Color me shocked this issue will come in under 10,000 pieces. With what's gone on at the mint this year perhaps 2024 will become a new "standard". Will this increase interest in future releases? For me it will.
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.
Yes, if they exceed their limit we would all be screaming like you are now. But they didn’t. They were under it. Which again, is what a limit means. That’s why no one other than you is screaming.
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.
Yes, if they exceed their limit we would all be screaming like you are now. But they didn’t. They were under it. Which again, is what a limit means. That’s why no one other than you is screaming.
Very well said, other than that you left off two words at the end of your post - “ad infinitum”.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
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.
Yes, if they exceed their limit we would all be screaming like you are now. But they didn’t. They were under it. Which again, is what a limit means. That’s why no one other than you is screaming.
To me, it's the flip side of the same coin. To others, apparently not.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. If you are happy selling a coin you were led to believe had a mintage of 17.5K when its actual mintage was a little more than half as much, more power to you. You are a better person than I am.
I'd be upset that I wasn't given accurate information by the Mint before making my decision. In fact, I didn't make such a decision and I'm still upset. 😀
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.
Yes, if they exceed their limit we would all be screaming like you are now. But they didn’t. They were under it. Which again, is what a limit means. That’s why no one other than you is screaming.
Very well said, other than that you left off two words at the end of your post - “ad infinitum”.😉
Yup. Ad infinitum. You apparently cannot get enough of me, since you keep encouraging me to respond. 😀
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.
Yes, if they exceed their limit we would all be screaming like you are now. But they didn’t. They were under it. Which again, is what a limit means. That’s why no one other than you is screaming.
Very well said, other than that you left off two words at the end of your post - “ad infinitum”.😉
Yup. Ad infinitum. You apparently cannot get enough of me, since you keep encouraging me to respond. 😀
Like you don’t respond, with or without “encouragement”. But I’m going to make my life more pleasant by making use of the “Ignore” feature.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
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.
Yes, if they exceed their limit we would all be screaming like you are now. But they didn’t. They were under it. Which again, is what a limit means. That’s why no one other than you is screaming.
Very well said, other than that you left off two words at the end of your post - “ad infinitum”.😉
Yup. Ad infinitum. You apparently cannot get enough of me, since you keep encouraging me to respond. 😀
Like you don’t respond, with or without “encouragement”. But I’m going to make my life more pleasant by making use of the “Ignore” feature.
Sure, but your last few posts have been little more than gratuitous potshots at me. It's all good, and, at least from my perspective, all in good fun.
Ignore if you feel you must. Entirely your call. Life is too short to pass up opportunities to make it more pleasant when possible.
If the Mint ACTUALLY minted 17,500 coins, and the ABPP folks were allotted the proper 10% of the mintage, I wonder what those 4 online minutes until sellout would have turned into.
If the Mint ACTUALLY minted 17,500 coins, and the ABPP folks were allotted the proper 10% of the mintage, I wonder what those 4 online minutes until sellout would have turned into.
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.
Yes, if they exceed their limit we would all be screaming like you are now. But they didn’t. They were under it. Which again, is what a limit means. That’s why no one other than you is screaming.
Very well said, other than that you left off two words at the end of your post - “ad infinitum”.😉
Infinity is a difficult concept. But it's becoming easier to understand.
After all the hype of the "low mintage" has boosted the auction prices and the big boys sold at higher prices the mint will announce the sale of the other 7,500 coins.
" If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. " The 1st Law of Opposition from The Firesign Theater
@HATTRICK said:
After all the hype of the "low mintage" has boosted the auction prices and the big boys sold at higher prices the mint will announce the sale of the other 7,500 coins.
@HATTRICK said:
After all the hype of the "low mintage" has boosted the auction prices and the big boys sold at higher prices the mint will announce the sale of the other 7,500 coins.
@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!!!!!!
The limit hasn't changed, why would they revise it down? Why is it more transparent for the mintage to match the limit? These are two different specifications as you clearly struggle with.
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!!!
Why would anyone assume that the mint would make the full limit of any product? The actual mintage of any mint product is ALWAYS unknown until the final accounting is released.
If these numbers didn't mean anything, there would be no reason to publish them. Or sales reports, for that matter.
