<< <i>"2006-W one-half ounce ($50.00) burnished uncirculated coin, with a final audited mintage of 2577 pieces, which is the lowest-mintage (hence: rarest) United States coin ever issued since 1915"
"Devil's advocate" - If I am not mistaken, the US Mint issued less than (1,700) 1936 Brilliant Proof Cents. Yet, the coin even in nice gem red condition trades at only a few thousand dollars or so 73 years later (and we are talking about a coin in the incredibly popular Lincoln cent arena). Where you have plat coins with 4,000-5,000 mintages that are worth about "melt", the 2577 mintage becomes a "relative" mintage figure - no?
Wondercoin
P.S. I am still buying plat coins - I am just trying to properly assess my possible "wait time" for the coins to "explode" in value - and I know I do not have 73 years left to wait! >>
I would point out that the 1936 proof cent sells for over 100,000 X base metal value and what.....maybe 10,000X issue price?
Platinum Eagles in sub 5,000 mintages sell for what............1.5-4 X base metal value and a similar multiple to issue price. Hardly a bad annualized return on a 1-3 year investment. I wonder what the 1-3 year return was for that 1936 proof cent?? Probably something similar..............
<< <i>"2006-W one-half ounce ($50.00) burnished uncirculated coin, with a final audited mintage of 2577 pieces, which is the lowest-mintage (hence: rarest) United States coin ever issued since 1915"
"Devil's advocate" - If I am not mistaken, the US Mint issued less than (1,700) 1936 Brilliant Proof Cents. Yet, the coin even in nice gem red condition trades at only a few thousand dollars or so 73 years later (and we are talking about a coin in the incredibly popular Lincoln cent arena). Where you have plat coins with 4,000-5,000 mintages that are worth about "melt", the 2577 mintage becomes a "relative" mintage figure - no?
Wondercoin
P.S. I am still buying plat coins - I am just trying to properly assess my possible "wait time" for the coins to "explode" in value - and I know I do not have 73 years left to wait! >>
... in examining my copy of the Red Book, the reported mintage of the 1936 proof Lincoln cent is 5,569, and not 1,700. Am I missing something here?
>>The one-ounce plats are an enigma. I don't think I'm alone in finding them less desirable than smaller denominations. I can't pinpoint why exactly--too much of a slab of metal, perhaps, or maybe their desirability by investors and bullion hoarders. I am very curious if they will find even close to the same scale of collector base as the other sizes.<<
I think there is a *very* solid collector base for the one-ounce plats. The $100 proofs have outsold the $50 proofs every single year (except for the 2007 reverse proof set year), and the $100 proof plats have sold more than the $25 proofs every year but two. Only the $10 one-tenth ounce proofs have outsold the $100 proofs, usually by only a 10% to 35% margin. Around 2/3 of the total money spent obtaining platinum proof coins from the Mint has been spent on the one-ounce $100 coins. This was likely a factor in the Mint's decision to strike only one-ounce proof Platinum Eagles going forward.
<< <i>"2006-W one-half ounce ($50.00) burnished uncirculated coin, with a final audited mintage of 2577 pieces, which is the lowest-mintage (hence: rarest) United States coin ever issued since 1915"
"Devil's advocate" - If I am not mistaken, the US Mint issued less than (1,700) 1936 Brilliant Proof Cents. Yet, the coin even in nice gem red condition trades at only a few thousand dollars or so 73 years later (and we are talking about a coin in the incredibly popular Lincoln cent arena). Where you have plat coins with 4,000-5,000 mintages that are worth about "melt", the 2577 mintage becomes a "relative" mintage figure - no?
Wondercoin
P.S. I am still buying plat coins - I am just trying to properly assess my possible "wait time" for the coins to "explode" in value - and I know I do not have 73 years left to wait! >>
Correct but they have zero design based proof rarity and the lincoln cent proof set has gotten SOOOOOOOO long that very few people are putting together full proof cent sets. Zero melt value, zero type rarity and a set so long that its a pain to complete all work against the mighty 1936 lincoln cent. Besides it not even the rarest proof lincoln cent. The early mat cents rarer.
<< <i>>>The one-ounce plats are an enigma. I don't think I'm alone in finding them less desirable than smaller denominations. I can't pinpoint why exactly--too much of a slab of metal, perhaps, or maybe their desirability by investors and bullion hoarders. I am very curious if they will find even close to the same scale of collector base as the other sizes.<<
I think there is a *very* solid collector base for the one-ounce plats. The $100 proofs have outsold the $50 proofs every single year (except for the 2007 reverse proof set year), and the $100 proof plats have sold more than the $25 proofs every year but two. Only the $10 one-tenth ounce proofs have outsold the $100 proofs, usually by only a 10% to 35% margin. Around 2/3 of the total money spent obtaining platinum proof coins from the Mint has been spent on the one-ounce $100 coins. This was likely a factor in the Mint's decision to strike only one-ounce proof Platinum Eagles going forward. >>
The Redbook lists the COMBINED brilliant and satin mintages in their mintage figure.
Eric - If Platinum hits $5,000/oz. at some point in the near future (so any raw 4-pc. set has melt value of $9,250) - in your opinion, what will be the premium the 2008 Platinum Proof set will trade at above the platinum value? Your best guess?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
You didn't ask me but I'll share my experience with the 2008 price spike.
I reviewed all my raw APEs and sold those with obvious defects along with some MS and PR69s. It also seemed easier to sell the 1 oz and 1/2 oz coins as the purchase premium over spot was narrower and it just seemed more profitable. I also found I could justify selling the 1 oz. and 1/2 oz coins by telling myself it let me clear the 1/4th and 1/10 coins.(broke up many 4 coin sets) I would bet more 1 oz. and 1/2 oz. coins were sold than 1/4th or 1/10th.
IMO if we saw a spike in platinum to $3,000-$5000 range you would likely see the prescreened raw coins along with some PR69s being offered for melt. Some would likely end up being melted reducing total surviving population but skewing populations toward a higher ratio of PR70s to PR69s.
I can't see a situation when PR70s would go for scrap but I can see a rather fixed premium over spot. If a pr70 2008 was say $500 over spot with platinum at $1300 it might remain at $500 over spot with platinum at $5,000 resulting in a relatively narrower premium as a percent over spot but a fixed premium in absolute terms.
In the case of the 2008 APE proofs there is also a hoarder factor to consider. Many who follow this thread were aware of a rarity in the making and some of us(myself included) stocked up. Not all of those coins have yet been dispersed. A coin is a lot easier to sell when you have duplicates, triplicates, etc.
My guess is if Pt hits $5k/oz, it will wash away ALL numismatic premiums for all dates and finishes, at least right now. 10 yrs from now, maybe not. I agree there'd still be a premium for coins over raw bullion, but other than that, zip. It would be wet and wild to see that happen! The entire series could be incredibly rare, even the currently common dates.
<< <i>The Redbook lists the COMBINED brilliant and satin mintages in their mintage figure.
Eric - If Platinum hits $5,000/oz. at some point in the near future (so any raw 4-pc. set has melt value of $9,250) - in your opinion, what will be the premium the 2008 Platinum Proof set will trade at above the platinum value? Your best guess?
Wondercoin >>
If platinum hits 5,000 per oz it is my opinion that all the platinum eagles except for maybe a few so called key dates (at that point) like 2008 and 2004 in 70 grade will trade for melt value in the short run and even in the case of 70 grade "keys" the mark up over melt on a percentage basis would be trivial. In order to reach those kind of platinum price heights I would think production would have to be well below actual material consumption and the places the plats sold for 5k melt would go are not a good place for a nice coin to be.
IF platinum hits 5K the semi keys are likely to become the real keys. The sets would get much rarer once its all over. Those of us that collect would have been better to buy just our sets because we collect and all duplicate money should have been spent on platinum bullion. All numismatic gold old or new should be sold and the house mortgaged to take a very heavy platinum position. I for one don't expect a 5k price any time soon for platinum. I can say this....if we do see $5k platinum in the next few years complete set platinum collectors will come out looking great because our modern issues do have a very significant bullion floor under them.
The other comments by 2many and grits are on target in my view.
>>Guys- What are your predictions for silver, gold and plat (Unc W and Proof, not business strike bullion) in 2009? Ron<<
With three months to go in the calendar year, there have been vague hints that 2009 "W" uncirculated and proof gold and silver coins will be offered, but no firm ordering dates have been announced. If these coins show up at all, they could be very low-mintage issues with orders limited to one or a few coins each.
Platinum is another story. No bullion or collectible 2009 platinum eagles have been announced or released. A design was created months ago for the reverse of an expected 2009 one-ounce proof Platinum Eagle, but there has been no further word since then. Time is growing short.
