY AUTHORIZED mintage.
There is an actual definition and facts matter.
I've provided you numerous references. Your refusal to either read them or offer a reference to support your alleged position means you're either stubborn or simply trolling at this point.
You're finally catching on.
The mint does whatever it wants.😊
We know the answer now. Is there a need to go back and forth on "Authorized" vs "Actual" mintage.
I said many pages ago that the "wording" of the statements led to questions on the actual numbers. Then CW published an article that seemed to nail it down - however, that was BAD reporting on their part (entire authorized mintage of 17,500 was completed).
The USM has been playing games for years with their reported sales, mintages, authorized mintages, etc etc etc.
Back in 2008 with respect to the 2008-W Burnished Plats - when we suspected they short struck the coin; they still had a sales report that said over 3600 coins were minted for the 1/4 oz unc plat.
It took a FOIA request ---worded the exact way to not let them play games with their response--such as "how many coins were actually struck" , no wording around minatges, sales, returns, etc. to get them to admit that on the order of 2,300 were struck/minted. A 50+% overstatement on released sales data. The USM contended with all email communication that 3600 was the number. It was clearly NOT.
We need more clear communication from the USM. Let's hope Michael White is reading these posts.
From official sources, "On December 2, in response to an inquiry for this piece, Michael White at the United States Mint confirmed that the coin has indeed sold out. He explained that while the mint could strike as many as 17,500 of these gold coins, they decided not to exercise that option. Instead, they limited the coin to only 10,000, making it one of the lowest mintage gold coins in U.S. Mint history."
Reminds me of the SS Central America coins and gold, and THOSE had a legit kick-ass story behind them.
I remember the restrikes (which used original gold but were NOT original coins) were offered for $5,000 when gold was at $300 or so. With 2 1/2 ounces of gold almost, the premium was about 700%.
About a decade later I bought one of the restrikes for about a 10% premium to gold when it was about $1,600 an ounce. The premium had just melted away once the hype ended.
My cousin has a $10 piece I believe, original coin, and I know despite the rising price of gold he was still underwater a few years ago. I think he paid like $3,000 at the time when gold was ~ $325 an ounce.
Dude. The Mint did correct the statement to the ANA. We don't need to wait until 2026 to know you are incorrect.
White is just the press room guy. Do you expect the White House spokesperson to be a decision maker?
Thanks to everyone for the spirited and informative conversation. I can appreciate all of your comments, opinions, and facts that you've taken the time to present to me/us. I take it all under advisement. No hard feelings on my end. Clarity is key, thanks again.
Agreed. But don't count Michael White reading anything. Or caring if he is reading.
The statements to Coin World were left hanging out there, uncorrected and unrefuted, until contradictory information was provided to another journalist in another publication a month later, three weeks after release of the coin. They really don't care. Because they take us for granted.
Many of us don’t need to wait until 2026, but he might. In fact, he might need to wait even longer than that. Because for all he knows, the Mint (and/or the ANA) could be lying or they might change their mind or this or that or even this and that. 😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
YOU don't need to wait. I'm going to sit in the pumpkin patch waiting.
Because the correction did not come with an explanation, and because it makes no sense to me. My prerogative. The Mintage Limit has not been revised downward, along with the Product Limit.
All the statement told me is that the Product Limit was reached, and no more product is going to be made available for sale.
"He explained that while the mint could strike as many as 17,500 of these gold coins, they decided not to exercise that option. Instead, they limited the coin to only 10,000, making it one of the lowest mintage gold coins in U.S. Mint history." Maybe if he reconciled this with "U.S. Mint spokesman Michael White confirmed to Coin World via email Oct. 30 that production of the entire authorized mintage was achieved," I'd consider giving weight to the latest statement.
As it is, I do mean what I've been saying -- the Mint has lost credibility with me. I'm not going by anything they say, and am going to trust my own gut, for better or worse.
