@wondercoin said:
Hi Jmlanzaf - Not sure about the term “free fire coins”, but I will leave it to the head of the bulk department to explain any savings on not getting an actual physical holder on any such bulk coins. That’s what he does 24/7 and is darn good at it. Rest assured it is not “zero” as far as I know from my 26 years of bulk grading moderns starting in 1998 (before it was even “a thing”) and continuing to this day. And, we agree, it is also not “little” in the aggregate!
Wondercoin.
Man you're quick I fixed "fee for coins", but you were too fast.
They don't like to openly discuss the fee structure, so I'm sure they will not post it here. If you don't wish to share that information, that's understandable.
Edited to add: if it were free, I'm sure you wouldn't be spending as much time pre-screening the coins as you do.
Jmlanzaf - I thought you were introducing a new concept to bulk grading - “free fire coins”. Perhaps for the poorly graded ones, they will set them on fire for you so you can immediately claim the tax loss. 😆
Since every bulk deal can vary with the number of coins you want to submit, what would be the sense of discussing a deal for 100 monster boxes of silver eagles vs. another guy’s 100 total flipped coins for the year! Especially, when the bulk dept. is just 1 call away, or on site at nearly every major show.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@wondercoin said:
‘’And those who can specify a 70 minimum pay little or nothing for coins that don't make the grade’’
This is false.
Wondercoin.
They pay less...
We went back and forth on this a while ago in another thread. There is no "less," given how little they pay for moderns on a bulk submission.
My price ATS was $8, with a special label. "Less" was "$0" for coins that did not grade 70. Anything greater than that would not make sense, given I would only have been paying $8 in the first place.
I'll bet anything the Big Boys pay even less. I'm as wrong about this as I was about it being a thing in the first place, after you pointed to T&Cs saying minimum 70 grades were not a thing, and before @HeatherBoyd chimed in to confirm that certain submitters were indeed allowed to specify 70 as a minimum grande.
This is not a theoretical argument we need to engage in. I'm telling you it happened. At one of the big shows last summer (2023), either FUN or ANA.
I asked because I saw other people doing it. With the Morgan and Peace Dollars. I didn't do it because I did not have, and could not get, the 100 coins necessary to hit the minimum at the show. It's why Morgan and Peace 70s were so widely available, in 2023, at such reasonable prices. High 70 grading rates, and dirt cheap grading fees for quantity.
They generally charge a small fee for each reject. Are you really going to argue with Wondercoin who is a bulk submitter?
Yes, because I'm not imagining it. I'm also not saying it happened at PCGS, if that's the hair you and @wondercoin want to split.
All I'm saying is that all the grading services vigorously compete with each other in the modern space, including the great CACG, since it generates a TON of revenue for them. People speculated CACG wouldn't touch moderns, since they don't sticker them. We all saw how that went, given the economics of grading in 2024.
If NGC is offering bulk submitters pricing PCGS won't match, that would mean that PCGS's private equity overlords are leaving a lot of money on the table. Which I would not believe for a second, no matter who said it.
Because there is no significant market premium for one of the Big 3 services over another in moderns, so I don't believe bulk submitters would pay more for one service over another. Until @HeatherBoyd stepped up, no one benefiting from PCGS minimum 70 submissions even acknowledged it was a thing.
So, yes, I'll argue with @wondercoin. Maybe I know something he doesn't (very unlikely). Maybe I'm saying something he doesn't want people to know (possible). And finally, sure, maybe NGC offers terms and pricing PCGS doesn't match (also possible, but unlikely).
$8 per modern coin with a 100 coin minimum, with no charge for coins that don't grade 70. Believe it or not. Not false. True.
What's a "small fee for each rejection," when the grading fee is only $8 to begin with? $0.50? $2? Why?
I'm telling you, it was $0! I'm pretty sure you are thinking about what they do with classics, where the grading fees are much higher, and there is a lot of room to charge something nominal for a coin that is returned ungraded.
And, the $8 was the price offered to me. I'd guess large dealers receive even better pricing, although I obviously have absolutely no way to know that for sure, one way or the other.
Just common sense that 500, 1,000, or more coins would receive even better pricing than 100. It's a reason coins that retailed from the Mint in OGP at $90 were widely available in 70 slabs from all the major grading services last year for around $125 each.
I don't know or care what the one time special was that you were offered. That is not the standard fee structure for bulk submitters at either NGC or PCGS, and i do know people with the privileges at both. A few years ago it was $3 per coin rejected at NGC. I don't know what it is currently.
You always like to invoke supposed logic: why would NGC routinely offer free inspection services?
???? I'd guess because they knew the coins were grading well, and wanted to attract volume. Given the few tiny amount of seconds they devote to "inspecting" each modern submission, I'd guess it costs them nothing.
$3 per coin to not slab when they are only charging $8 to slab doesn't really make a ton of sense in terms of a discount. Slabbing costs them money. Not slabbing costs them nothing.
I honestly have no idea whether it was a "one time special" or their standard pricing for bulk submissions on new issues. As I said, I saw people doing it, asked about it, and this is what I was told. Period.
The coins were issued at the show, but they were being sent back to Sarasota for grading, so I doubt bulk submitters not submitting at the show were not being offered the same deal. I honestly don't care about what you "know" about people with privileges at both.
I'm telling you what I was offered at a snapshot in time. I seriously doubt it has changed, but I have no first hand knowledge regarding what is being offered in December 2024.
You also "knew" that minimum 70 grades were not a thing, based on what you saw published by PCGS on the web. It turned out not to be true.
@NJCoin said:
Because there is no significant market premium for one of the Big 3 services over another in moderns, so I don't believe bulk submitters would pay more for one service over another. Until @HeatherBoyd stepped up, no one benefiting from PCGS minimum 70 submissions even acknowledged it was a thing.
I very much beg to differ. Most coins in a mint proof or unc set get a much better premium in a PCGS holder vs NGC. In fact, there are a few coins that I can sometimes win cheap enough, submit for crossover, and even with a ~50-70% cross success rate, re-sell on ebay with enough profit to make it worth it. So maybe not with FH medals, but PCGS certainly commands a premium in the modern coin space.
Edited to add: I have full confidence that @wondercoin knows what he's talking about here.
Agree to disagree. Modern examples of any recent issues are priced exactly the same, apples to apples, on any major dealer website for slabs from any of the Big 3, despite inherent bias here for PCGS.