>>I reviewed all my raw APEs and sold those with obvious defects along with some MS and PR69s. It also seemed easier to sell the 1 oz and 1/2 oz coins as the purchase premium over spot was narrower and it just seemed more profitable.<<
Could you tell us what dates, and whether these coins were proofs or "W" uncirculated? I suspect that even some of the ultra-scarce 2006-W burnished $50 half-ounce Platinum Eagles (mintage 2,577) wound up at the smelters.
<< <i>Could you tell us what dates, and whether these coins were proofs or "W" uncirculated? I suspect that even some of the ultra-scarce 2006-W burnished $50 half-ounce Platinum Eagles (mintage 2,577) wound up at the smelters. >>
There's a lot of talk here about $5000 Pt! Guess it could happen, but a lot of things would need to occur just right (barring a new use/need that is currently unforeseen). As Wikipedia* notes, in 2006 55% of all the platinum mined went to the auto industry. So; strong auto sales, mining strike/power outage, speculation, etc. could all realistically send prices in 2010 or 2011 near $5000, but... Would you sell your 2004 & 2008 proofs or your 2006-W burnished plats at $5K per ounce?
Note: I'd like to see a US Mint produce a Platinum Plated Silver Eagle. I'd actually buy one. I hate the Silver Eagles because of milk spotting!!!
*-Wikipedia (If you haven't studied Pt, read this. Platinum is an amazing metal.)
Didn't the Mint delay the release of the 2006-W Burnished Plats until October that year?
It kinda looks like we are getting down to the wire, even on just a 1 oz. Proof Plat for 2009.
Since the Plats aren't even on the Mint's schedule, my guess is that they aren't forthcoming this year.
However, since we haven't been updated one way or the other, I'd have to guess that they still plan on the 1 oz. Proof Gold Buffs, the Proof Silver Eagles and also the 4 Proof AGE coins.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>"2006-W one-half ounce ($50.00) burnished uncirculated coin, with a final audited mintage of 2577 pieces, which is the lowest-mintage (hence: rarest) United States coin ever issued since 1915"
"Devil's advocate" - If I am not mistaken, the US Mint issued less than (1,700) 1936 Brilliant Proof Cents. Yet, the coin even in nice gem red condition trades at only a few thousand dollars or so 73 years later (and we are talking about a coin in the incredibly popular Lincoln cent arena). Where you have plat coins with 4,000-5,000 mintages that are worth about "melt", the 2577 mintage becomes a "relative" mintage figure - no?
Wondercoin
P.S. I am still buying plat coins - I am just trying to properly assess my possible "wait time" for the coins to "explode" in value - and I know I do not have 73 years left to wait! >>
Correct but they have zero design based proof rarity and the lincoln cent proof set has gotten SOOOOOOOO long that very few people are putting together full proof cent sets. Zero melt value, zero type rarity and a set so long that its a pain to complete all work against the mighty 1936 lincoln cent. Besides it not even the rarest proof lincoln cent. The early mat cents rarer. >>
Wondercoin is right, IMO, and your response has a few problems...
First, Lincoln proof sets, despite a lack "design based proof rarity", outnumber proof platinum sets today going from the registries.
Second, "design based proof rarity" is not a driver of price. If it were, how do you explain classic commemoratives -- a series that has languished forever and is likely a better guide to future plat performance than proof Lincoln's.
Third, very few people collect the Lincoln series in proof in its entirety, but that hasn't hurt the numbers of people collecting these coins. Rather, the Lincoln collectors I know collect the shorter sets by type. The registries bear this out. For instance, the short set from 36-42 has 77 registry sets, the 50-58 sets have 108, and the 59-present has 199 -- more than ANY of the platinum proof issues (whose largest registry of proofs is 48 sets).
Design based proof rarity is a fallacy and has no basis outside of its (mis)use by some as a justification of future platinum set performance.
That's not to say I don't like or collect the series (I do), but rather the justification that you (and others) are using to predict future performance is not founded on solid logic, IMO.
Respectfully...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
First, Lincoln proof sets, despite a lack "design based proof rarity", outnumber proof platinum sets today going from the registries.
Answer: Thats correct. The series has almost 100 year collector base formation lead. Thats expected.
Second, "design based proof rarity" is not a driver of price.
Answer: That has been correct because the US has had very few designs and denominations in pocket change over the years and it has fostered a series date and mint mark set structure. This is changing and the rest of the world by and large has already gone to a type and design based collecting structure because they can. This impact takes about 20-40 years to REALLY show up. It did in the 1890-1920 range. when we went for a date based to date and mint mark based structure.
If it were, how do you explain classic commemoratives -- a series that has languished forever and is likely a better guide to future plat performance than proof Lincoln's.
Answer: The old commems have two extremely serious problems that the proof plats do not: 1. They have very little series cohesion so the key dates have not developed well. They do not ejoy the very important relative ratity pricing sructure like most other US series. 2. They have high mintages compared to much of th enw stuff.
Third, very few people collect the Lincoln series in proof in its entirety, but that hasn't hurt the numbers of people collecting these coins. Rather, the Lincoln collectors I know collect the shorter sets by type. The registries bear this out. For instance, the short set from 36-42 has 77 registry sets, the 50-58 sets have 108, and the 59-present has 199 -- more than ANY of the platinum proof issues (whose largest registry of proofs is 48 sets).
Answer: Again, the collector base for these coins have been growing for 100 years. AND they are cheap so this is expected but not a problem.
Design based proof rarity is a fallacy and has no basis outside of its (mis)use by some as a justification of future platinum set performance.
Answer: You are not looking at the broader trends. Design based rarity is extremely important to recent large percentage price growth when indexed to inflation over the last 10 years. I have a whole chapter on it but I cant post it right now because KP would shoot me.
Design based proof rarity is a fallacy and has no basis outside of its (mis)use by some as a justification of future platinum set performance.
I also have some healthy skepticism about design-based rarity in both the Proof Plats and the Burnished Plats.
At the high cost of entry for all of the Plat Series, and with the unpredictable effects of rising bullion prices upon the more common issues, I tend to think that the price performance of all Plats will be mostly influenced by bullion prices. I do think that design is a factor, but so are mintages and so is attrition due to higher bullion prices.
Nobody knows how this is going to shake out. I don't like to think that my rare Plats will become the more common ones, but I don't discount the chance that it could happen.
Suppose a person owns several duplicates of the rarest issues, and not very many of the more common issues. That puts him in a terrible position - does he use his duplicates of the rarities to finance the purchase of the common dates now, or does he risk letting the high mintage issues get away from him because of attrition while he saves up enough money to pick them off, one by one?
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy the changing reverse designs, and for the most part I think that they were well done. I just can't hang my hat on that being the major factor in price determination going forward. If it happens that way, so much the better. The nice thing is that owning Plats of any type will be a great "problem" to have, imo.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
First off, thanks for your response, Eric. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues with you.
<< <i>First, Lincoln proof sets, despite a lack "design based proof rarity", outnumber proof platinum sets today going from the registries.
Answer: Thats correct. The series has almost 100 year collector base formation lead. Thats expected. >>
Fair enough, Lincolns have a huge lead, but design based rarity (which was your argument as to why Plats will outshine Lincolns) has yet to be shown to inspire collector interest in the US despite several series that have introduced it (Quarters, Nickels, and Plats). It is conjecture to suggest a paradigm shift in collecting will result, and it's been more than 10 years since the first issuance of these coins in the US.
<< <i>Second, "design based proof rarity" is not a driver of price.
Answer: That has been correct because the US has had very few designs and denominations in pocket change over the years and it has fostered a series date and mint mark set structure. This is changing and the rest of the world by and large has already gone to a type and design based collecting structure because they can. This impact takes about 20-40 years to REALLY show up. It did in the 1890-1920 range. when we went for a date based to date and mint mark based structure. >>
The 1890 paradigm shift occurred, IMO, because all major series introduced mintmarks. The same cannot be said for US coins, the vast majority of which haven't changed over to design variability within a series. It is also worth noting that non-US coin collecting is languishing relative to US issues, so is design variability really a driver? Furthermore, it could be argued that design variability will have exactly the opposite effect you are suggesting -- it certainly did for stamps and baseball cards.
<< <i>If it were, how do you explain classic commemoratives -- a series that has languished forever and is likely a better guide to future plat performance than proof Lincoln's.
Answer: The old commems have two extremely serious problems that the proof plats do not: 1. They have very little series cohesion so the key dates have not developed well. They do not ejoy the very important relative ratity pricing sructure like most other US series. 2. They have high mintages compared to much of the new stuff. >>
So what's to suggest plats will be any different? The "relative rarity pricing structure", I would argue, is being led by profiteers and speculators (perhaps led to believe these issues have more future potential than they really do by threads such as this, IMO), not collectors, and all it takes is a quick reading of this thread to see that.