I think the missing coins were made, and will show up in some form in the future. Unless and until Gilkes or Golino get a specific statement from the Mint specifically addressing the contradictory information previously provided, rather than just confirming what we can see with our own eyes, i.e., they have not yet been made available for sale, and they were either made or they weren't, because while they can make them, they chose not to, for no particular reason.
No. But, as an official designated spokesperson, I expect him to be in a position to communicate accurate, authoritative information.
Otherwise, he is nothing more than another clerk who works at the Mint, and there is no reason for the press to waste time speaking with him. As it is, there IS no reason for the press to waste time speaking with him, because the information he provides has been shown to be inaccurate, and there is no follow-up, by either party, to correct the record and explain inconsistencies.
Same goes for the White House spokesperson. The only difference being, the press corps does challenge them, and make them squirm, when prior statements turn out to be false.
And because a real press works anonymous sources to get actual information when official channels are not forthcoming. No such thing happens here. So we get what we get, and it's accurate unless it isn't.
.> @MFeld said:
But rest assured, he won't take the initiative to start his own thread. He just likes to hijack other members threads!😉
EXACTLY!!!! But 2026 will do it for me, because my theory is tied to the "Best of the Mint" coins to be released then. Not anything to be released at any time from here to infinity and beyond.
Because yes, they have now engaged in a pattern and practice of either lying or arbitrarily changing their mind from statement to statement, without rhyme or reason. On November 8th, when White told Coin World that 17,500 gold coins were made, someone at the Mint knew that only 10,000 coins were either made and/or going to be released on November 14th.
That was not communicated by White, as it should have been, as their designated spokesperson giving a statement to the numismatic press a week before product release. Which was the whole point behind publishing the article in the first place.
To provide information to the public ahead of the release. Accurate information that was known at the time. Not misleading nonsense.
Lie, misstatement, mistake. Call it whatever you want. It was misleading, and led some to make bad decisions in reliance on information that turned out to false. As a result, his now saying anything means nothing to me.
At least not without an explanation for and reconciliation of past misstatements. As far as I'm concerned, current statements are as likely to be accurate as past statements. Which means, they will be correct until they aren't.
Because the explanation could be as simple as he doesn't actually know anything, and only repeats what he is told, which might or might not be correct at any given point in time. Including right now. Meaning he is not actually qualified to give statements about anything.
This only applies to the Mint. I 1,000,000 believe, and always have believed, that Coin World, and now Golino, are accurately reporting what they are told. Their only sin seems to be placing their relationship with the Mint, and Mr. White specifically, above putting his feet to the fire and getting explanations for clear inconsistencies between his various statements.
Rude as it might be, they owe it to their readers. Otherwise, they are providing no value, and their publications are nothing more than advertising vehicles and a collection of press releases, if they just regurgitate whatever they are told without challenge or question.
It’s great to see you post something different for a change instead of mostly the same thing, over and over again. Oops, on second thought, I take it back, as that’s what you did.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Or truthful?
Martin
Yes. Pot, meet kettle.
FOMO much? I'm commenting. Not hijacking.
You, OTOH, seem committed to jumping in with snarky comments about me, rather than having anything at all to say about the topic at hand, whenever the opportunity presents itself. Why not just stick to the Ignoring you publicly lobbied others to join you in? And complaining to mods, publicly announcing that as well?
Or, just hear me out, maybe get a life that does not revolve around obsessing on what I post on a coin forum? 😉
"Mostly the same thing." Like Where's Waldo?, I embed little nuggets to keep you alert. 😀
@ColonelJessup
Can you chime in on this with some
Your thoughts, that way we could all understand what’s up here😅
Martin
In trying to get details from responsible authoritative personnel at the USM (not the call center or clerks) they have been very evasive to tell the correct story.
I suspect they are trying to avoid a huge run on certain issues, they obviously had as part of their mission statement a few years back to get these numismatic issues into the hands of a broad group of collectors - widespread distribution. They didnt want these to be manipulated by a few.