People certainly have their preferences for one over another, and that might actually have some rationale with respect to some series of classic coins. But they all grade modern coins pretty loosely, with a majority of all coins coming back as 70. Premiums for one slab over another are not really justified, and really don't exist. People pay more for Advance Release than FDOI, and more for FDOI than First Strike. But not really more for any of NGC, PCGS or CACG over the others with recent moderns.
If you can make money turning a modern NGC 70 into a PCGS 70, more power to you, but that's not something major dealers even try to do. Because, for the most part, the market does not tolerate it. If I'm wrong, why is Pinehurst, as just one example, leaving money on the table?
@NJCoin said:
$3 per coin to not slab when they are only charging $8 to slab doesn't really make a ton of sense in terms of a discount. Slabbing costs them money. Not slabbing costs them nothing.
For round numbers, it's reasonable to say the blended burden rate could be $90/hr for grading and handling staff (It is California, after all, and note that I'm using burden rate, not wages). That's $1.50/minute. How much combined handling does each coin require? I would estimate a minute after you throw in down time, setup time, breaks, etc. Could be as low as 30s which is a cost of $0.75 but up to $1.50. It's not huge but multiply by 100 or 1000 coins and it can't be ignored or simply given away.
@NJCoin said:
$3 per coin to not slab when they are only charging $8 to slab doesn't really make a ton of sense in terms of a discount. Slabbing costs them money. Not slabbing costs them nothing.
For round numbers, it's reasonable to say the blended burden rate could be $90/hr for grading and handling staff (It is California, after all, and note that I'm using burden rate, not wages). That's $1.50/minute. How much combined handling does each coin require? I would estimate a minute after you throw in down time, setup time, breaks, etc. Could be as low as 30s which is a cost of $0.75 but up to $1.50. It's not huge but multiply by 100 or 1000 coins and it can't be ignored or simply given away.
It's not given away. It's absorbed in the $8 per coin on the 70-80%+ coins they are grading.
$90/hr sounds high to me, but, even if true, just how many modern coins do they grade per hour? At 4 per minute, that would be 240. Slow that down to 2 per minute, and you're still talking about 120.
At even $8 per coin, that's a VERY healthy markup, which explains the attraction of private equity to the space. Getting nothing for the minority of moderns not making it into a bulk submission slab would hardly cause a dent in that margin.
Proof collection- why educate the ill-informed? Just keep doing what you are doing - yes?
I recently enjoyed reading the post here on the U.S. Coin Forum where the sub-$1,000 NGC 20th Century coin was crossed over to PCGS and fetched around $350,000. But, it’s good to know the market doesn’t tolerate this sort of action! 🤣
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@coiner said:
I worry about long term holds in modern commems (thats what this is - a commem). You just dont know when the next issue appears and the USM does another auction of the new ultra cool commem with 200 maximum, then 150, etc.
What's so special about the 230th Anniversary ? How do we know there won't be another one of these for the 250th ??
Are there any GUIDELINES or advisory committees (like the Citizen's Group that helps on design) that gives the Mint a guide as to what demand will be and how many shoulud be produced ?
They struck about 115,000 of the 2009 UHR Saints when they came out....you have 2 classic designs....how do they justify the huge dropoff in mintage for the Flowing Hair ?
The fact that the gold Flowing Hair was always going to have a floor at the bullion price -- ~$2,700 -- was going to restrict demand more so than a silver version as when the 2019-S ASE was limited to 30,000 and many more people could afford a silver coin costing far less.
@NJCoin said:
They likely hit their peak today, with all the hoopla created by the Mint and SB. Maybe dealers who obtained some >for inventory at full retail will be able to turn around and sell to clients at a profit, maybe not.
Same with all the coins now being offered on eBay. But, long term, contrary to @coiner's contention that SB would >never be able to attract sufficient capital at one time in one place to support pricing in excess of $10K per coin, this >was the one place and one time that sufficient capital was attracted to support the pricing we all saw.
Going forward, as people try to sell, it won't be easy finding people to pay what sellers are going to want. Hype and excitement will fade.
New things will grab people's attention. People will realize they can live happy and fulfilling lives without owning >one of these.
So it's hard to imagine what is going to motivate anyone in the future to pay even more than people paid today to >own any of these. Not to say it can't happen, but it's unlikely.
The 1995-W ASE wasn't hot at the time but got hot later....but it had underlying demand support since if you were a collector or registry player, you needed the set-only 1995-W.
It's a VERY nice-looing coin, with ink-jet black fields (how do they create that deep, dark cameo effect ?)....but yes, it will probably see the premium dissipate over time and that's without another Flowing Hair to commemorate the 250th Anniversary in 2044.
@NJCoin said:
Because there is no significant market premium for one of the Big 3 services over another in moderns, so I don't believe bulk submitters would pay more for one service over another. Until @HeatherBoyd stepped up, no one benefiting from PCGS minimum 70 submissions even acknowledged it was a thing.
I very much beg to differ. Most coins in a mint proof or unc set get a much better premium in a PCGS holder vs NGC. In fact, there are a few coins that I can sometimes win cheap enough, submit for crossover, and even with a ~50-70% cross success rate, re-sell on ebay with enough profit to make it worth it. So maybe not with FH medals, but PCGS certainly commands a premium in the modern coin space.
Edited to add: I have full confidence that @wondercoin knows what he's talking about here.
Agree to disagree. Modern examples of any recent issues are priced exactly the same, apples to apples, on any major dealer website for slabs from any of the Big 3, despite inherent bias here for PCGS.
People certainly have their preferences for one over another, and that might actually have some rationale with respect to some series of classic coins. But they all grade modern coins pretty loosely, with a majority of all coins coming back as 70. Premiums for one slab over another are not really justified, and really don't exist. People pay more for Advance Release than FDOI, and more for FDOI than First Strike. But not really more for any of NGC, PCGS or CACG over the others with recent moderns.
If you can make money turning a modern NGC 70 into a PCGS 70, more power to you, but that's not something major dealers even try to do. Because, for the most part, the market does not tolerate it. If I'm wrong, why is Pinehurst, as just one example, leaving money on the table?
It would take you 5 minutes on eBay to see that this is not true. PCGS 70s carry a premium to NGC 70s for most modern issues, although it's not always significant.
Large dealers do often have them priced the same on their website, however.
Not much change in the Pop Report since December 14th.
Looks like most of the FH Au's have been graded now.
Granted 87.8% have been graded PR70DCAM First Strike, but what I like is there are only 239 of these coins which is great for us mere mortal collectors like me.
The Mint really skewed the numbers by allotting 20% of the mintage to the ABPP.