Also, they may have much higher mintages, but we all know that rarity doesn't necessarily lead to price. To the contrary, limited mintages has the opposite effect, and collector interest (i.e. demand) is what really drives price in numismatics.
Even more important, IMO, to the future collectability of these coins is the pricepoint. Let's face it, these coins are expensive, and that does not bode well for them to be broadly embraced by the numismatic community, regardless of the "series cohesion" or "relative rarity pricing structure".
<< <i>Design based proof rarity is a fallacy and has no basis outside of its (mis)use by some as a justification of future platinum set performance.
Answer: You are not looking at the broader trends. Design based rarity is extremely important to recent large percentage price growth when indexed to inflation over the last 10 years. I have a whole chapter on it but I cant post it right now because KP would shoot me. >>
With all due respect, I am looking at the broader trends, I just don't agree with your conclusions that "because the world is going to design based rarity that plats will soar in value". There is no example of this effect on price in US or World numismatics that I am aware of, and in other collectibles it has led to exactly the opposite effect.
That said, I do look forward to your book and the arguments presented therein, and I hope you don't hold it against me that we disagree on this topic.
Respectfully...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
I don't see the date & mint mark style of collecting that has been around for almost 100 years changing any time soon.....
This is way to entrenched in the collector market with people collecting like this for there entire collecting lives.....
I also feel a good number of collectors no nothing about the platinum coins and don't care to know nothing.....
The fact that you can go to most coin shows and find no or next to no platinum at the show also does not help matters.....
The fact the reverses on the proof and W unc coins changed on a yearly basis does not help nor hurt matters in my opinion. People will want a 2004 proof coin because it is needed for there set but because it has a different reverse then the 2003 & 2005....
Personally a drop in the value of platinum might be what would help the overall number of collectors of this series more then a huge run up in price.....
Collection under construction: VG Barber Quarters & Halves
I agree with most of Raven's remarks, but see the changing designs as an added bonus that will gradually draw in more collectors. I don't really have any predictions on if higher or lower Pt prices will increase # of collectors. A rise or a fall will both help and hurt matters in the medium run. This is going to take a decade to shake out.
I don't see the date & mint mark style of collecting that has been around for almost 100 years changing any time soon.....
This is way to entrenched in the collector market with people collecting like this for there entire collecting lives.....
Count me in as one of those "old fogies" who thinks that mintmarks are important and that rarity (based on mintages and attrition) counts for something.
I agree that a paradigm shift is in process, but it could take many years before collector attitudes are re-shaped completely. Certainly the Plats' changing reverse series is a component of that shift.
The "relative rarity pricing structure", I would argue, is being led by profiteers and speculators (perhaps led to believe these issues have more future potential than they really do by threads such as this, IMO), not collectors
I would say that the Mint turned most Plat collectors into profiteers and speculators out of necessity with the deluge of offerings and varieties that they were spewing out for those 3 years, 2006-2008.
Now that us Plat collectors aren't being hammered with huge capital outlay requirements every time we turn around, we can actually focus on collecting. For a time, things were moving so fast that there was really no good way to manage a budget to allow for an orderly acquisition of Plats. That damaged the collector base as much as the runup in platinum prices, imo.
Now that things have slowed down I think we will see a new collector base emerge, and only then will we see what factors will drive prices - whether it is mintage, design, attrition or bullion price levels. I think that the game is starting over, right about now.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
I saw a guy (and his "hot" woman) pull up to the hotel in a Lamborghini the other day. Quite a scene. As a PM I just received suggested, if and when Platinum hites $5,000/oz., the set may be akin to a Lamborghini - very impressive, but, impractical for the vast majortiy of the collectors to even consider collecting. Thoughts?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Fair enough, Lincolns have a huge lead, but design based rarity (which was your argument as to why Plats will outshine Lincolns) has yet to be shown to inspire collector interest in the US despite several series that have introduced it (Quarters, Nickels, and Plats). It is conjecture to suggest a paradigm shift in collecting will result, and it's been more than 10 years since the first issuance of these coins in the US.
Answer: Not conjecture if you look at total market capitalization trends over the last 10 years the design change moderns are out pacing the classic material. The total market capitalization for all silver proof quarters form 1936-1998 is about 130 million dollars. The market capitalization of just the 1999 silver froof quarters is 180 million and thats just one example. Also you may wish to look up the middle of the 1936 cent grading bell line curve and you will find its about PR-64. Then go back and look up the typical proof prices (because thats all their was 30-40 years ago) starting in the mid to late 1960s and index its price against inflation to the present. You will find zero net inflation adjusted price increase for 40 years with a few bumps up and down. Early proof Washington quarters are also a desaster.
The 1890 paradigm shift occurred, IMO, because all series introduced mintmarks.
Answer: Mint mark were a normal part of coinage production for generations prior to 1890.
US coin collecting is languishing relative to US issues, so is design variability really a driver. Answer: Coins that are not design rare if they are foreign are in a serious world of hurt in most cases. It may be that design preliferation does in fact hurt demand concentration but you most certainly want design differentiation coupled with obverse design cohesion if we go the way most of the rest of the world has.
yes...$5000 platinum puts the coins in a "different" catagory...
lets see...
12 years (97-08) of Proof at 1.85oz/yr = 22.2 oz = $111,000 Reverse 07 Set another 1oz = $5000 3 years (06-08) W-unc another 5.55oz = $27,500
so all told just the raw value of the coins (no numismatic value/PCGS plastic value) would be approaching what $145,000....and that's how many pennies????
<< <i>Fair enough, Lincolns have a huge lead, but design based rarity (which was your argument as to why Plats will outshine Lincolns) has yet to be shown to inspire collector interest in the US despite several series that have introduced it (Quarters, Nickels, and Plats). It is conjecture to suggest a paradigm shift in collecting will result, and it's been more than 10 years since the first issuance of these coins in the US.
Answer: Not conjecture if you look at total market capitalization trends over the last 10 years the design change moderns are out pacing the classic material. The total market capitalization for all silver proof quarters form 1936-1998 is about 130 million dollars. The market capitalization of just the 1999 silver froof quarters is 180 million and thats just one example. Also you may wish to look up the middle of the 1936 cent grading bell line curve and you will find its about PR-64. Then go back and look up the typical proof prices (because thats all their was 30-40 years ago) starting in the mid to late 1960s and index its price against inflation to the present. You will find zero net inflation adjusted price increase for 40 years with a few bumps up and down. Early proof Washington quarters are also a desaster. >>
With all due respect, it is conjecture -- as are all future predictions. Basically, you are assigning paradigm shift causality where none has been shown and there is evidence it will have exactly the opposite effect as it has in other collecting areas. Furthermore, your analysis neglects to factor in that plats' value is primarily bullion driven and quarters are not. Most importantly, market capitalization (source?) tells us nothing about future values or collector interest. For example, I'll bet market capitalization of stamps/baseball cards in the bubble years followed a similar trend. Therefore, I would caution you from drawing hasty conclusions based on these factors because "the reverse changes from year to year" is not reason enough in this numismatist's eyes to justify a rosy outlook in the way these coins are collected or valued. The jury is clearly still out (i.e. conjecture) and to suggest otherwise is not prudent, IMO and for the reasons discussed above.
<< <i>The 1890 paradigm shift occurred, IMO, because all series introduced mintmarks.
Answer: Mint mark were a normal part of coinage production for generations prior to 1890. >>
Agreed, but you (correctly) pointed out that it took time for this change in production to yield a change in collecting habits. Regardless, the point was that the design change was across all major series, and we've not yet seen this broadly adopted in US coins, only three series. What the future may hold is anyone's guess.
<< <i>US coin collecting is languishing relative to US issues, so is design variability really a driver. Answer: Coins that are not design rare if they are foreign are in a serious world of hurt in most cases. It may be that design preliferation does in fact hurt demand concentration but you most certainly want design differentiation coupled with obverse design cohesion if we go the way most of the rest of the world has. >>
The rest of the world has little to no bearing on US coins, and I challenge you to find and draw a parallel. More to the point, the valuations of these coins (in terms of numismatic premium) and the market in these coins (in term of collector market cap) is a fraction of US issues, and I don't see huge price appreciation in them (perhaps your book will show something I'm not aware of). So why should we take our cue from that thinly traded and disparate market?