Yes, it matters what the maximum mintage may be. A small mintage is generally more attractive than a large mintage. Publishing the limits gives the collector a worst case figure to go by.
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.
The limit is accurate. They did not exceed it.
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.
We can all agree that giving bad information for the CW article is bad, and the mint deserves admonishment for that.
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.
Before the CW article which was after they sold out, who told you they were going to mint that many and why did you believe them?
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.
No, the only problem would be is if they published a minimum mintage and did not meet that number. But of course they did not do that. You seem to feel that in this case the minimum mintage is the same as the mintage limit, and that simply was not the case for anyone but you.
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.
What information do you have that the decision was arbitrary? I may have missed that we have reliable information that this was done on a whim and not due to any solid justification, logistical, or supply issue (other than planchet supply which was ruled out)?
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.
Why would they do that? The mint does not have a problem exceeding mintage limits. And they can certainly do whatever they want for the ABPP. The market does react accordingly. The only people who don't act accordingly is people who don't understand what a limit is.
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.
Correct. Those coins may very well hit the market at some point. I'm glad you recognize what the rest of the market already knows.
Here's a new topic:
A common practice is for auctions to save the best items for last. Did Stacks "mess up" by auctioning #1 first? Should they have started at 230 and gone to #1 and would that result in higher or lower sales numbers?
Some of what I'm considering is that buyers may bid more aggressively assuming that they will not be able to win one of the low10 or 20 (ie, 1-20) coins if they were at the end of the auction, whereas with the current schedule after the low numbers have been sold, the willingness to bid higher may be less because the assumption is that they can get a cheaper one at wehn the last 10 or 20 roll around because the buyers are exhausted/out of money?
I think that 4th coin is high becuase its the first 70 after the intial 70 that comes with the dies(that 70 with dies out of a lot of folks budget). I am thinking that folks think its possibly the best 70 if they were struck in order of the coins holder number. Who knows
@ProofCollection said:
Here's a new topic:
A common practice is for auctions to save the best items for last. Did Stacks "mess up" by auctioning #1 first? Should they have started at 230 and gone to #1 and would that result in higher or lower sales numbers?
Some of what I'm considering is that buyers may bid more aggressively assuming that they will not be able to win one of the low10 or 20 (ie, 1-20) coins if they were at the end of the auction, whereas with the current schedule after the low numbers have been sold, the willingness to bid higher may be less because the assumption is that they can get a cheaper one at wehn the last 10 or 20 roll around because the buyers are exhausted/out of money?
Almost every major auction has the better stuff first. Look at every major show auction. The "Platinum night" is the first session.
@MsMorrisine said:
what are all the ways the 7,500 could be sold and have them eventually find collector hands?
Since the Product Limit for the standalone coin has been set at 10K, the only way would be to include the coin in another product, such as a multi coin set. Or to play games once again and raise the Product Limit, which I honestly do not see them doing.
Look to the 4 coin annual proof AGEs for an example. Each individual coin has a lower Product Limit than its corresponding Mintage Limit, and the difference is always accounted for in the 4 coin set, which has a Product Limit but no Mintage Limit.
Here, they played games by not publishing the lower Product Limit until after they placed the coin on sale, and they sold out. Which is not usually how they do things, since it is the opposite of transparent. They could have just brought the Mintage Limit down at the same time, if they really did just change their mind and decided to only make 10K and never make any more.
Moreover, if they ARE going to make more, and haven't already done so, they only have 3 weeks left in 2024 to do so, so this really isn't a tough call. The fact that they didn't touch the Mintage Limit tells me that the original statement to Coin World was not incorrect, and that 17,500 have already been made. And that the latest statement that the Mint could make 17,500, but chose not to, is actually the inaccurate statement. I think he meant to say that they could have placed 17,500 on sale on 11/14, but chose not to.
Only putting 10,000 on sale on 11/14 was news that was not disclosed ahead of time. They fixed that by later revising the Product Limit down from 17,500 to 10,000.
So the question now is why? Because they decided to support the secondary market by under producing, and not telling people in advance, when telling people in advance would have cost them nothing? Or because someone, at some point in time, thought it would be a great idea to include these in a future product with other coins that, for whatever reason, they are not yet ready to announce? So they are now holding them back without telling people why.