Ergo, does the Mint want to continue to direct production to the dealer program or return production to the collector going forward?
I bet @NJCoin has some thoughts on the topic. ☺️
@Goldbully said:
Not much change in the Pop Report since December 14th.
Looks like most of the FH Au's have been graded now.
Granted 87.8% have been graded PR70DCAM First Strike, but what I like is there are only 239 of these coins which is great for us mere mortal collectors like me.
The Mint really skewed the numbers by allotting 20% of the mintage to the ABPP.
Ergo, does the Mint want to continue to direct production to the dealer program or return production to the collector going forward?
I bet @NJCoin has some thoughts on the topic. ☺️
December 14th....
December 17, 2024
You might be surprised by my thoughts. I honestly have no issues with them doing whatever they want. My problem is with a lack of transparency, and then with them not doing what they say they are going to do.
Maximum of 10% does not mean whatever they want. Or 10% of a maximum mintage they don't produce.
With respect to how many they make, I am not an advocate of flooding the market in order to satisfy immediate demand at the expense of intermediate and long term value. I am also not an advocate of them creating instant flips by under pricing anything, nor of having them milk us for every last cent.
What they did last year with the Morgan and Peace Dollars was perfect, even though they slightly overproduced the proofs, both in terms of quantity and pricing. What they did this year with the FH, both with giving an over allocation of silver privys to dealers, and then with intentionally under producing when there was excess demand and they had not produced up to their announced limit, was an absolute disgrace.
I'm not for a minute suggesting they should not give 20% to ABPP, or make 50K or 10K of anything. I am saying they should be honest and upfront with whatever it is that they choose to do, and to then stick to it. The alternative will inevitably result in annoying enough people to eventually negatively impact demand, and long term value, for everything.
@Goldbully said:
Not much change in the Pop Report since December 14th.
Looks like most of the FH Au's have been graded now.
Granted 87.8% have been graded PR70DCAM First Strike, but what I like is there are only 239 of these coins which is great for us mere mortal collectors like me.
The Mint really skewed the numbers by allotting 20% of the mintage to the ABPP.
Ergo, does the Mint want to continue to direct production to the dealer program or return production to the collector going forward?
I bet @NJCoin has some thoughts on the topic. ☺️
December 14th....
December 17, 2024
You might be surprised by my thoughts. I honestly have no issues with them doing whatever they want. My problem is with a lack of transparency, and then with them not doing what they say they are going to do.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, they were completely transparent about the limit and did not exceed it. Just pointing that out. Again.
@Goldbully said:
Not much change in the Pop Report since December 14th.
Looks like most of the FH Au's have been graded now.
Granted 87.8% have been graded PR70DCAM First Strike, but what I like is there are only 239 of these coins which is great for us mere mortal collectors like me.
The Mint really skewed the numbers by allotting 20% of the mintage to the ABPP.
Ergo, does the Mint want to continue to direct production to the dealer program or return production to the collector going forward?
I bet @NJCoin has some thoughts on the topic. ☺️
December 14th....
December 17, 2024
You might be surprised by my thoughts. I honestly have no issues with them doing whatever they want. My problem is with a lack of transparency, and then with them not doing what they say they are going to do.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, they were completely transparent about the limit and did not exceed it. Just pointing that out. Again.
Yes. Dead horse. Again.
They published a limit. They did not produce to it, although there was more than adequate demand. The never offered a serious reason why.
They only announced a reduced Product Limit AFTER the product was placed on sale, and after the previously undisclosed Product Limit sold out. The exact opposite of transparent, even if perfectly legal.
And, if the missing coins and medals make an appearance in another product in the future, do you seriously think anyone paying more than issue price on the secondary market is going to be happy, or find it to be "completely transparent," just because they published a Mintage Limit in 2024 and never retracted it, with conflicting statements regarding whether the gold coins were actually minted?
@Goldbully said:
Not much change in the Pop Report since December 14th.
Looks like most of the FH Au's have been graded now.
Granted 87.8% have been graded PR70DCAM First Strike, but what I like is there are only 239 of these coins which is great for us mere mortal collectors like me.
The Mint really skewed the numbers by allotting 20% of the mintage to the ABPP.
Ergo, does the Mint want to continue to direct production to the dealer program or return production to the collector going forward?
I bet @NJCoin has some thoughts on the topic. ☺️
December 14th....
December 17, 2024
You might be surprised by my thoughts. I honestly have no issues with them doing whatever they want. My problem is with a lack of transparency, and then with them not doing what they say they are going to do.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, they were completely transparent about the limit and did not exceed it. Just pointing that out. Again.
Yes. Dead horse. Again.
They published a limit. They did not produce to it, although there was more than adequate demand. The never offered a serious reason why.
They only announced a reduced Product Limit AFTER the product was placed on sale, and after the previously undisclosed Product Limit sold out. The exact opposite of transparent, even if perfectly legal.
Just pointing this out. Again.
And again, the mint does not publish production plans. You're upset about not having information that they have never (or rarely) publish. Why you expect the mint to accommodate your information needs, no matter how reasonable they are, has got to be a form or narcissism or other disorder. You seem to be the only one here who's salty about the mint not providing information that I don't recall them ever providing prior to product launch. Please write your sternly worded letter to the mint director, drop it in the mail, and spare us any more ramblings about the great injustice of the mint failing to include you in their private pre-production planning and how they failed to explain their production decisions to you.
And, if the missing coins and medals make an appearance in another product in the future, do you seriously think anyone paying more than issue price on the secondary market is going to be happy, or find it to be "completely transparent," just because they published a Mintage Limit in 2024 and never retracted it, with conflicting statements regarding whether the gold coins were actually minted?
Happy? Probably not. But the entirety of the public recognizes that this is still a possibility and is buying them anyway. Some people are clearly OK with this calculated risk. Those who are not are probably not buying. That's a personal decision.
That’s the number showing under the Baltimore coin # for collectors/dealers who waited in the line at the show for the 500 Mint coins and then desired the special Baltimore FDI insert (with proof of purchase at the show). You had left that one out in your reporting.
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
That’s the number showing under the Baltimore coin # for collectors/dealers who waited in the line at the show for the 500 Mint coins and then desired the special Baltimore FDI insert (with proof of purchase at the show). You had left that one out in your reporting.
Wondercoin.
I came back to the show on Day 2 to submit to PCGS, so I settled for First Strike.
If I had submitted the coin on Day 1 after standing in line for over 2 hours, the Population would have been 11, I suppose. ☺️
Pop Report as of December 18, 2024, including Baltimore FDI special label.