If we take the example of some other US based collectible markets -- stamps or baseball cards -- and look what happens over the long term, it is clear that there is an initial bump in interest is the result of this design variability. The question, however, is how this will be viewed twenty or fifty years from now. Will the collector get "bored" with ever-changing designs and collect them by broad type, or will the collector embrace that in order to collect the coins by yearly design? If we look at stamps and baseball cards, the answer is clear and a glut of designs led to a complete breakdown of the collector base. If we look at world coins, there's no parallel in the number of collectors or significant price appreciation, but some suggestion of a similar pattern. What the future will hold is anyone's guess, but that's precisely what it is -- a guess.
Lastly, your responses have completely ignored the largest single hurdle (IMO) in price appreciation and collector interest -- the high price of these coins to begin with and the valuation of non-key dates being linear with respect to their underlying (and expensive) bullion value. I would appreciate your thoughts on this issue.
Respectfully...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
I'm not an expert on these coins but I do own some. I've been reading this tread and find the information posted very interesting. I just wanted to add a couple of my own thoughts.
I think an important issue that will hold down prices for quite a while is the fact that alot of the lower mintage plats are held in quantity by investors/speculators. As prices go up some of these mini-hoards will be sold, in a thin market like plats, this can cause depressed prices for a long time.
If these coins are ever seriously promoted I think we will see prices rise quicky. These coins being more widely disbursed is the only way these things are going to develop a market that will hold up long term. On a good note I recently saw some of the 2006w plats being sold by a mail order dealer in Numismatic News.
I don't think anyone is saying all of the plat coins are going to sell for moon money in future years, it is just the couple of key date coins that perhaps will. Some will sell for mostly melt, others for a smaller premium, and then the key date coins will go for multiples to that.
In a number of years people will look in the redbook and see the mintages and think "wow maybe I should buy the lowest mintage coins, those are very low".
It won't take much to raise prices on mintages under 5000, especially in a hot economy someday.
Few people thought Jackie Robinson was a good buy perhaps but what happened?
Jackie is now no longer the lowest mintage modern bullion, even beaten out by a classic design in gold, the Jackson spouse coin.
I think some are drawn to low mintages regardless of design, and so think these will do well someday, if not sooner. Jackie Robinson gold may be the best proof of this, but time will tell.
Halfstrike, A fair perspective, I think, but that's quite different from the "design based rarity" that Eric and others are suggesting as the driver of future prices across the entire series. What you are describing is the key date effect, which is present in virtually all US coin series (as well as the closest parallel in US coins, IMO, the classic commems) and as you point out should also hold for the plats...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
I guess I'm also a little skeptical that changing designs will drive the coin market. Look at these boards and you'll already note "collector fatigue" with the State Quarters -> National Parks issues and, of course, the First Spouses. In fact, I have to say I'm bored with most new Mint issues, and it has forced me to look to other countries for inspiration. That said, what the plats have going for them in this regard is truly stunning designs, the quality of which is not found in any other U.S. series. IMO, Lamborghini (sp?) owners--and eventually a lot of others--are going to be attracted to the series for many reasons, but I don't think this will carry over to every other changing-design series.
I also don't think you can compare coins to stamps or baseball cards or even to Hot Wheels (which are way cool). Coins are in a unique category.
Bottom line is that none of us know what will happen, but once again, it's a great time to be a collector and even have the option of plunging in.
>>Suppose a person owns several duplicates of the rarest issues, and not very many of the more common issues. That puts him in a terrible position - does he use his duplicates of the rarities to finance the purchase of the common dates now, or does he risk letting the high mintage issues get away from him because of attrition while he saves up enough money to pick them off, one by one?<<
Private melting probably causes higher attrition of common dates, but not enough for them to become scarcer than the keys. Silver coin melts have been going on for more than 40 years, but as far as I know, none of the circulated common dates in the "junk silver" category have overtaken the keys in price. As an example, the circulated 1955 half dollar is still worth much more than the circulated 1956.
Somehow, I am not sure the comparison between Plats and classic commems is fair. The design variation is different whether there is a price reflection between them or not.
With the classic commems, you have a changing reverse and a changing obverse. Nothing remains constant on those coins. As a set, you need to read a book or get some sort of guidance to know which coins are required to complete the set since none of them look alike or share anything in common. In other words, you can't tell the coins go together as a set by just looking at them even if they were all in front of you at once. Sort of like, modern commems, first spouses or pres dollars. In a series like that, the key date may not necessarily be the most valuable one (or it may be).
On the other hand, Statehood Quarters and Plats (Proof and W Uncs) share the same obverse every year making them stick together as a set while the reverse changes making them somewhat entertaining to the collector (when compared to a set that does not go together as easy). That seems like a fairly new concept to me, IMHO. In a series like that, I believe, the key date has a little bit more strength as there is better set cohesion.
Speculators exist in every single series. I would dare to say that speculators are, in part, a driving element in healthy series growth. Some people stay for a bit in hopes of quick financial gains. Some people speculate within the series they collect. I think we all are, to an extent, guilty of that. And, some become real collectors and stay for the long run.
<< <i>Somehow, I am not sure the comparison between Plats and classic commems is fair. The design variation is different whether there is a price reflection between them or not.
With the classic commems, you have a changing reverse and a changing obverse. Nothing remains constant on those coins. As a set, you need to read a book or get some sort of guidance to know which coins are required to complete the set since none of them look alike or share anything in common. In other words, you can't tell the coins go together as a set by just looking at them even if they were all in front of you at once. Sort of like, modern commems, first spouses or pres dollars. In a series like that, the key date may not necessarily be the most valuable one (or it may be).
On the other hand, Statehood Quarters and Plats (Proof and W Uncs) share the same obverse every year making them stick together as a set while the reverse changes making them somewhat entertaining to the collector (when compared to a set that does not go together as easy). That seems like a fairly new concept to me, IMHO. In a series like that, I believe, the key date has a little bit more strength as there is better set cohesion.
Speculators exist in every single series. I would dare to say that speculators are, in part, a driving element in healthy series growth. Some people stay for a bit in hopes of quick financial gains. Some people speculate within the series they collect. I think we all are, to an extent, guilty of that. And, some become real collectors and stay for the long run. >>
IMHO, aside from price and low mintages, the yearly reverse changes make them (platinum series) more appealing & entertaining to the collector. The one ounce coins appeal to me because I can see the images a lot clearer on a larger coin. Now if I just could afford to own a few more!
Regarding $5k plat....it depends on the time frame...if it happens before these have a chance to "grow up", then 50% will be melted. We saw from last year's spike in Pt that the numismatic preminum shrinks as the intrinsic value rises. Even sub 4,000 mintage coins went to the smelter.
On another note, does anyone have guidance when the "final, audited" numbers for 2008 W plats will be published? My FOIA request showed the $10 proof vastly under reported, and the $10 UNC being the only coin where the mint has reported more sold than actually struck....
When I read Eric's "design-based" assertions, I think he is saying that more and more collectors will be collecting by type rather than collecting within a series. And that an increased interest in type collecting will increase demand for "design-based" coins such as the plats.
My intuition says that type collecting is gaining momentum. The problem that I see, though, is that a complete type collection is immense. Therefore, type collectors will limit their collection to a sub-type. I think Eric is trying to stimulate interest in the rarest (based on mintage) of the type coins. That is certainly a compelling sub-type on which to focus.
<< <i>You didn't ask me but I'll share my experience with the 2008 price spike.
I reviewed all my raw APEs and sold those with obvious defects along with some MS and PR69s. It also seemed easier to sell the 1 oz and 1/2 oz coins as the purchase premium over spot was narrower and it just seemed more profitable. I also found I could justify selling the 1 oz. and 1/2 oz coins by telling myself it let me clear the 1/4th and 1/10 coins.(broke up many 4 coin sets) I would bet more 1 oz. and 1/2 oz. coins were sold than 1/4th or 1/10th.
IMO if we saw a spike in platinum to $3,000-$5000 range you would likely see the prescreened raw coins along with some PR69s being offered for melt. Some would likely end up being melted reducing total surviving population but skewing populations toward a higher ratio of PR70s to PR69s.
I can't see a situation when PR70s would go for scrap but I can see a rather fixed premium over spot. If a pr70 2008 was say $500 over spot with platinum at $1300 it might remain at $500 over spot with platinum at $5,000 resulting in a relatively narrower premium as a percent over spot but a fixed premium in absolute terms.
In the case of the 2008 APE proofs there is also a hoarder factor to consider. Many who follow this thread were aware of a rarity in the making and some of us(myself included) stocked up. Not all of those coins have yet been dispersed. A coin is a lot easier to sell when you have duplicates, triplicates, etc. >>
I agree with you sentiments re dispersion of the 2008 W Proof Plats. I stocked up as well, and am still holding most of them, both Raw and PCGS PR70DCAMS, incld. some FS.