I have my theory. Others can have theirs.
I do not, however, think @HATTRICK is correct, and that they are going to help the Big Boys get top dollar before screwing over their buyers by releasing 7500 more in a standalone product, in violation of the recently revised Product Limit. I also don't think they just decided to leave $7.5M+ in profit on the table for no reason when they could have easily sold the coins.
So, at least for me, the only thing that makes sense is the remaining coins appearing at a future date in another product. The most likely candidates will be the "Best of the Mint" offering in 2026 in celebration to the country's 250th anniversary.
If Mr. White wants to clear things up by telling Mr. Golino or Mr. Gilkes that is not going to happen, and that the missing 2024 FH silver medals and gold coins have not be made, are never going to be made, and are never going to appear in another Mint offering, I'd love to see that in writing. Until that happens, I'm sticking with what I think makes sense. Not with hyper technical wordsmithing engaged in by some here that just makes no sense from a practical standpoint.
I've got to hand it to you @NJCoin - even in the face of clear evidence that the coins were NOT minted; you still hold out hope and are willing to go down with the ship.
It looks like Stacks is now publishing Greysheet and Collectors Price Guide Pricing on the 230 Privy Auctions
Greysheet in 70 - 12,000
Greysheet in 69 - 8,000
@coiner said:
I've got to hand it to you @NJCoin - even in the face of clear evidence that the coins were NOT minted; you still hold out hope and are willing to go down with the ship.
Yup. To me the evidence is anything but clear. I'm just holding my breath now waiting to see your reaction to the auction on Thursday, since you are another one not abandoning their post on the ship. 😀
@coiner said:
It looks like Stacks is now publishing Greysheet and Collectors Price Guide Pricing on the 230 Privy Auctions
Greysheet in 70 - 12,000
Greysheet in 69 - 8,000
Those prices seem mighty low, especially for 70's.
Here are the first 19 auctions of 70's with three days to go before live bidding.
@coiner said:
It looks like Stacks is now publishing Greysheet and Collectors Price Guide Pricing on the 230 Privy Auctions
Greysheet in 70 - 12,000
Greysheet in 69 - 8,000
Those prices seem mighty low, especially for 70's.
Here are the first 19 auctions of 70's with three days to go before live bidding.
Agreed. Those prices are based on NOTHING, since none have yet been sold, and there is nothing comparable to compare them to.
I can only imagine it's to try to demonstrate to the Mint how much value they added when the hammer prices far exceed the estimated values. Seems a little foolish to me, since all it might do is dissuade anyone who takes it seriously from bidding once the bids far exceed the values.
Then again, no one who is going to actually pull the trigger on these is going to take those values seriously. So, at the end of the day, it is harmless.
But, yeah, wildly inaccurate to suggest a 230 coin variety of a coin with a population of 10,000 will only be worth double. Which is apparently precisely where those numbers are coming from. Without regard to the signed numbered COAs, and corresponding numbers on each slab, that are being offered.
@coiner said:
It looks like Stacks is now publishing Greysheet and Collectors Price Guide Pricing on the 230 Privy Auctions
Greysheet in 70 - 12,000
Greysheet in 69 - 8,000
@jdimmick said:
I think that 4th coin is high becuase its the first 70 after the intial 70 that comes with the dies(that 70 with dies out of a lot of folks budget). I am thinking that folks think its possibly the best 70 if they were struck in order of the coins holder number. Who knows
I have a different theory. #4 is so high because it is my favorite number and I decided to bid on that coin.
Does anyone know if this Stacks auction will be done by a live person when it starts, or their usual automated computer-generated live bid system like for their precious metal bullion they do every Thursday?
@coiner said:
It looks like Stacks is now publishing Greysheet and Collectors Price Guide Pricing on the 230 Privy Auctions
Greysheet in 70 - 12,000
Greysheet in 69 - 8,000
Those prices seem mighty low, especially for 70's.
Get a little lower in the numbering - in the 100's to 200's for 70's. You'll see many arent even getting a bid of 10k.
What I am saying is that the addition of Greysheet and other pricing WILL put a lid on the crazy bidding. Once a price point is indicated........
Notice the coins in the upper teens all seem to be hovering in the 12k-14k range?