‘’I came back to the show on Day 2 to submit to PCGS, so I settled for First Strike.
If I had submitted the coin on Day 1 after standing in line for over 2 hours, the Population would have been 11, I suppose. ☺️’’
That may (or may not) have been an expensive lesson. We will see.
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
@Goldbully said:
Not much change in the Pop Report since December 14th.
Looks like most of the FH Au's have been graded now.
Granted 87.8% have been graded PR70DCAM First Strike, but what I like is there are only 239 of these coins which is great for us mere mortal collectors like me.
The Mint really skewed the numbers by allotting 20% of the mintage to the ABPP.
Ergo, does the Mint want to continue to direct production to the dealer program or return production to the collector going forward?
I bet @NJCoin has some thoughts on the topic. ☺️
December 14th....
December 17, 2024
You might be surprised by my thoughts. I honestly have no issues with them doing whatever they want. My problem is with a lack of transparency, and then with them not doing what they say they are going to do.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, they were completely transparent about the limit and did not exceed it. Just pointing that out. Again.
Yes. Dead horse. Again.
They published a limit. They did not produce to it, although there was more than adequate demand. The never offered a serious reason why.
They only announced a reduced Product Limit AFTER the product was placed on sale, and after the previously undisclosed Product Limit sold out. The exact opposite of transparent, even if perfectly legal.
Just pointing this out. Again.
And again, the mint does not publish production plans. You're upset about not having information that they have never (or rarely) publish. Why you expect the mint to accommodate your information needs, no matter how reasonable they are, has got to be a form or narcissism or other disorder. You seem to be the only one here who's salty about the mint not providing information that I don't recall them ever providing prior to product launch. Please write your sternly worded letter to the mint director, drop it in the mail, and spare us any more ramblings about the great injustice of the mint failing to include you in their private pre-production planning and how they failed to explain their production decisions to you.
And, if the missing coins and medals make an appearance in another product in the future, do you seriously think anyone paying more than issue price on the secondary market is going to be happy, or find it to be "completely transparent," just because they published a Mintage Limit in 2024 and never retracted it, with conflicting statements regarding whether the gold coins were actually minted?
Happy? Probably not. But the entirety of the public recognizes that this is still a possibility and is buying them anyway. Some people are clearly OK with this calculated risk. Those who are not are probably not buying. That's a personal decision.
And again, if Mintage Limits are not meant to announce to the world the amount they will manufacture if demand warrants, then they mean absolutely nothing at all. Publishing a Limit of 1,000,000, and then, after not publishing production plans, only making 230, and only selling 230 to ABPP dealers, would apparently be perfectly okay with you, so long as they don't make 1,000,230, but not so much with me or most other people.
Not saying they can't do pretty much anything they want. But calling what they did "transparent" demonstrates a lack of appreciation for the meaning of the word.
And, as an American taxpayer and consumer of Mint numismatic products, no, I do not believe it is narcissistic to expect 100% transparency from them in all of their announcements. Mintage Limits, Product Limits, on sale dates, etc. Everything. In a timely manner, so I can make fully informed purchase decisions.
I'll spare you ramblings as long as you resist the urge to post "At the risk of beating a dead horse, they were completely transparent about the limit and did not exceed it. Just pointing that out. Again." You wanna beat the dead horse? I'm right there with ya.
What the mint is doing is similar to what the trading card companies are doing, in that they have the base cards, which in this case is the silver medal or gold coins without a privy, and then they have the parallels, which in this case is the privy mark. The mint could have easily added a w mintmark to more of them, and made a third parallel. The base cards and parallels are done all the time with trading cards. They even put out random parallels in regular orders, so the privy silver medals followed that pattern. There are many card collectors who purchase massive amounts of base card packs in order to get the parallels, then sell them for high profits in the after-market. We saw a similar pattern with the silver medals. The downside is it will be difficult for the average collector to get the parallels, which does go against what the mint used to say was their goal in past years. Many times the mint has not gone the full production limits they put up on their website, as many products would go unsold at the end of the year and they would have to destroy thousands to hundreds of thousands of products as a result. The other alternative is the product is up on the website and is listed for years as they try to sell off the inventory forever. Collectors will not buy products that are still listed years later as it is a ceiling on the product ever being valuable. The mint correctly under-produced these flowing hair designs, just as they recently did with the first Morgan and peace dollar moderns. This insured interest in the next releases.
@HalfDime said:
What the mint is doing is similar to what the trading card companies are doing, in that they have the base cards, which in this case is the silver medal or gold coins without a privy, and then they have the parallels, which in this case is the privy mark. The mint could have easily added a w mintmark to more of them, and made a third parallel. The base cards and parallels are done all the time with trading cards. They even put out random parallels in regular orders, so the privy silver medals followed that pattern. There are many card collectors who purchase massive amounts of base card packs in order to get the parallels, then sell them for high profits in the after-market. We saw a similar pattern with the silver medals. The downside is it will be difficult for the average collector to get the parallels, which does go against what the mint used to say was their goal in past years. Many times the mint has not gone the full production limits they put up on their website, as many products would go unsold at the end of the year and they would have to destroy thousands to hundreds of thousands of products as a result. The other alternative is the product is up on the website and is listed for years as they try to sell off the inventory forever. Collectors will not buy products that are still listed years later as it is a ceiling on the product ever being valuable. The mint correctly under-produced these flowing hair designs, just as they recently did with the first Morgan and peace dollar moderns. This insured interest in the next releases.
Really? The Mint might have under produced 2021 Morgan and Peace Dollars with respect to demand, but they did produce right up to their announced Mintage Limits.
If they were so interested in continuing interest in future releases, or in supporting secondary market values, what explains their increased Mintage Limits of Morgan and Peace Dollars in 2023? Or in their producing right up to the Mintage Limits in 2024, in spite of the fact that demand fell off a cliff, likely in response to significant price increases in addition to general boredom with the series?
No, whatever drove the Mint to play games with the FH, it was certainly not motivated what what you are speculating. The only other times the Mint did not produce the full authorized mintage was when they could not sell that amount. The answer to your speculation is to simply announce lower Mintage Limits. Nothing at all stops them from doing so.
Announcing a cap and then producing below it, when they could easily sell more, has never before been a thing. If it's a new paradigm, which requires us to guess what actual mintages are going to be, without regard to demand, is more likely to stifle demand than stimulate it.
Because it is opaque, not transparent. Say nothing if you don't want to give the market accurate, actionable, transparent information, and see how the market reacts. Causing people to get disgusted and move on to other overpriced trinkets will do nothing to support long term pricing for anything they produce.