With all the talk about the 2008 W Plats, does anyone think that, in the end, the 2008 W Buffs will be the long term kings of the 2008 issues? They seem like they have incredible potential.
I think the buffs are already showing themselves. Maybe not fair to compare as they seem to be their own breed.
I agree with Grits that this collector fatigue has definately set in, and that it is not just the economy that has put downward pressure on many coins. It is absolutely incredible that the mint is embarking on this Nat Park quarter program, complete with circ. strikes, CuNi proofs, silver proofs, megasized 5 oz. "quarters". I mean honestly who will care WHAT design is on the plats? I do not think it even matters what the First Hag mintages are and that they are not considered by collectors (if there are more than a handful) to be real or much different than the medallic bullion pieces the mint put out featuring artists just prior to the eagle program. A hag with 3k mintage will still not draw the prices of a Jackie unc. $5 is my guess.
I am not sure that flippers aren't controlling the demand for many of the plats and gold eagles as best they can, and though it is IMO and anecdotal just do not see a lot of collector interest. There may be happy mediums between having a continuing series with the same design and having each year a different rotating design - it may be just me but it seemed the sentiment has since '07 to be "who cares?" as far as the design. Not much outcry on the fact there may not be a 2009 plat of any description to be sold. Although it yielded lower mintage coins, there were even problems with the first 2006 year of the plat mini-series as people were just not interested.
Well, a bit pessimistic as to overall true collector interest but it is not to say that I do not love these plats & confess to slavishly keeping up with the 1/2 oz. plat in all its iterations as well as getting as many of the other plats as I could manage.
New quarters? Damn, will get those in the mint sets and silver proof regulars, but will be very selective if I get ANY of the mega 5 oz. pieces.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
Comments
<< <i>"2006-W one-half ounce ($50.00) burnished uncirculated coin, with a final audited mintage of 2577 pieces, which is the lowest-mintage (hence: rarest) United States coin ever issued since 1915"
"Devil's advocate" - If I am not mistaken, the US Mint issued less than (1,700) 1936 Brilliant Proof Cents. Yet, the coin even in nice gem red condition trades at only a few thousand dollars or so 73 years later (and we are talking about a coin in the incredibly popular Lincoln cent arena). Where you have plat coins with 4,000-5,000 mintages that are worth about "melt", the 2577 mintage becomes a "relative" mintage figure - no?
Wondercoin
P.S. I am still buying plat coins - I am just trying to properly assess my possible "wait time" for the coins to "explode" in value - and I know I do not have 73 years left to wait! >>
I would point out that the 1936 proof cent sells for over 100,000 X base metal value and what.....maybe 10,000X issue price?
Platinum Eagles in sub 5,000 mintages sell for what............1.5-4 X base metal value and a similar multiple to issue price.
Hardly a bad annualized return on a 1-3 year investment. I wonder what the 1-3 year return was for that 1936 proof cent??
Probably something similar..............
<< <i>"2006-W one-half ounce ($50.00) burnished uncirculated coin, with a final audited mintage of 2577 pieces, which is the lowest-mintage (hence: rarest) United States coin ever issued since 1915"
"Devil's advocate" - If I am not mistaken, the US Mint issued less than (1,700) 1936 Brilliant Proof Cents. Yet, the coin even in nice gem red condition trades at only a few thousand dollars or so 73 years later (and we are talking about a coin in the incredibly popular Lincoln cent arena). Where you have plat coins with 4,000-5,000 mintages that are worth about "melt", the 2577 mintage becomes a "relative" mintage figure - no?
Wondercoin
P.S. I am still buying plat coins - I am just trying to properly assess my possible "wait time" for the coins to "explode" in value - and I know I do not have 73 years left to wait! >>
... in examining my copy of the Red Book, the reported mintage of the 1936 proof Lincoln cent is 5,569, and not 1,700. Am I missing something here?
David
I think there is a *very* solid collector base for the one-ounce plats. The $100 proofs have outsold the $50 proofs every single year (except for the 2007 reverse proof set year), and the $100 proof plats have sold more than the $25 proofs every year but two. Only the $10 one-tenth ounce proofs have outsold the $100 proofs, usually by only a 10% to 35% margin. Around 2/3 of the total money spent obtaining platinum proof coins from the Mint has been spent on the one-ounce $100 coins. This was likely a factor in the Mint's decision to strike only one-ounce proof Platinum Eagles going forward.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>"2006-W one-half ounce ($50.00) burnished uncirculated coin, with a final audited mintage of 2577 pieces, which is the lowest-mintage (hence: rarest) United States coin ever issued since 1915"
"Devil's advocate" - If I am not mistaken, the US Mint issued less than (1,700) 1936 Brilliant Proof Cents. Yet, the coin even in nice gem red condition trades at only a few thousand dollars or so 73 years later (and we are talking about a coin in the incredibly popular Lincoln cent arena). Where you have plat coins with 4,000-5,000 mintages that are worth about "melt", the 2577 mintage becomes a "relative" mintage figure - no?
Wondercoin
P.S. I am still buying plat coins - I am just trying to properly assess my possible "wait time" for the coins to "explode" in value - and I know I do not have 73 years left to wait! >>
Correct but they have zero design based proof rarity and the lincoln cent proof set has gotten SOOOOOOOO long that very few people are putting together full proof cent sets. Zero melt value, zero type rarity and a set so long that its a pain to complete all work against the mighty 1936 lincoln cent. Besides it not even the rarest proof lincoln cent. The early mat cents rarer.
<< <i>>>The one-ounce plats are an enigma. I don't think I'm alone in finding them less desirable than smaller denominations. I can't pinpoint why exactly--too much of a slab of metal, perhaps, or maybe their desirability by investors and bullion hoarders. I am very curious if they will find even close to the same scale of collector base as the other sizes.<<
I think there is a *very* solid collector base for the one-ounce plats. The $100 proofs have outsold the $50 proofs every single year (except for the 2007 reverse proof set year), and the $100 proof plats have sold more than the $25 proofs every year but two. Only the $10 one-tenth ounce proofs have outsold the $100 proofs, usually by only a 10% to 35% margin. Around 2/3 of the total money spent obtaining platinum proof coins from the Mint has been spent on the one-ounce $100 coins. This was likely a factor in the Mint's decision to strike only one-ounce proof Platinum Eagles going forward. >>
... I certainly agree with the above statement.
What are your predictions for silver, gold and plat (Unc W and Proof, not business strike bullion) in 2009?
Ron
Eric - If Platinum hits $5,000/oz. at some point in the near future (so any raw 4-pc. set has melt value of $9,250) - in your opinion, what will be the premium the 2008 Platinum Proof set will trade at above the platinum value? Your best guess?
Wondercoin
I reviewed all my raw APEs and sold those with obvious defects along with some MS and PR69s.
It also seemed easier to sell the 1 oz and 1/2 oz coins as the purchase premium over spot was narrower and it just seemed more profitable.
I also found I could justify selling the 1 oz. and 1/2 oz coins by telling myself it let me clear the 1/4th and 1/10 coins.(broke up many 4 coin sets) I would bet more 1 oz. and 1/2 oz. coins were sold than 1/4th or 1/10th.
IMO if we saw a spike in platinum to $3,000-$5000 range you would likely see the prescreened raw coins along with some PR69s being offered for melt. Some would likely end up being melted reducing total surviving population but skewing populations toward a higher ratio of PR70s to PR69s.
I can't see a situation when PR70s would go for scrap but I can see a rather fixed premium over spot.
If a pr70 2008 was say $500 over spot with platinum at $1300 it might remain at $500 over spot with platinum at $5,000 resulting in a relatively narrower premium as a percent over spot but a fixed premium in absolute terms.
In the case of the 2008 APE proofs there is also a hoarder factor to consider. Many who follow this thread were aware of a rarity in the making and some of us(myself included) stocked up. Not all of those coins have yet been dispersed. A coin is a lot easier to sell when you have duplicates, triplicates, etc.
By the way, anyone else please free to comment as well. After Eric responds, I intend to draw some conclusions from the best guesses.
Wondercoin
<< <i>The Redbook lists the COMBINED brilliant and satin mintages in their mintage figure.
Eric - If Platinum hits $5,000/oz. at some point in the near future (so any raw 4-pc. set has melt value of $9,250) - in your opinion, what will be the premium the 2008 Platinum Proof set will trade at above the platinum value? Your best guess?
Wondercoin >>
If platinum hits 5,000 per oz it is my opinion that all the platinum eagles except for maybe a few so called key dates (at that point) like 2008 and 2004 in 70 grade will trade for melt value in the short run and even in the case of 70 grade "keys" the mark up over melt on a percentage basis would be trivial. In order to reach those kind of platinum price heights I would think production would have to be well below actual material consumption and the places the plats sold for 5k melt would go are not a good place for a nice coin to be.