Im telling you these are going to end up in the greysheet range (or just over) for 70's that arent special numbering.....definitely no higher than 15k
@coiner said:
It looks like Stacks is now publishing Greysheet and Collectors Price Guide Pricing on the 230 Privy Auctions
Greysheet in 70 - 12,000
Greysheet in 69 - 8,000
Those prices seem mighty low, especially for 70's.
Get a little lower in the numbering - in the 100's to 200's for 70's. You'll see many arent even getting a bid of 10k.
What I am saying is that the addition of Greysheet and other pricing WILL put a lid on the crazy bidding. Once a price point is indicated........
Except that any price point for an item with zero sales is meaningless. It's like me setting the price for a rock from Neptune.
Putting words like “definitely” in your predictions can be pretty risky.. just ask NJ.
@coiner said:
Notice the coins in the upper teens all seem to be hovering in the 12k-14k range?
Im telling you these are going to end up in the greysheet range (or just over) for 70's that arent special numbering.....definitely no higher than 15k
FIRST - just because the coin COA is #4 or #1> @jmlanzaf said:
Except that any price point for an item with zero sales is meaningless. It's like me setting the price for a rock from Neptune.
Actually, once the pricing is indicated it has an effect on bidding. Would have been better for sales if indicative pricing wasnt shared this early and based on real sales.
This will have an effect on bidding. Dealers have this pegged right. Greysheet at 12k for 70's. 69's at 8k.
@jwitten said:
Putting words like “definitely” in your predictions can be pretty risky.. just ask NJ.
@coiner said:
Notice the coins in the upper teens all seem to be hovering in the 12k-14k range?
Im telling you these are going to end up in the greysheet range (or just over) for 70's that arent special numbering.....definitely no higher than 15k
@coiner said:
FIRST - just because the coin COA is #4 or #1> @jmlanzaf said:
Except that any price point for an item with zero sales is meaningless. It's like me setting the price for a rock from Neptune.
Actually, once the pricing is indicated it has an effect on bidding. Would have been better for sales if indicative pricing wasnt shared this early and based on real sales.
This will have an effect on bidding. Dealers have this pegged right. Greysheet at 12k for 70's. 69's at 8k.
I assume the pricing is based on dealer bids and/or asks.
At the very least, that would indicate that most dealers are with us and not our friend from NJ. [For whatever that's worth. ]
@HATTRICK said:
After all the hype of the "low mintage" has boosted the auction prices and the big boys sold at higher prices the mint will announce the sale of the other 7,500 coins.
Did you snag one of these? Didn't think so.
Had no interest in purchasing this coin. No way I am wasting my money on modern mint coins anymore. The excessively high prices cured my addiction two years ago. I sold off everything and invested cash for my heirs. I still watch the forum for entertainment plus lots to laugh about here.
" If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. " The 1st Law of Opposition from The Firesign Theater
Also I know much about loose marketing tactics and selling out the back door. Beanie babies and Pokémon cards let me buy new cars for me, my wife and daughter. Paid off my house, paid for my daughter's wedding and honeymoon and good down payment on their house. Paid for Hockey and Baseball season tickets and fun trips to Atlantic City. And after all of that I put money away for retirement which I am enjoying now. Those were the flippers heaven days.
GOD BLESS TY WARNER !!!!!!!
" If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. " The 1st Law of Opposition from The Firesign Theater
@HATTRICK said:
Also I know much about loose marketing tactics and selling out the back door. Beanie babies and Pokémon cards let me buy new cars for me, my wife and daughter. Paid off my house, paid for my daughter's wedding and honeymoon and good down payment on their house. Paid for Hockey and Baseball season tickets and fun trips to Atlantic City. And after all of that I put money away for retirement which I am enjoying now. Those were the flippers heaven days.
GOD BLESS TY WARNER !!!!!!!
You got it right. I was doing the same and it paid for lots of good stuff along the way.
Hate to admit it, but, those deals are over. Once in a while a few pop up - but there are years apart.