Otherwise, stick to the numbers you publish, and don't play games by taking the position that a "limit" means any number at all below it. Even if that is technically correct.
If you publish a limit and produce below it because demand does not allow you to sell the limit, that is beyond your control and is fine. Intentionally refusing to produce up to a limit when there is demand is entirely within your control, is neither honest nor transparent, and is not okay. It means there was actually a hidden, lower limit that was not disclosed until after the fact. Period.
@NJCoin said:
It means there was actually a hidden, lower limit that was not disclosed until after the fact. Period.
There is a big difference between a mint product that is released early in the year like in January and one released in Oct, Nov.. The mint is quite busy at the end of the year producing coins for the next product year (that's why they can release them early in January). Also, when we go to Walmart, we don't have Walmart calling us to say how many more boxes they have of cereal if we don't buy it that day, or when they will get anymore in. The mint is the same. I thought the limits they had were too high on the flowing hair products, and am glad they struck less. They may have read these message boards to gauge demand. I doubt they are worried over a few unhappy campers.
@NJCoin said:
It means there was actually a hidden, lower limit that was not disclosed until after the fact. Period.
There is a big difference between a mint product that is released early in the year like in January and one released in Oct, Nov.. The mint is quite busy at the end of the year producing coins for the next product year (that's why they can release them early in January). Also, when we go to Walmart, we don't have Walmart calling us to say how many more boxes they have of cereal if we don't buy it that day, or when they will get anymore in. The mint is the same. I thought the limits they had were too high on the flowing hair products, and am glad they struck less. They may have read these message boards to gauge demand. I doubt they are worried over a few unhappy campers.
If you say so. They control when they release product. They release Limited Edition Silver Proof Sets at the end of every year, and always make the full authorized Product Limit available for purchase. Even though they have not sold out for the past few years.
If they're busy in November and December producing product for release in the next year, what makes you think they are not busy in the summer and early fall producing product for release in the late fall and early winter? Whatever drove their decision with respect to what they did with the two FH products, I PROMISE you, it was not driven by production constraints regarding an inability to bang out an additional 25K medals and 7.5K coins.
I do agree with you that they don't worry "over a few unhappy campers." I sincerely hope you do not join their ranks if the missing medals and coins make a future appearance in another product. Because I think that is a distinct possibility, as opposed to their leaving money on the table to support the secondary market, and not reducing Mintage Limits to reflect that decision.
@wondercoin said:
‘’I came back to the show on Day 2 to submit to PCGS, so I settled for First Strike.
If I had submitted the coin on Day 1 after standing in line for over 2 hours, the Population would have been 11, I suppose. ☺️’’
That may (or may not) have been an expensive lesson. We will see.
@GoldFinger1969 said: Do I take it that some of these coins (privy or non-privy) have blemishes in the otherwise perfect ink-jet black fields ?
Or is that just the photos or holder showing them ?
IMO. It is a combination. There is actual debris on the coin by the T and Y, and several reflections from the holder down and back up to the lens in the photo that are not on the coin. You can see these reflections best on enlarged images at GC by the stars.
@GoldFinger1969 said: Do I take it that some of these coins (privy or non-privy) have blemishes in the otherwise perfect ink-jet black fields ?
Or is that just the photos or holder showing them ?
Many 70's(to a degree)have planchet blemishes, as well as post struck debris(from the removal of collar dies)that have "dusted" some areas on those beautiful DCAM surfaces imo.
No 70 is a perfect 70.
@NJCoin said:
It means there was actually a hidden, lower limit that was not disclosed until after the fact. Period.
There is a big difference between a mint product that is released early in the year like in January and one released in Oct, Nov.. The mint is quite busy at the end of the year producing coins for the next product year (that's why they can release them early in January). Also, when we go to Walmart, we don't have Walmart calling us to say how many more boxes they have of cereal if we don't buy it that day, or when they will get anymore in. The mint is the same. I thought the limits they had were too high on the flowing hair products, and am glad they struck less. They may have read these message boards to gauge demand. I doubt they are worried over a few unhappy campers.
If you say so. They control when they release product. They release Limited Edition Silver Proof Sets at the end of every year, and always make the full authorized Product Limit available for purchase. Even though they have not sold out for the past few years.
If they're busy in November and December producing product for release in the next year, what makes you think they are not busy in the summer and early fall producing product for release in the late fall and early winter? Whatever drove their decision with respect to what they did with the two FH products, I PROMISE you, it was not driven by production constraints regarding an inability to bang out an additional 25K medals and 7.5K coins.
I do agree with you that they don't worry "over a few unhappy campers." I sincerely hope you do not join their ranks if the missing medals and coins make a future appearance in another product. Because I think that is a distinct possibility, as opposed to their leaving money on the table to support the secondary market, and not reducing Mintage Limits to reflect that decision.
Since you know so much about mintage limits and the modern coin market, I suggest you apply for a job at the Mint and explain to them how they should do their job. The American public could all benefit from your obvious expertise.
@wondercoin said:
‘’And those who can specify a 70 minimum pay little or nothing for coins that don't make the grade’’
This is false.
Wondercoin.
Is it? I was offered exactly that deal last year ATS. Not "little." Nothing. Are they really doing things our hosts are not?
I read/heard somewhere that they start charging reject fees if half of your submission does not meet your minimum grade. Not sure if that is current rule.
@NJCoin said:
It means there was actually a hidden, lower limit that was not disclosed until after the fact. Period.
There is a big difference between a mint product that is released early in the year like in January and one released in Oct, Nov.. The mint is quite busy at the end of the year producing coins for the next product year (that's why they can release them early in January). Also, when we go to Walmart, we don't have Walmart calling us to say how many more boxes they have of cereal if we don't buy it that day, or when they will get anymore in. The mint is the same. I thought the limits they had were too high on the flowing hair products, and am glad they struck less. They may have read these message boards to gauge demand. I doubt they are worried over a few unhappy campers.
If you say so. They control when they release product. They release Limited Edition Silver Proof Sets at the end of every year, and always make the full authorized Product Limit available for purchase. Even though they have not sold out for the past few years.
If they're busy in November and December producing product for release in the next year, what makes you think they are not busy in the summer and early fall producing product for release in the late fall and early winter? Whatever drove their decision with respect to what they did with the two FH products, I PROMISE you, it was not driven by production constraints regarding an inability to bang out an additional 25K medals and 7.5K coins.