IF platinum hits 5K the semi keys are likely to become the real keys. The sets would get much rarer once its all over. Those of us that collect would have been better to buy just our sets because we collect and all duplicate money should have been spent on platinum bullion. All numismatic gold old or new should be sold and the house mortgaged to take a very heavy platinum position. I for one don't expect a 5k price any time soon for platinum. I can say this....if we do see $5k platinum in the next few years complete set platinum collectors will come out looking great because our modern issues do have a very significant bullion floor under them.
The other comments by 2many and grits are on target in my view.
Eric
What are your predictions for silver, gold and plat (Unc W and Proof, not business strike bullion) in 2009?
Ron<<
With three months to go in the calendar year, there have been vague hints that 2009 "W" uncirculated and proof gold and silver coins will be offered, but no firm ordering dates have been announced. If these coins show up at all, they could be very low-mintage issues with orders limited to one or a few coins each.
Platinum is another story. No bullion or collectible 2009 platinum eagles have been announced or released. A design was created months ago for the reverse of an expected 2009 one-ounce proof Platinum Eagle, but there has been no further word since then. Time is growing short.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Could you tell us what dates, and whether these coins were proofs or "W" uncirculated? I suspect that even some of the ultra-scarce 2006-W burnished $50 half-ounce Platinum Eagles (mintage 2,577) wound up at the smelters.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>Could you tell us what dates, and whether these coins were proofs or "W" uncirculated? I suspect that even some of the ultra-scarce 2006-W burnished $50 half-ounce Platinum Eagles (mintage 2,577) wound up at the smelters. >>
... now that is an interesting thought ...
Mintage: 2577
Less: 10 % melted
Net survivors: 2319
Look at the money they can make with these coins.
Same thing for the W unc coins.....
Amazing how they are so silent on these issues.....
I think we have seen the last of platinum coinage for the near future.....
Note: I'd like to see a US Mint produce a Platinum Plated Silver Eagle. I'd actually buy one. I hate the Silver Eagles because of milk spotting!!!
*-Wikipedia (If you haven't studied Pt, read this. Platinum is an amazing metal.)
It kinda looks like we are getting down to the wire, even on just a 1 oz. Proof Plat for 2009.
Since the Plats aren't even on the Mint's schedule, my guess is that they aren't forthcoming this year.
However, since we haven't been updated one way or the other, I'd have to guess that they still plan on the 1 oz. Proof Gold Buffs, the Proof Silver Eagles and also the 4 Proof AGE coins.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>"2006-W one-half ounce ($50.00) burnished uncirculated coin, with a final audited mintage of 2577 pieces, which is the lowest-mintage (hence: rarest) United States coin ever issued since 1915"
"Devil's advocate" - If I am not mistaken, the US Mint issued less than (1,700) 1936 Brilliant Proof Cents. Yet, the coin even in nice gem red condition trades at only a few thousand dollars or so 73 years later (and we are talking about a coin in the incredibly popular Lincoln cent arena). Where you have plat coins with 4,000-5,000 mintages that are worth about "melt", the 2577 mintage becomes a "relative" mintage figure - no?
Wondercoin
P.S. I am still buying plat coins - I am just trying to properly assess my possible "wait time" for the coins to "explode" in value - and I know I do not have 73 years left to wait! >>
Correct but they have zero design based proof rarity and the lincoln cent proof set has gotten SOOOOOOOO long that very few people are putting together full proof cent sets. Zero melt value, zero type rarity and a set so long that its a pain to complete all work against the mighty 1936 lincoln cent. Besides it not even the rarest proof lincoln cent. The early mat cents rarer. >>
Wondercoin is right, IMO, and your response has a few problems...
First, Lincoln proof sets, despite a lack "design based proof rarity", outnumber proof platinum sets today going from the registries.
Second, "design based proof rarity" is not a driver of price. If it were, how do you explain classic commemoratives -- a series that has languished forever and is likely a better guide to future plat performance than proof Lincoln's.
Third, very few people collect the Lincoln series in proof in its entirety, but that hasn't hurt the numbers of people collecting these coins. Rather, the Lincoln collectors I know collect the shorter sets by type. The registries bear this out. For instance, the short set from 36-42 has 77 registry sets, the 50-58 sets have 108, and the 59-present has 199 -- more than ANY of the platinum proof issues (whose largest registry of proofs is 48 sets).
Design based proof rarity is a fallacy and has no basis outside of its (mis)use by some as a justification of future platinum set performance.
That's not to say I don't like or collect the series (I do), but rather the justification that you (and others) are using to predict future performance is not founded on solid logic, IMO.
Respectfully...Mike
Answer: Thats correct. The series has almost 100 year collector base formation lead. Thats expected.
Second, "design based proof rarity" is not a driver of price.
Answer: That has been correct because the US has had very few designs and denominations in pocket change over the years and it has fostered a series date and mint mark set structure. This is changing and the rest of the world by and large has already gone to a type and design based collecting structure because they can. This impact takes about 20-40 years to REALLY show up. It did in the 1890-1920 range. when we went for a date based to date and mint mark based structure.
If it were, how do you explain classic commemoratives -- a series that has languished forever and is likely a better guide to future plat performance than proof Lincoln's.
Answer: The old commems have two extremely serious problems that the proof plats do not:
1. They have very little series cohesion so the key dates have not developed well. They do not ejoy the very important relative ratity pricing sructure like most other US series.
2. They have high mintages compared to much of th enw stuff.
Third, very few people collect the Lincoln series in proof in its entirety, but that hasn't hurt the numbers of people collecting these coins. Rather, the Lincoln collectors I know collect the shorter sets by type. The registries bear this out. For instance, the short set from 36-42 has 77 registry sets, the 50-58 sets have 108, and the 59-present has 199 -- more than ANY of the platinum proof issues (whose largest registry of proofs is 48 sets).
Answer: Again, the collector base for these coins have been growing for 100 years. AND they are cheap so this is expected but not a problem.
Design based proof rarity is a fallacy and has no basis outside of its (mis)use by some as a justification of future platinum set performance.
Answer: You are not looking at the broader trends. Design based rarity is extremely important to recent large percentage price growth when indexed to inflation over the last 10 years. I have a whole chapter on it but I cant post it right now because KP would shoot me.
Eric
I also have some healthy skepticism about design-based rarity in both the Proof Plats and the Burnished Plats.
At the high cost of entry for all of the Plat Series, and with the unpredictable effects of rising bullion prices upon the more common issues, I tend to think that the price performance of all Plats will be mostly influenced by bullion prices. I do think that design is a factor, but so are mintages and so is attrition due to higher bullion prices.
Nobody knows how this is going to shake out. I don't like to think that my rare Plats will become the more common ones, but I don't discount the chance that it could happen.
Suppose a person owns several duplicates of the rarest issues, and not very many of the more common issues. That puts him in a terrible position - does he use his duplicates of the rarities to finance the purchase of the common dates now, or does he risk letting the high mintage issues get away from him because of attrition while he saves up enough money to pick them off, one by one?
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy the changing reverse designs, and for the most part I think that they were well done. I just can't hang my hat on that being the major factor in price determination going forward. If it happens that way, so much the better. The nice thing is that owning Plats of any type will be a great "problem" to have, imo.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>First, Lincoln proof sets, despite a lack "design based proof rarity", outnumber proof platinum sets today going from the registries.
Answer: Thats correct. The series has almost 100 year collector base formation lead. Thats expected. >>
Fair enough, Lincolns have a huge lead, but design based rarity (which was your argument as to why Plats will outshine Lincolns) has yet to be shown to inspire collector interest in the US despite several series that have introduced it (Quarters, Nickels, and Plats). It is conjecture to suggest a paradigm shift in collecting will result, and it's been more than 10 years since the first issuance of these coins in the US.
<< <i>Second, "design based proof rarity" is not a driver of price.
Answer: That has been correct because the US has had very few designs and denominations in pocket change over the years and it has fostered a series date and mint mark set structure. This is changing and the rest of the world by and large has already gone to a type and design based collecting structure because they can. This impact takes about 20-40 years to REALLY show up. It did in the 1890-1920 range. when we went for a date based to date and mint mark based structure. >>
The 1890 paradigm shift occurred, IMO, because all major series introduced mintmarks. The same cannot be said for US coins, the vast majority of which haven't changed over to design variability within a series. It is also worth noting that non-US coin collecting is languishing relative to US issues, so is design variability really a driver? Furthermore, it could be argued that design variability will have exactly the opposite effect you are suggesting -- it certainly did for stamps and baseball cards.
