? on Silver Ikes and 06' Redbook Mint Production Figures

Eastside

My new redbook has four differant mintage figures for BU Silver Ikes
for 71s, 72s, 73s & 74s and they are significantly Lower than previous published Redbook figures.

Is this correct Info that has been updated or is my 06' Redbook in error?

Steve

segoja

Great question. I was not aware of any adjustments in mintage figures.

HAve you compared to Breen or other sources with the current Red Book Nums?

How significant are the changes?

sinin1

my aug 2005 coins mag #'s

71-s 6868530
72-s 2193056
73-s 1833140
74-s 1720000

don't know what other numbers are out there

Rampage

<< <i>my aug 2005 coins mag #'s

71-s 6868530
72-s 2193056
73-s 1833140
74-s 1720000

don't know what other numbers are out there >>



The 2005 Redbook lists the 1974S mintage figures as 1,900,156. The other figures in the redbook match those that sinin1 has listed.

Conder101

The problem stems from them changing the way they report unc and proof mintage figures and an error that has appeared in the Redbook for over twenty years.

The standard way that the Redbook has reported mintages of coins that exist for a date and mint in both Proof and uncirculated versions has been to list the combined mintage figure and then to the right of it list the proof mintage in ( ). The mintage of the Unc was then found by subtracting the proof mintage from the total mintage. But for some reason on the Ike dollar and about a half dozen other series they goofed up and did not do that. Instead they listed the proof mintage in ( ) and then next to it JUST the Unc mintage. So the Unc mintage figures for 40% silver you see in the 2005 and earlier redbooks is actually the Unc mintage.

In this years book they have gone through the book and seperated out the proof and Unc mintages by subtracting the proofs from the combined mintage. But when they got to the Ike dollars (and those other series) they didn't realize that the mintages were ALREADY seperated! So they went ahead and subtracted the proof mintage from the actual Unc mintage, and are now reporting an incorrect Unc mintage.