I do agree with you that they don't worry "over a few unhappy campers." I sincerely hope you do not join their ranks if the missing medals and coins make a future appearance in another product. Because I think that is a distinct possibility, as opposed to their leaving money on the table to support the secondary market, and not reducing Mintage Limits to reflect that decision.
Since you know so much about mintage limits and the modern coin market, I suggest you apply for a job at the Mint and explain to them how they should do their job. The American public could all benefit from your obvious expertise.
Thanks for the helpful suggestion. I could also not waste my time, and just spend my discretionary dollars elsewhere if I am unhappy with how they are making decisions. I'll be sure to get back to you when I decide which way to go.
Save some money and get a 2017-W High Relief 225th Anniversary for only $2717
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Maybe, but likely not the last. Anyone with a signed numbered silver privy COA could have targeted the corresponding number in the auction, thinking they will be able to turn straw into gold by selling the pair for a monster premium.
The only problem is, the gold COA actually corresponds to a numbered coin in a slab. The silver COA is just a piece of paper that corresponds to nothing. I don't think it's worth nearly what people on eBay have been paying for it, let alone a monster multiple to have it matched to a numbered gold coin sold at auction two months later.
I wish the seller luck. It was a brilliant move if they can get a sucker to bite. If not, hopefully a market develops for the gold privys that allows them to at least break even on the $34,000 they paid at auction.
Because there is absolutely nothing at all special about #170 of 230. Or the "coincidence" that someone was able to acquire a silver privy COA, and then target a gold coin at auction with the same number to create a matched set that isn't really a matched set at all. Just the 170th gold privy coin paired with the 170th silver privy COA signed by the Director.
There is no number at all associated with the silver privy medal. It is nothing more than one of 1794, with no specific number attached to it.
@TomB said:
Why does the silver COA state "170 of 230"? Weren't there 1794 privy mark coins? It appears to me that someone made something up on their own.
Comments
Man you're quick I fixed "fee for coins", but you were too fast.
They don't like to openly discuss the fee structure, so I'm sure they will not post it here. If you don't wish to share that information, that's understandable.
Edited to add: if it were free, I'm sure you wouldn't be spending as much time pre-screening the coins as you do.
Jmlanzaf - I thought you were introducing a new concept to bulk grading - “free fire coins”. Perhaps for the poorly graded ones, they will set them on fire for you so you can immediately claim the tax loss. 😆
Since every bulk deal can vary with the number of coins you want to submit, what would be the sense of discussing a deal for 100 monster boxes of silver eagles vs. another guy’s 100 total flipped coins for the year! Especially, when the bulk dept. is just 1 call away, or on site at nearly every major show.
Wondercoin
does anyone here know The Man?
???? I'd guess because they knew the coins were grading well, and wanted to attract volume. Given the few tiny amount of seconds they devote to "inspecting" each modern submission, I'd guess it costs them nothing.
$3 per coin to not slab when they are only charging $8 to slab doesn't really make a ton of sense in terms of a discount. Slabbing costs them money. Not slabbing costs them nothing.
I honestly have no idea whether it was a "one time special" or their standard pricing for bulk submissions on new issues. As I said, I saw people doing it, asked about it, and this is what I was told. Period.
The coins were issued at the show, but they were being sent back to Sarasota for grading, so I doubt bulk submitters not submitting at the show were not being offered the same deal. I honestly don't care about what you "know" about people with privileges at both.
I'm telling you what I was offered at a snapshot in time. I seriously doubt it has changed, but I have no first hand knowledge regarding what is being offered in December 2024.
You also "knew" that minimum 70 grades were not a thing, based on what you saw published by PCGS on the web. It turned out not to be true.
Agree to disagree. Modern examples of any recent issues are priced exactly the same, apples to apples, on any major dealer website for slabs from any of the Big 3, despite inherent bias here for PCGS.
People certainly have their preferences for one over another, and that might actually have some rationale with respect to some series of classic coins. But they all grade modern coins pretty loosely, with a majority of all coins coming back as 70. Premiums for one slab over another are not really justified, and really don't exist. People pay more for Advance Release than FDOI, and more for FDOI than First Strike. But not really more for any of NGC, PCGS or CACG over the others with recent moderns.
If you can make money turning a modern NGC 70 into a PCGS 70, more power to you, but that's not something major dealers even try to do. Because, for the most part, the market does not tolerate it. If I'm wrong, why is Pinehurst, as just one example, leaving money on the table?
For round numbers, it's reasonable to say the blended burden rate could be $90/hr for grading and handling staff (It is California, after all, and note that I'm using burden rate, not wages). That's $1.50/minute. How much combined handling does each coin require? I would estimate a minute after you throw in down time, setup time, breaks, etc. Could be as low as 30s which is a cost of $0.75 but up to $1.50. It's not huge but multiply by 100 or 1000 coins and it can't be ignored or simply given away.
It's not given away. It's absorbed in the $8 per coin on the 70-80%+ coins they are grading.
$90/hr sounds high to me, but, even if true, just how many modern coins do they grade per hour? At 4 per minute, that would be 240. Slow that down to 2 per minute, and you're still talking about 120.
At even $8 per coin, that's a VERY healthy markup, which explains the attraction of private equity to the space. Getting nothing for the minority of moderns not making it into a bulk submission slab would hardly cause a dent in that margin.
Proof collection- why educate the ill-informed? Just keep doing what you are doing - yes?
I recently enjoyed reading the post here on the U.S. Coin Forum where the sub-$1,000 NGC 20th Century coin was crossed over to PCGS and fetched around $350,000. But, it’s good to know the market doesn’t tolerate this sort of action! 🤣
Wondercoin.
What's so special about the 230th Anniversary ? How do we know there won't be another one of these for the 250th ??
It is not really about a milestone anniversary for this specific coin. Rather, these FH releases are part of the Mint's Semi-Q line-up.
Link to Gibson video: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/13824217/#Comment_13824217
Are there any GUIDELINES or advisory committees (like the Citizen's Group that helps on design) that gives the Mint a guide as to what demand will be and how many shoulud be produced ?
They struck about 115,000 of the 2009 UHR Saints when they came out....you have 2 classic designs....how do they justify the huge dropoff in mintage for the Flowing Hair ?
The fact that the gold Flowing Hair was always going to have a floor at the bullion price -- ~$2,700 -- was going to restrict demand more so than a silver version as when the 2019-S ASE was limited to 30,000 and many more people could afford a silver coin costing far less.
The 1995-W ASE wasn't hot at the time but got hot later....but it had underlying demand support since if you were a collector or registry player, you needed the set-only 1995-W.