1) 1999 Delaware State Qtr Mini Bags $25 face - selling price $29.95; for a while hit $600 + per mini bag
2) 1999 Silver Proof Sets - selling price $19.95; selling price around $200-$300 depending on when you sold
3) 2004 Platinum Proofs
3a) 2005 Minnesota State Qtrs Double Tree - 0.25 face value; $100 bucks each in the fever
4) 2006 Gold Anniversary Sets; Silver Anniversary Sets
5) 2006-W/2007-W/2008-W Plainum and Gold Sets - Burnished Unc and Proof
5a) 2007 Wash Dollar - Missing Edge Lettering - 1.00 face value; $275-$300 each in the fever
5b) 2007 Adams Dollar - Double Edge Lettering - 1.00 face value; $85-$100 each in the fever
6) 2008-W Buffalo Unc and Proof 4 coins sets (and singles)
7) 2008-W Reverse of 2007 Silver Eagles
8) 2011 5 piece 25th anniversary Silver Sets
@coiner said:
It looks like Stacks is now publishing Greysheet and Collectors Price Guide Pricing on the 230 Privy Auctions
Greysheet in 70 - 12,000
Greysheet in 69 - 8,000
Those prices seem mighty low, especially for 70's.
Get a little lower in the numbering - in the 100's to 200's for 70's. You'll see many arent even getting a bid of 10k.
What I am saying is that the addition of Greysheet and other pricing WILL put a lid on the crazy bidding. Once a price point is indicated........
Sure it will. 🤣
It will dissuade unserious bidders once they see they will not be getting a deal, as measured by a fictional metric. It will be ignored by people who want one.
I have no doubt dealers, @jmlanzaf, and you would love to get their mitts on these at anything close to $8-12K. But, it's just not going to happen. Maybe in 5-10 years, if people get bored and move on, and if gold collapses, but not this coming Thursday.
@coiner said:
FIRST - just because the coin COA is #4 or #1> @jmlanzaf said:
Except that any price point for an item with zero sales is meaningless. It's like me setting the price for a rock from Neptune.
Actually, once the pricing is indicated it has an effect on bidding. Would have been better for sales if indicative pricing wasnt shared this early and based on real sales.
This will have an effect on bidding. Dealers have this pegged right. Greysheet at 12k for 70's. 69's at 8k.
I assume the pricing is based on dealer bids and/or asks.
At the very least, that would indicate that most dealers are with us and not our friend from NJ. [For whatever that's worth. ]
... or, it's nothing more than wishful thinking, based on nothing. I happen to think it's crazy to think these will wholesale, or retail, for basically double the non-privy versions.
Maybe, if a dozen large dealers had the opportunity to get together and whack up inventory at a price they set, perhaps in coordination with the Mint. Not so much here, where they will be competing with the entire world, both wholesale and retail, for each and every lot.
You guys will see as soon as the live auction begins. You will all be whining about how people don't know what they are doing, and are burying themselves.
Which might or might not turn out to be true. But that's the idea, from the Mint's perspective.
Not to have these sell at a price that @coiner thinks is reasonable, or that affords @jmlanzaf a "retail arbitrage."
Wasn't anyone paying attention the only other time in history the Mint did something like this? Did any lot hammer at a level anyone here thinks is reasonable? Did anyone here successfully flip a single lot?
Why does anyone think a 230 lot Mint auction is going to be softer than a 700 lot one? Why does anyone think even the least expensive lot is going to sell for less, and not a LOT more, than the 230 silver medals with signed COAs sold for on eBay when they first hit the market? Which, as I recall, was something around $13K.
Comments
Color me shocked this issue will come in under 10,000 pieces. With what's gone on at the mint this year perhaps 2024 will become a new "standard". Will this increase interest in future releases? For me it will.
Yes, if they exceed their limit we would all be screaming like you are now. But they didn’t. They were under it. Which again, is what a limit means. That’s why no one other than you is screaming.
Very well said, other than that you left off two words at the end of your post - “ad infinitum”.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
To me, it's the flip side of the same coin. To others, apparently not.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. If you are happy selling a coin you were led to believe had a mintage of 17.5K when its actual mintage was a little more than half as much, more power to you. You are a better person than I am.