Hence the HH limits, waiting rooms, etc etc etc.
All we ask is truthfulness and transparency. Maybe there is a need to replace some at the USM by the new incoming administration.
There's no need to revise a limit downward. Limit means "not to exceed." If you make less than that, you are compliant with the limit and there is no need for revision. See how that works? If I limit you to 3 cookies for dinner and you only eat 2, I don't need to revise the limit downward. You still complied with the limit.
You can always trust that they won't exceed the stated limit. They may however, only eat 2 out of a 3 cookie limit. This should not be as upsetting to you as it has become.
Similarly, there's no need to revise a Product Limit downward. OTHER THAN TRANSPARENCY!!!!!!
Otherwise, all Mintage Limits can simply be 100 million, with no Product Limits, and they can always then just do anything they want, with no need for statements to Coin World or Louis Golino. And Michael White's salary can then be the first contribution to Elon's DOGE fund.
You are getting one half of the equation correct, while totally missing the other, but equally important side. People who bought based on a 17,500 Mintage Limit would certainly be upset if they arbitrarily decide, after the fact, to make and sell 30,000. We all can agree on that.
But why can't you see that people not buying based on a 17,500 Mintage Limit would also be upset if they arbitrarily decide, after the fact, to only make and sell 10,000? It's crystal clear to me!!!
If these numbers didn't mean anything, there would be no reason to publish them. Or sales reports, for that matter.
Since they do mean something, it's important that they be accurate. This isn't "The Price Is Right," and the only important metric is not not going over the limit. It's also having the limit be accurate.
Which means making and selling that amount, if demand warrants. They can set the number wherever they choose. No argument there. The only argument is regarding their obligation to accurately disseminate the correct number. And to then stick to it.
This isn't dinner and cookies. Some missed out on a 10K coin because they were led to believe that it was going to be a 17.5K coin.
That's not okay, even though they did not exceed the limit. It's just as bad, on the other side, as if they DID exceed the limit. In which case you would certainly all be screaming.
Not hitting a limit because there is insufficient demand is perfectly fine. Not hitting a limit because someone arbitrarily decides not to make that many, AND fails to communicate that fact before the on-sale date, is NOT fine. Nor is distributing a quantity to ABPP dealers based on a Mintage Limit they know they will not be making or distributing. Also not fine.
Change the limits, both Mintage and Product, to "N/A," and the ABPP formula to "whatever we want," and then everything will be fine, and the market will react accordingly. If they keep playing these games, we'll eventually get there anyway, so it's not really going to matter in the long run.
Oh, and right now, I can't "always trust" anything they say. They say there will be no more gold coins.
But they also say the Mintage Limit is 7500 higher than the Product Limit. I don't trust more won't hit the market at some point, even though they are now saying that won't happen. In fact, I actually expect it. That's what happens when you play games with words and lose credibility. Even though 3 cookies were not eaten. Yet.
From RCTV:
"The Greatest Mint release ever..."
All this for only $6995*
*Disclaimer: not associated with RCTV & its entities
101st greatest us coins?
This is all very true. There was absolutely no reason not to communicate 10K to the world, before release, if that was the number. Or say nothing, and leave us all guessing, rather than publish an inaccurate number, and have people make unexpectedly good or unexpectedly bad decisions based on misleading information.
And to tell the world that the new ABPP number is 20%, or whatever it is, rather than leaving it at 10% and then just doing whatever they want. All this does is destroy their credibility. I'm the biggest and most persistent mouth here giving voice to this, but I know I am not alone in feeling this way.
No one is challenging their right to do whatever they want. But failure to consistently provide accurate information to the market, as opposed to "we can do whatever we want, as long as we don't go over," is not going to end well for them when people get tired and move on.
This isn't food, fuel or shelter. It's rocks refined into shiny metals sold at a very significant premium to their intrinsic value. Absolutely no one needs any of it. They should probably think about that a little before they send Michael White out with bad information to disseminate to the world.