It's a VERY nice-looing coin, with ink-jet black fields (how do they create that deep, dark cameo effect ?)....but yes, it will probably see the premium dissipate over time and that's without another Flowing Hair to commemorate the 250th Anniversary in 2044.
It would take you 5 minutes on eBay to see that this is not true. PCGS 70s carry a premium to NGC 70s for most modern issues, although it's not always significant.
Large dealers do often have them priced the same on their website, however.
Not much change in the Pop Report since December 14th.
Looks like most of the FH Au's have been graded now.
Granted 87.8% have been graded PR70DCAM First Strike, but what I like is there are only 239 of these coins which is great for us mere mortal collectors like me.
The Mint really skewed the numbers by allotting 20% of the mintage to the ABPP.
Ergo, does the Mint want to continue to direct production to the dealer program or return production to the collector going forward?
I bet @NJCoin has some thoughts on the topic. ☺️
December 14th....
December 17, 2024
You might be surprised by my thoughts. I honestly have no issues with them doing whatever they want. My problem is with a lack of transparency, and then with them not doing what they say they are going to do.
Maximum of 10% does not mean whatever they want. Or 10% of a maximum mintage they don't produce.
With respect to how many they make, I am not an advocate of flooding the market in order to satisfy immediate demand at the expense of intermediate and long term value. I am also not an advocate of them creating instant flips by under pricing anything, nor of having them milk us for every last cent.
What they did last year with the Morgan and Peace Dollars was perfect, even though they slightly overproduced the proofs, both in terms of quantity and pricing. What they did this year with the FH, both with giving an over allocation of silver privys to dealers, and then with intentionally under producing when there was excess demand and they had not produced up to their announced limit, was an absolute disgrace.
I'm not for a minute suggesting they should not give 20% to ABPP, or make 50K or 10K of anything. I am saying they should be honest and upfront with whatever it is that they choose to do, and to then stick to it. The alternative will inevitably result in annoying enough people to eventually negatively impact demand, and long term value, for everything.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, they were completely transparent about the limit and did not exceed it. Just pointing that out. Again.
"At the risk of beating a dead horse, they were completely transparent about the limit and did not exceed it. Just pointing that out. Again."
Uh-oh.
The mint is always transparent
Yes. Dead horse. Again.
They published a limit. They did not produce to it, although there was more than adequate demand. The never offered a serious reason why.
They only announced a reduced Product Limit AFTER the product was placed on sale, and after the previously undisclosed Product Limit sold out. The exact opposite of transparent, even if perfectly legal.
And, if the missing coins and medals make an appearance in another product in the future, do you seriously think anyone paying more than issue price on the secondary market is going to be happy, or find it to be "completely transparent," just because they published a Mintage Limit in 2024 and never retracted it, with conflicting statements regarding whether the gold coins were actually minted?
Just pointing this out. Again.
"Just pointing this out. Again."
Uh-oh. Again.
i have problems with weight limits in elevators
Goldbully: What about Coin # 970058 -
2024 $1 Flowing Hair High Relief Au 230th Anniversary First Day of Issue - Baltimore, DCAM (Proof)
Were there just (10) coins graded at the Baltimore Show with that special label? Or more than that under some other Coin number?
Wondercoin
And again, the mint does not publish production plans. You're upset about not having information that they have never (or rarely) publish. Why you expect the mint to accommodate your information needs, no matter how reasonable they are, has got to be a form or narcissism or other disorder. You seem to be the only one here who's salty about the mint not providing information that I don't recall them ever providing prior to product launch. Please write your sternly worded letter to the mint director, drop it in the mail, and spare us any more ramblings about the great injustice of the mint failing to include you in their private pre-production planning and how they failed to explain their production decisions to you.
Happy? Probably not. But the entirety of the public recognizes that this is still a possibility and is buying them anyway. Some people are clearly OK with this calculated risk. Those who are not are probably not buying. That's a personal decision.
I don't know much about modern special labels, why the number ten?
I'm sure there were other Baltimore Show hybrids that were spun off for those that love fancy labels on their slabs.
All those special labels drive me nuts.....I'll stick with First Strike and be happy.
‘’why the number ten?’’
That’s the number showing under the Baltimore coin # for collectors/dealers who waited in the line at the show for the 500 Mint coins and then desired the special Baltimore FDI insert (with proof of purchase at the show). You had left that one out in your reporting.
Wondercoin.
I came back to the show on Day 2 to submit to PCGS, so I settled for First Strike.
If I had submitted the coin on Day 1 after standing in line for over 2 hours, the Population would have been 11, I suppose. ☺️
Pop Report as of December 18, 2024, including Baltimore FDI special label.
‘’I came back to the show on Day 2 to submit to PCGS, so I settled for First Strike.
If I had submitted the coin on Day 1 after standing in line for over 2 hours, the Population would have been 11, I suppose. ☺️’’
That may (or may not) have been an expensive lesson. We will see.
Wondercoin.
And again, if Mintage Limits are not meant to announce to the world the amount they will manufacture if demand warrants, then they mean absolutely nothing at all. Publishing a Limit of 1,000,000, and then, after not publishing production plans, only making 230, and only selling 230 to ABPP dealers, would apparently be perfectly okay with you, so long as they don't make 1,000,230, but not so much with me or most other people.
Not saying they can't do pretty much anything they want. But calling what they did "transparent" demonstrates a lack of appreciation for the meaning of the word.
And, as an American taxpayer and consumer of Mint numismatic products, no, I do not believe it is narcissistic to expect 100% transparency from them in all of their announcements. Mintage Limits, Product Limits, on sale dates, etc. Everything. In a timely manner, so I can make fully informed purchase decisions.
I'll spare you ramblings as long as you resist the urge to post "At the risk of beating a dead horse, they were completely transparent about the limit and did not exceed it. Just pointing that out. Again." You wanna beat the dead horse? I'm right there with ya.
What the mint is doing is similar to what the trading card companies are doing, in that they have the base cards, which in this case is the silver medal or gold coins without a privy, and then they have the parallels, which in this case is the privy mark. The mint could have easily added a w mintmark to more of them, and made a third parallel. The base cards and parallels are done all the time with trading cards. They even put out random parallels in regular orders, so the privy silver medals followed that pattern. There are many card collectors who purchase massive amounts of base card packs in order to get the parallels, then sell them for high profits in the after-market. We saw a similar pattern with the silver medals. The downside is it will be difficult for the average collector to get the parallels, which does go against what the mint used to say was their goal in past years. Many times the mint has not gone the full production limits they put up on their website, as many products would go unsold at the end of the year and they would have to destroy thousands to hundreds of thousands of products as a result. The other alternative is the product is up on the website and is listed for years as they try to sell off the inventory forever. Collectors will not buy products that are still listed years later as it is a ceiling on the product ever being valuable. The mint correctly under-produced these flowing hair designs, just as they recently did with the first Morgan and peace dollar moderns. This insured interest in the next releases.