<< <i>If it were, how do you explain classic commemoratives -- a series that has languished forever and is likely a better guide to future plat performance than proof Lincoln's.
Answer: The old commems have two extremely serious problems that the proof plats do not:
1. They have very little series cohesion so the key dates have not developed well. They do not ejoy the very important relative ratity pricing sructure like most other US series.
2. They have high mintages compared to much of the new stuff. >>
So what's to suggest plats will be any different? The "relative rarity pricing structure", I would argue, is being led by profiteers and speculators (perhaps led to believe these issues have more future potential than they really do by threads such as this, IMO), not collectors, and all it takes is a quick reading of this thread to see that.
Also, they may have much higher mintages, but we all know that rarity doesn't necessarily lead to price. To the contrary, limited mintages has the opposite effect, and collector interest (i.e. demand) is what really drives price in numismatics.
Even more important, IMO, to the future collectability of these coins is the pricepoint. Let's face it, these coins are expensive, and that does not bode well for them to be broadly embraced by the numismatic community, regardless of the "series cohesion" or "relative rarity pricing structure".
<< <i>Design based proof rarity is a fallacy and has no basis outside of its (mis)use by some as a justification of future platinum set performance.
Answer: You are not looking at the broader trends. Design based rarity is extremely important to recent large percentage price growth when indexed to inflation over the last 10 years. I have a whole chapter on it but I cant post it right now because KP would shoot me. >>
With all due respect, I am looking at the broader trends, I just don't agree with your conclusions that "because the world is going to design based rarity that plats will soar in value". There is no example of this effect on price in US or World numismatics that I am aware of, and in other collectibles it has led to exactly the opposite effect.
That said, I do look forward to your book and the arguments presented therein, and I hope you don't hold it against me that we disagree on this topic.
Respectfully...Mike
This is way to entrenched in the collector market with people collecting like this for there entire collecting lives.....
I also feel a good number of collectors no nothing about the platinum coins and don't care to know nothing.....
The fact that you can go to most coin shows and find no or next to no platinum at the show also does not help matters.....
The fact the reverses on the proof and W unc coins changed on a yearly basis does not help nor hurt matters in my opinion. People will want a 2004 proof coin because it is needed for there set but because it has a different reverse then the 2003 & 2005....
Personally a drop in the value of platinum might be what would help the overall number of collectors of this series more then a huge run up in price.....
This is way to entrenched in the collector market with people collecting like this for there entire collecting lives.....
Count me in as one of those "old fogies" who thinks that mintmarks are important and that rarity (based on mintages and attrition) counts for something.
I agree that a paradigm shift is in process, but it could take many years before collector attitudes are re-shaped completely. Certainly the Plats' changing reverse series is a component of that shift.
The "relative rarity pricing structure", I would argue, is being led by profiteers and speculators (perhaps led to believe these issues have more future potential than they really do by threads such as this, IMO), not collectors
I would say that the Mint turned most Plat collectors into profiteers and speculators out of necessity with the deluge of offerings and varieties that they were spewing out for those 3 years, 2006-2008.
Now that us Plat collectors aren't being hammered with huge capital outlay requirements every time we turn around, we can actually focus on collecting. For a time, things were moving so fast that there was really no good way to manage a budget to allow for an orderly acquisition of Plats. That damaged the collector base as much as the runup in platinum prices, imo.
Now that things have slowed down I think we will see a new collector base emerge, and only then will we see what factors will drive prices - whether it is mintage, design, attrition or bullion price levels. I think that the game is starting over, right about now.
I knew it would happen.
Wondercoin
Answer: Not conjecture if you look at total market capitalization trends over the last 10 years the design change moderns are out pacing the classic material. The total market capitalization for all silver proof quarters form 1936-1998 is about 130 million dollars. The market capitalization of just the 1999 silver froof quarters is 180 million and thats just one example. Also you may wish to look up the middle of the 1936 cent grading bell line curve and you will find its about PR-64. Then go back and look up the typical proof prices (because thats all their was 30-40 years ago) starting in the mid to late 1960s and index its price against inflation to the present. You will find zero net inflation adjusted price increase for 40 years with a few bumps up and down. Early proof Washington quarters are also a desaster.
The 1890 paradigm shift occurred, IMO, because all series introduced mintmarks.
Answer: Mint mark were a normal part of coinage production for generations prior to 1890.
US coin collecting is languishing relative to US issues, so is design variability really a driver.
Answer: Coins that are not design rare if they are foreign are in a serious world of hurt in most cases.
It may be that design preliferation does in fact hurt demand concentration but you most certainly want design differentiation coupled with obverse design cohesion if we go the way most of the rest of the world has.
Will finish later need to work
yes...$5000 platinum puts the coins in a "different" catagory...
lets see...
12 years (97-08) of Proof at 1.85oz/yr = 22.2 oz = $111,000
Reverse 07 Set another 1oz = $5000
3 years (06-08) W-unc another 5.55oz = $27,500
so all told just the raw value of the coins (no numismatic value/PCGS plastic value) would be approaching what $145,000....and that's how many pennies????
<< <i>Fair enough, Lincolns have a huge lead, but design based rarity (which was your argument as to why Plats will outshine Lincolns) has yet to be shown to inspire collector interest in the US despite several series that have introduced it (Quarters, Nickels, and Plats). It is conjecture to suggest a paradigm shift in collecting will result, and it's been more than 10 years since the first issuance of these coins in the US.
Answer: Not conjecture if you look at total market capitalization trends over the last 10 years the design change moderns are out pacing the classic material. The total market capitalization for all silver proof quarters form 1936-1998 is about 130 million dollars. The market capitalization of just the 1999 silver froof quarters is 180 million and thats just one example. Also you may wish to look up the middle of the 1936 cent grading bell line curve and you will find its about PR-64. Then go back and look up the typical proof prices (because thats all their was 30-40 years ago) starting in the mid to late 1960s and index its price against inflation to the present. You will find zero net inflation adjusted price increase for 40 years with a few bumps up and down. Early proof Washington quarters are also a desaster. >>
With all due respect, it is conjecture -- as are all future predictions. Basically, you are assigning paradigm shift causality where none has been shown and there is evidence it will have exactly the opposite effect as it has in other collecting areas. Furthermore, your analysis neglects to factor in that plats' value is primarily bullion driven and quarters are not. Most importantly, market capitalization (source?) tells us nothing about future values or collector interest. For example, I'll bet market capitalization of stamps/baseball cards in the bubble years followed a similar trend. Therefore, I would caution you from drawing hasty conclusions based on these factors because "the reverse changes from year to year" is not reason enough in this numismatist's eyes to justify a rosy outlook in the way these coins are collected or valued. The jury is clearly still out (i.e. conjecture) and to suggest otherwise is not prudent, IMO and for the reasons discussed above.
<< <i>The 1890 paradigm shift occurred, IMO, because all series introduced mintmarks.
Answer: Mint mark were a normal part of coinage production for generations prior to 1890. >>
Agreed, but you (correctly) pointed out that it took time for this change in production to yield a change in collecting habits. Regardless, the point was that the design change was across all major series, and we've not yet seen this broadly adopted in US coins, only three series. What the future may hold is anyone's guess.
<< <i>US coin collecting is languishing relative to US issues, so is design variability really a driver.
Answer: Coins that are not design rare if they are foreign are in a serious world of hurt in most cases.
It may be that design preliferation does in fact hurt demand concentration but you most certainly want design differentiation coupled with obverse design cohesion if we go the way most of the rest of the world has. >>
The rest of the world has little to no bearing on US coins, and I challenge you to find and draw a parallel. More to the point, the valuations of these coins (in terms of numismatic premium) and the market in these coins (in term of collector market cap) is a fraction of US issues, and I don't see huge price appreciation in them (perhaps your book will show something I'm not aware of). So why should we take our cue from that thinly traded and disparate market?
If we take the example of some other US based collectible markets -- stamps or baseball cards -- and look what happens over the long term, it is clear that there is an initial bump in interest is the result of this design variability. The question, however, is how this will be viewed twenty or fifty years from now. Will the collector get "bored" with ever-changing designs and collect them by broad type, or will the collector embrace that in order to collect the coins by yearly design? If we look at stamps and baseball cards, the answer is clear and a glut of designs led to a complete breakdown of the collector base. If we look at world coins, there's no parallel in the number of collectors or significant price appreciation, but some suggestion of a similar pattern. What the future will hold is anyone's guess, but that's precisely what it is -- a guess.
Lastly, your responses have completely ignored the largest single hurdle (IMO) in price appreciation and collector interest -- the high price of these coins to begin with and the valuation of non-key dates being linear with respect to their underlying (and expensive) bullion value. I would appreciate your thoughts on this issue.