I'd be upset that I wasn't given accurate information by the Mint before making my decision. In fact, I didn't make such a decision and I'm still upset. 😀
Yup. Ad infinitum. You apparently cannot get enough of me, since you keep encouraging me to respond. 😀
Like you don’t respond, with or without “encouragement”. But I’m going to make my life more pleasant by making use of the “Ignore” feature.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Sure, but your last few posts have been little more than gratuitous potshots at me. It's all good, and, at least from my perspective, all in good fun.
Ignore if you feel you must. Entirely your call. Life is too short to pass up opportunities to make it more pleasant when possible.
It's time for a big if!
If the Mint ACTUALLY minted 17,500 coins, and the ABPP folks were allotted the proper 10% of the mintage, I wonder what those 4 online minutes until sellout would have turned into.
No less than 8 minutes, right? 😀
Infinity is a difficult concept. But it's becoming easier to understand.
Latest Stacks Bowers privy FH Au update.
Coin #4 PR70DCAM has had some significant upward movement today.
December 4, 2024
December 8, 2024
After all the hype of the "low mintage" has boosted the auction prices and the big boys sold at higher prices the mint will announce the sale of the other 7,500 coins.
Did you snag one of these? Didn't think so.
there are valuable posts in this thread
The limit hasn't changed, why would they revise it down? Why is it more transparent for the mintage to match the limit? These are two different specifications as you clearly struggle with.
Why would anyone assume that the mint would make the full limit of any product? The actual mintage of any mint product is ALWAYS unknown until the final accounting is released.
Yes, it matters what the maximum mintage may be. A small mintage is generally more attractive than a large mintage. Publishing the limits gives the collector a worst case figure to go by.
The limit is accurate. They did not exceed it.
We can all agree that giving bad information for the CW article is bad, and the mint deserves admonishment for that.
Before the CW article which was after they sold out, who told you they were going to mint that many and why did you believe them?
No, the only problem would be is if they published a minimum mintage and did not meet that number. But of course they did not do that. You seem to feel that in this case the minimum mintage is the same as the mintage limit, and that simply was not the case for anyone but you.
What information do you have that the decision was arbitrary? I may have missed that we have reliable information that this was done on a whim and not due to any solid justification, logistical, or supply issue (other than planchet supply which was ruled out)?
Why would they do that? The mint does not have a problem exceeding mintage limits. And they can certainly do whatever they want for the ABPP. The market does react accordingly. The only people who don't act accordingly is people who don't understand what a limit is.
Correct. Those coins may very well hit the market at some point. I'm glad you recognize what the rest of the market already knows.
what are all the ways the 7,500 could be sold and have them eventually find collector hands?
the latest sales report shows about 37 left of the 10,000
what happened to them?
Here's a new topic:
A common practice is for auctions to save the best items for last. Did Stacks "mess up" by auctioning #1 first? Should they have started at 230 and gone to #1 and would that result in higher or lower sales numbers?
Some of what I'm considering is that buyers may bid more aggressively assuming that they will not be able to win one of the low10 or 20 (ie, 1-20) coins if they were at the end of the auction, whereas with the current schedule after the low numbers have been sold, the willingness to bid higher may be less because the assumption is that they can get a cheaper one at wehn the last 10 or 20 roll around because the buyers are exhausted/out of money?
I think that 4th coin is high becuase its the first 70 after the intial 70 that comes with the dies(that 70 with dies out of a lot of folks budget). I am thinking that folks think its possibly the best 70 if they were struck in order of the coins holder number. Who knows
Almost every major auction has the better stuff first. Look at every major show auction. The "Platinum night" is the first session.
Since the Product Limit for the standalone coin has been set at 10K, the only way would be to include the coin in another product, such as a multi coin set. Or to play games once again and raise the Product Limit, which I honestly do not see them doing.
Look to the 4 coin annual proof AGEs for an example. Each individual coin has a lower Product Limit than its corresponding Mintage Limit, and the difference is always accounted for in the 4 coin set, which has a Product Limit but no Mintage Limit.
Here, they played games by not publishing the lower Product Limit until after they placed the coin on sale, and they sold out. Which is not usually how they do things, since it is the opposite of transparent. They could have just brought the Mintage Limit down at the same time, if they really did just change their mind and decided to only make 10K and never make any more.