Really? The Mint might have under produced 2021 Morgan and Peace Dollars with respect to demand, but they did produce right up to their announced Mintage Limits.
If they were so interested in continuing interest in future releases, or in supporting secondary market values, what explains their increased Mintage Limits of Morgan and Peace Dollars in 2023? Or in their producing right up to the Mintage Limits in 2024, in spite of the fact that demand fell off a cliff, likely in response to significant price increases in addition to general boredom with the series?
No, whatever drove the Mint to play games with the FH, it was certainly not motivated what what you are speculating. The only other times the Mint did not produce the full authorized mintage was when they could not sell that amount. The answer to your speculation is to simply announce lower Mintage Limits. Nothing at all stops them from doing so.
Announcing a cap and then producing below it, when they could easily sell more, has never before been a thing. If it's a new paradigm, which requires us to guess what actual mintages are going to be, without regard to demand, is more likely to stifle demand than stimulate it.
Because it is opaque, not transparent. Say nothing if you don't want to give the market accurate, actionable, transparent information, and see how the market reacts. Causing people to get disgusted and move on to other overpriced trinkets will do nothing to support long term pricing for anything they produce.
Otherwise, stick to the numbers you publish, and don't play games by taking the position that a "limit" means any number at all below it. Even if that is technically correct.
If you publish a limit and produce below it because demand does not allow you to sell the limit, that is beyond your control and is fine. Intentionally refusing to produce up to a limit when there is demand is entirely within your control, is neither honest nor transparent, and is not okay. It means there was actually a hidden, lower limit that was not disclosed until after the fact. Period.
There is a big difference between a mint product that is released early in the year like in January and one released in Oct, Nov.. The mint is quite busy at the end of the year producing coins for the next product year (that's why they can release them early in January). Also, when we go to Walmart, we don't have Walmart calling us to say how many more boxes they have of cereal if we don't buy it that day, or when they will get anymore in. The mint is the same. I thought the limits they had were too high on the flowing hair products, and am glad they struck less. They may have read these message boards to gauge demand. I doubt they are worried over a few unhappy campers.
If you say so. They control when they release product. They release Limited Edition Silver Proof Sets at the end of every year, and always make the full authorized Product Limit available for purchase. Even though they have not sold out for the past few years.
If they're busy in November and December producing product for release in the next year, what makes you think they are not busy in the summer and early fall producing product for release in the late fall and early winter? Whatever drove their decision with respect to what they did with the two FH products, I PROMISE you, it was not driven by production constraints regarding an inability to bang out an additional 25K medals and 7.5K coins.
I do agree with you that they don't worry "over a few unhappy campers." I sincerely hope you do not join their ranks if the missing medals and coins make a future appearance in another product. Because I think that is a distinct possibility, as opposed to their leaving money on the table to support the secondary market, and not reducing Mintage Limits to reflect that decision.
the mint wouldn't mislead people
Got my eye on this auction.
11 Days to go........
GC Link
Bidding up to $3,551 as of this morning.
Finally shot one of these.
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1729349/2024-Flowing-Hair-High-Relief-Gold-Dollar-230th-Anniversary-First-Day-of-Issue-Baltimore-PCGS-Proof-70-DCAM
Phil Arnold
Director of Photography, GreatCollections
greatcollections.com
Do I take it that some of these coins (privy or non-privy) have blemishes in the otherwise perfect ink-jet black fields ?
Or is that just the photos or holder showing them ?
IMO. It is a combination. There is actual debris on the coin by the T and Y, and several reflections from the holder down and back up to the lens in the photo that are not on the coin. You can see these reflections best on enlarged images at GC by the stars.
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
Many 70's(to a degree)have planchet blemishes, as well as post struck debris(from the removal of collar dies)that have "dusted" some areas on those beautiful DCAM surfaces imo.
No 70 is a perfect 70.
Since you know so much about mintage limits and the modern coin market, I suggest you apply for a job at the Mint and explain to them how they should do their job. The American public could all benefit from your obvious expertise.
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
Bidding up to $4,151 as of this afternoon.
I think $6,000 or close to it either way.
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
I read/heard somewhere that they start charging reject fees if half of your submission does not meet your minimum grade. Not sure if that is current rule.
Thanks for the helpful suggestion. I could also not waste my time, and just spend my discretionary dollars elsewhere if I am unhappy with how they are making decisions. I'll be sure to get back to you when I decide which way to go.
Save some money and get a 2017-W High Relief 225th Anniversary for only $2717
Did those trade at a premium in the highest grade, PF70DCAM or whatever ? Now they are basically spot ?
What about those Kennedy ANA 2014 3/4 ounce coins ? They were hot....not so now ?
Is this a first?
Tim
Maybe, but likely not the last. Anyone with a signed numbered silver privy COA could have targeted the corresponding number in the auction, thinking they will be able to turn straw into gold by selling the pair for a monster premium.
The only problem is, the gold COA actually corresponds to a numbered coin in a slab. The silver COA is just a piece of paper that corresponds to nothing. I don't think it's worth nearly what people on eBay have been paying for it, let alone a monster multiple to have it matched to a numbered gold coin sold at auction two months later.
I wish the seller luck. It was a brilliant move if they can get a sucker to bite. If not, hopefully a market develops for the gold privys that allows them to at least break even on the $34,000 they paid at auction.
Because there is absolutely nothing at all special about #170 of 230. Or the "coincidence" that someone was able to acquire a silver privy COA, and then target a gold coin at auction with the same number to create a matched set that isn't really a matched set at all. Just the 170th gold privy coin paired with the 170th silver privy COA signed by the Director.
There is no number at all associated with the silver privy medal. It is nothing more than one of 1794, with no specific number attached to it.
Why does the silver COA state "170 of 230"? Weren't there 1794 privy mark coins? It appears to me that someone made something up on their own.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Out of the 1794 Privy coins, 230 of the COA's were signed by her. It's legit.
Click on/read the "description" of the Medal(at the bottom).
https://www.usmint.gov/230th-anniversary-flowing-hair-silver-medal-24YH.html