Respectfully...Mike
I think an important issue that will hold down prices for quite a while is the fact that alot of the lower mintage plats are held in quantity by investors/speculators. As prices go up some of these mini-hoards will be sold, in a thin market like plats, this can cause depressed prices for a long time.
If these coins are ever seriously promoted I think we will see prices rise quicky. These coins being more widely disbursed is the only way these things are going to develop a market that will hold up long term. On a good note I recently saw some of the 2006w plats being sold by a mail order dealer in Numismatic News.
In a number of years people will look in the redbook and see the mintages and think "wow maybe I should buy the lowest mintage coins, those are very low".
It won't take much to raise prices on mintages under 5000, especially in a hot economy someday.
Few people thought Jackie Robinson was a good buy perhaps but what happened?
Jackie is now no longer the lowest mintage modern bullion, even beaten out by a classic design in gold, the Jackson spouse coin.
I think some are drawn to low mintages regardless of design, and so think these will do well someday, if not sooner. Jackie Robinson gold may be the best proof of this, but time will tell.
I also don't think you can compare coins to stamps or baseball cards or even to Hot Wheels (which are way cool). Coins are in a unique category.
Bottom line is that none of us know what will happen, but once again, it's a great time to be a collector and even have the option of plunging in.
<< <i>how will the 2006 - 2008 proof and unc due? >>
I'm bearish on the unc-w plats for now. When any of these pick up, I think it's going to be the 2008 proofs.
Add another $111,000 for the bullion plats. No set is complete without them!
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Private melting probably causes higher attrition of common dates, but not enough for them to become scarcer than the keys. Silver coin melts have been going on for more than 40 years, but as far as I know, none of the circulated common dates in the "junk silver" category have overtaken the keys in price. As an example, the circulated 1955 half dollar is still worth much more than the circulated 1956.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
"Do you put your money on the hot woman (low mintages) or the Lamborghini (design concept), or both, or neither?
I knew it would happen.
With the classic commems, you have a changing reverse and a changing obverse. Nothing remains constant on those coins. As a set, you need to read a book or get some sort of guidance to know which coins are required to complete the set since none of them look alike or share anything in common. In other words, you can't tell the coins go together as a set by just looking at them even if they were all in front of you at once. Sort of like, modern commems, first spouses or pres dollars. In a series like that, the key date may not necessarily be the most valuable one (or it may be).
On the other hand, Statehood Quarters and Plats (Proof and W Uncs) share the same obverse every year making them stick together as a set while the reverse changes making them somewhat entertaining to the collector (when compared to a set that does not go together as easy). That seems like a fairly new concept to me, IMHO. In a series like that, I believe, the key date has a little bit more strength as there is better set cohesion.
Speculators exist in every single series. I would dare to say that speculators are, in part, a driving element in healthy series growth. Some people stay for a bit in hopes of quick financial gains. Some people speculate within the series they collect. I think we all are, to an extent, guilty of that. And, some become real collectors and stay for the long run.
<< <i>Somehow, I am not sure the comparison between Plats and classic commems is fair. The design variation is different whether there is a price reflection between them or not.
With the classic commems, you have a changing reverse and a changing obverse. Nothing remains constant on those coins. As a set, you need to read a book or get some sort of guidance to know which coins are required to complete the set since none of them look alike or share anything in common. In other words, you can't tell the coins go together as a set by just looking at them even if they were all in front of you at once. Sort of like, modern commems, first spouses or pres dollars. In a series like that, the key date may not necessarily be the most valuable one (or it may be).
On the other hand, Statehood Quarters and Plats (Proof and W Uncs) share the same obverse every year making them stick together as a set while the reverse changes making them somewhat entertaining to the collector (when compared to a set that does not go together as easy). That seems like a fairly new concept to me, IMHO. In a series like that, I believe, the key date has a little bit more strength as there is better set cohesion.
Speculators exist in every single series. I would dare to say that speculators are, in part, a driving element in healthy series growth. Some people stay for a bit in hopes of quick financial gains. Some people speculate within the series they collect. I think we all are, to an extent, guilty of that. And, some become real collectors and stay for the long run. >>
IMHO, aside from price and low mintages, the yearly reverse changes make them (platinum series) more appealing & entertaining to the collector. The one ounce coins appeal to me because I can see the images a lot clearer on a larger coin. Now if I just could afford to own a few more!
That would be a 4x rise from current prices but at current prices gold and platinum are appox. 4x the lowest price in last 10-15 years.
More importantly consider the multiple international things that could and are happening.
Southern africa is becoming increasingly unstable and a revolution or social unrest is becoming increasingly likely.
African nations are underinvesting in the infrastructure necessary to maintain the mines at current production levels.
Consider the power shortages that caused the 2008 spike.
While US car sales are flat India and China are booming.
Lastly always remember that the best cure for high prices is high prices.
When we say $5,000 it makes a great difference whether it is a slow multi year climb or a brief short term event driven spike.
You are as likely to put numbers on a dart board and to be just as accurate.....
All I know is that there is no more platinum coins to collect this year, so everybody gets a break for there wallets.....
Really?
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
On another note, does anyone have guidance when the "final, audited" numbers for 2008 W plats will be published? My FOIA request showed the $10 proof vastly under reported, and the $10 UNC being the only coin where the mint has reported more sold than actually struck....
Peace,
FloridaBill
My intuition says that type collecting is gaining momentum. The problem that I see, though, is that a complete type collection is immense. Therefore, type collectors will limit their collection to a sub-type. I think Eric is trying to stimulate interest in the rarest (based on mintage) of the type coins. That is certainly a compelling sub-type on which to focus.
<< <i>You didn't ask me but I'll share my experience with the 2008 price spike.
I reviewed all my raw APEs and sold those with obvious defects along with some MS and PR69s.
It also seemed easier to sell the 1 oz and 1/2 oz coins as the purchase premium over spot was narrower and it just seemed more profitable.
I also found I could justify selling the 1 oz. and 1/2 oz coins by telling myself it let me clear the 1/4th and 1/10 coins.(broke up many 4 coin sets) I would bet more 1 oz. and 1/2 oz. coins were sold than 1/4th or 1/10th.
IMO if we saw a spike in platinum to $3,000-$5000 range you would likely see the prescreened raw coins along with some PR69s being offered for melt. Some would likely end up being melted reducing total surviving population but skewing populations toward a higher ratio of PR70s to PR69s.
I can't see a situation when PR70s would go for scrap but I can see a rather fixed premium over spot.
If a pr70 2008 was say $500 over spot with platinum at $1300 it might remain at $500 over spot with platinum at $5,000 resulting in a relatively narrower premium as a percent over spot but a fixed premium in absolute terms.
In the case of the 2008 APE proofs there is also a hoarder factor to consider. Many who follow this thread were aware of a rarity in the making and some of us(myself included) stocked up. Not all of those coins have yet been dispersed. A coin is a lot easier to sell when you have duplicates, triplicates, etc. >>
I agree with you sentiments re dispersion of the 2008 W Proof Plats. I stocked up as well, and am still holding most of them, both Raw and PCGS PR70DCAMS, incld. some FS.
I agree with Grits that this collector fatigue has definately set in, and that it is not just the economy that has put downward pressure on many coins. It is absolutely incredible that the mint is embarking on this Nat Park quarter program, complete with circ. strikes, CuNi proofs, silver proofs, megasized 5 oz. "quarters". I mean honestly who will care WHAT design is on the plats? I do not think it even matters what the First Hag mintages are and that they are not considered by collectors (if there are more than a handful) to be real or much different than the medallic bullion pieces the mint put out featuring artists just prior to the eagle program. A hag with 3k mintage will still not draw the prices of a Jackie unc. $5 is my guess.
I am not sure that flippers aren't controlling the demand for many of the plats and gold eagles as best they can, and though it is IMO and anecdotal just do not see a lot of collector interest. There may be happy mediums between having a continuing series with the same design and having each year a different rotating design - it may be just me but it seemed the sentiment has since '07 to be "who cares?" as far as the design. Not much outcry on the fact there may not be a 2009 plat of any description to be sold. Although it yielded lower mintage coins, there were even problems with the first 2006 year of the plat mini-series as people were just not interested.
Well, a bit pessimistic as to overall true collector interest but it is not to say that I do not love these plats & confess to slavishly keeping up with the 1/2 oz. plat in all its iterations as well as getting as many of the other plats as I could manage.
New quarters? Damn, will get those in the mint sets and silver proof regulars, but will be very selective if I get ANY of the mega 5 oz. pieces.
Well, just Love coins, period.