Moreover, if they ARE going to make more, and haven't already done so, they only have 3 weeks left in 2024 to do so, so this really isn't a tough call. The fact that they didn't touch the Mintage Limit tells me that the original statement to Coin World was not incorrect, and that 17,500 have already been made. And that the latest statement that the Mint could make 17,500, but chose not to, is actually the inaccurate statement. I think he meant to say that they could have placed 17,500 on sale on 11/14, but chose not to.
Only putting 10,000 on sale on 11/14 was news that was not disclosed ahead of time. They fixed that by later revising the Product Limit down from 17,500 to 10,000.
So the question now is why? Because they decided to support the secondary market by under producing, and not telling people in advance, when telling people in advance would have cost them nothing? Or because someone, at some point in time, thought it would be a great idea to include these in a future product with other coins that, for whatever reason, they are not yet ready to announce? So they are now holding them back without telling people why.
I have my theory. Others can have theirs.
I do not, however, think @HATTRICK is correct, and that they are going to help the Big Boys get top dollar before screwing over their buyers by releasing 7500 more in a standalone product, in violation of the recently revised Product Limit. I also don't think they just decided to leave $7.5M+ in profit on the table for no reason when they could have easily sold the coins.
So, at least for me, the only thing that makes sense is the remaining coins appearing at a future date in another product. The most likely candidates will be the "Best of the Mint" offering in 2026 in celebration to the country's 250th anniversary.
If Mr. White wants to clear things up by telling Mr. Golino or Mr. Gilkes that is not going to happen, and that the missing 2024 FH silver medals and gold coins have not be made, are never going to be made, and are never going to appear in another Mint offering, I'd love to see that in writing. Until that happens, I'm sticking with what I think makes sense. Not with hyper technical wordsmithing engaged in by some here that just makes no sense from a practical standpoint.
I've got to hand it to you @NJCoin - even in the face of clear evidence that the coins were NOT minted; you still hold out hope and are willing to go down with the ship.
It looks like Stacks is now publishing Greysheet and Collectors Price Guide Pricing on the 230 Privy Auctions
Greysheet in 70 - 12,000
Greysheet in 69 - 8,000
Yup. To me the evidence is anything but clear. I'm just holding my breath now waiting to see your reaction to the auction on Thursday, since you are another one not abandoning their post on the ship. 😀
Those prices seem mighty low, especially for 70's.
Here are the first 19 auctions of 70's with three days to go before live bidding.
Agreed. Those prices are based on NOTHING, since none have yet been sold, and there is nothing comparable to compare them to.
I can only imagine it's to try to demonstrate to the Mint how much value they added when the hammer prices far exceed the estimated values. Seems a little foolish to me, since all it might do is dissuade anyone who takes it seriously from bidding once the bids far exceed the values.
Then again, no one who is going to actually pull the trigger on these is going to take those values seriously. So, at the end of the day, it is harmless.
But, yeah, wildly inaccurate to suggest a 230 coin variety of a coin with a population of 10,000 will only be worth double. Which is apparently precisely where those numbers are coming from. Without regard to the signed numbered COAs, and corresponding numbers on each slab, that are being offered.
premature
I have a different theory. #4 is so high because it is my favorite number and I decided to bid on that coin.
Tim
You could also say that coin #4 is #2 PR70DCAM coin. ☺️
Does anyone know if this Stacks auction will be done by a live person when it starts, or their usual automated computer-generated live bid system like for their precious metal bullion they do every Thursday?
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
Get a little lower in the numbering - in the 100's to 200's for 70's. You'll see many arent even getting a bid of 10k.
What I am saying is that the addition of Greysheet and other pricing WILL put a lid on the crazy bidding. Once a price point is indicated........
Notice the coins in the upper teens all seem to be hovering in the 12k-14k range?
Im telling you these are going to end up in the greysheet range (or just over) for 70's that arent special numbering.....definitely no higher than 15k
Except that any price point for an item with zero sales is meaningless. It's like me setting the price for a rock from Neptune.
Putting words like “definitely” in your predictions can be pretty risky.. just ask NJ.
FIRST - just because the coin COA is #4 or #1> @jmlanzaf said:
Actually, once the pricing is indicated it has an effect on bidding. Would have been better for sales if indicative pricing wasnt shared this early and based on real sales.
This will have an effect on bidding. Dealers have this pegged right. Greysheet at 12k for 70's. 69's at 8k.
So - youre a bidder - price guides (Greysheet and others) show basically wholesale and ret ail pricing indications at 12-14k for a 70.
Youre going to bid 20?
NOPE. Not a chance. Bidding will hover in that area at best.
True. One difference. I'll admit im wrong.
But the stars are aligning for the vast majority or 70's that are not special numbering, top 50, last one, to be in the 12-14k range.
I assume the pricing is based on dealer bids and/or asks.
At the very least, that would indicate that most dealers are with us and not our friend from NJ. [For whatever that's worth. ]
Had no interest in purchasing this coin. No way I am wasting my money on modern mint coins anymore. The excessively high prices cured my addiction two years ago. I sold off everything and invested cash for my heirs. I still watch the forum for entertainment plus lots to laugh about here.
Also I know much about loose marketing tactics and selling out the back door. Beanie babies and Pokémon cards let me buy new cars for me, my wife and daughter. Paid off my house, paid for my daughter's wedding and honeymoon and good down payment on their house. Paid for Hockey and Baseball season tickets and fun trips to Atlantic City. And after all of that I put money away for retirement which I am enjoying now. Those were the flippers heaven days.
GOD BLESS TY WARNER !!!!!!!
You got it right. I was doing the same and it paid for lots of good stuff along the way.
Hate to admit it, but, those deals are over. Once in a while a few pop up - but there are years apart.
Couple of crazy flips from years ago:
1) 1999 Delaware State Qtr Mini Bags $25 face - selling price $29.95; for a while hit $600 + per mini bag
2) 1999 Silver Proof Sets - selling price $19.95; selling price around $200-$300 depending on when you sold
3) 2004 Platinum Proofs
3a) 2005 Minnesota State Qtrs Double Tree - 0.25 face value; $100 bucks each in the fever
4) 2006 Gold Anniversary Sets; Silver Anniversary Sets
5) 2006-W/2007-W/2008-W Plainum and Gold Sets - Burnished Unc and Proof
5a) 2007 Wash Dollar - Missing Edge Lettering - 1.00 face value; $275-$300 each in the fever
5b) 2007 Adams Dollar - Double Edge Lettering - 1.00 face value; $85-$100 each in the fever
6) 2008-W Buffalo Unc and Proof 4 coins sets (and singles)
7) 2008-W Reverse of 2007 Silver Eagles
8) 2011 5 piece 25th anniversary Silver Sets
these have held up over the years
Sure it will. 🤣
It will dissuade unserious bidders once they see they will not be getting a deal, as measured by a fictional metric. It will be ignored by people who want one.
I have no doubt dealers, @jmlanzaf, and you would love to get their mitts on these at anything close to $8-12K. But, it's just not going to happen. Maybe in 5-10 years, if people get bored and move on, and if gold collapses, but not this coming Thursday.
This means nothing. Take screenshots and post them Thursday night. You will either be proven correct, or spectacularly wrong.
3 days to go. We are almost there. No reason to get excited prematurely.
... or, it's nothing more than wishful thinking, based on nothing. I happen to think it's crazy to think these will wholesale, or retail, for basically double the non-privy versions.
Maybe, if a dozen large dealers had the opportunity to get together and whack up inventory at a price they set, perhaps in coordination with the Mint. Not so much here, where they will be competing with the entire world, both wholesale and retail, for each and every lot.
You guys will see as soon as the live auction begins. You will all be whining about how people don't know what they are doing, and are burying themselves.
Which might or might not turn out to be true. But that's the idea, from the Mint's perspective.
Not to have these sell at a price that @coiner thinks is reasonable, or that affords @jmlanzaf a "retail arbitrage."
Wasn't anyone paying attention the only other time in history the Mint did something like this? Did any lot hammer at a level anyone here thinks is reasonable? Did anyone here successfully flip a single lot?
Why does anyone think a 230 lot Mint auction is going to be softer than a 700 lot one? Why does anyone think even the least expensive lot is going to sell for less, and not a LOT more, than the 230 silver medals with signed COAs sold for on eBay when they first hit the market? Which, as I recall, was something around $13K.
Dear PCGS,
Can we get a "yawn" button?
Sincerely,
Joe