Let's not forget that the 2009 proof ounce is coming out at a price of about $1700 and may be very low. Not sure how many are going to step up to the plate on that one.
<< <i>>>if one is looking for the lowest possible modern coin made....start looking over in the spouse series....no one cares about them....and becuase of that one day, low and behold the new modern KING will be a GIRL....<<
I doubt if any First Spouse gold coin will achieve a mintage of less than 2253, no matter how unpopular the series may become. Too many eyes are watching the week-to-week sales totals. >>
Well, if Bill's lifestyle catches up with him then the Hillary coin may beat that. Who wants her in a collecton? By then they might even get them to cackle.
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
<< <i>Did you all catch the 2008 W plat PCGS MS70FS set that sold on Ebay for $8k - nearly $3K more than a non-FS set is bringing?? I just don't get why one would pay so much for a label that is literally meaningless. I understand that they do bring a premium, but nearly $3K??? Unreal. >>
Agree this is absurd. With time, the label craziness has got to go away, but it sure seems persistent for now.
>>About the only way I see a sub 2250 FS is if Gold makes a big run.<<
Okay, let's assume for a moment that gold goes up to $3636 an ounce.
Using the Mint's pricing grid as a guide, I calculate that First Spouse coins would be priced at $1979 for proofs and $1966 for uncs.
With bullion value of each half-ounce FS coin at $1818, the premium to gold would be less than 8.9% for proofs and 8.2% for uncs.
This is not that much higher than premiums for half-ounce gold American Eagles, plus you get .9999 fine gold instead of an alloy. The gold weight is clearly stated on the coin, making it easy to use a FS as a bullion coin if necessary.
Because the percent premium shrinks as the price of gold increases, I would expect that sales of First Spouse coins would not decline to 50% of current levels, and might actually rise, as long as the Mint's pricing policy does not change.
Modern platinum eagles vs. classic morgan dollars...........
A little perspective..............
When the 2008-W $50 1/2 oz. APE unc. were purchased in early Dec. 2008 they were $599 with spot at $800/oz This represented a 33% premium to base metal value.
In last few days I purchased same coin in MS70 for $950 with platinum spot at $1375. This represented a premium of less than 40%.
Too many of use fixate on the absolute dollar figure per coin and ignore what is in fact a very modest premium to base metal content.
If we moved decimile point left 1 or 2 spaces all of this discussion would be of no interest.
I could easily buy ~2 rolls of BU common date morgans for a similar price and premium to base metal content as the APE.
As far as bullion play vs. numismatic play both investments are very similar.
Either can be viewed as an investment........I just find the APE a little more interesting as a single coin rather than 2 tubes of coins.
I also think there is a greater potential for numismatic appreciation in the APE than the 2 rolls of morgans.
You can reasonably ask.............which is really "Just bullion" ...........the 2,500 mintage APE or the 2 rolls of 19 million+ 1886 morgans ??
<< <i>>>About the only way I see a sub 2250 FS is if Gold makes a big run.<<
Okay, let's assume for a moment that gold goes up to $3636 an ounce.
Using the Mint's pricing grid as a guide, I calculate that First Spouse coins would be priced at $1979 for proofs and $1966 for uncs.
With bullion value of each half-ounce FS coin at $1818, the premium to gold would be less than 8.9% for proofs and 8.2% for uncs.
This is not that much higher than premiums for half-ounce gold American Eagles, plus you get .9999 fine gold instead of an alloy. The gold weight is clearly stated on the coin, making it easy to use a FS as a bullion coin if necessary.
Because the percent premium shrinks as the price of gold increases, I would expect that sales of First Spouse coins would not decline to 50% of current levels, and might actually rise, as long as the Mint's pricing policy does not change. >>
If Gold were to rise to $ 3636.00 an ounce, no one would want to buy at all. Gold Might tumble fast some day.
Well here is something interesting, I see that according to the numbers I have they released only 1283 4 coin sets of 2008 platinum UNC coins in the latest numbers.
However the proof gold buffalo fractional numbers seem way off. The 4 coin set numbers are way high and the single coins numbers are way way way low. This doesn't make sense.
>>Well here is something interesting, I see that according to the numbers I have they released only 1283 4 coin sets of 2008 platinum UNC coins in the latest numbers. However the proof gold buffalo fractional numbers seem way off. The 4 coin set numbers are way high and the single coins numbers are way way way low. This doesn't make sense.<<
I haven't seen the latest 4-coin set numbers. Could you share them?
<< <i>Did you all catch the 2008 W plat PCGS MS70FS set that sold on Ebay for $8k - nearly $3K more than a non-FS set is bringing?? I just don't get why one would pay so much for a label that is literally meaningless. I understand that they do bring a premium, but nearly $3K??? Unreal. >>
Because it would be VERY difficult to make a full 4 coin first strike set in MS70. Consider these numbers:
1/10 oz. there are 62 1/4 oz. there are 29 1/2 oz. there are 26 1 oz. there are 30
Now consider how many of these are being held individually by different people.
This means only 26 full sets can exist.
Now, how many full sets can be put together, considering these are spread out with different collectors?
This is certailny the king of the First Strike series.
The "King" of the FS series is actually the 2006 Proof Gold FS. There are -8- possible sets (and 2 of the coins are pop 8 and 10). Folks overlooked the FS submissions on these especially knowing the 3-pc 20th anniv sets were right around the corner containing a proof $50 coin.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>The "King" of the FS series is actually the 2006 Proof Gold FS. There are -8- possible sets (and 2 of the coins are pop 8 and 10). Folks overlooked the FS submissions on these especially knowing the 3-pc 20th anniv sets were right around the corner containing a proof $50 coin.
Wondercoin >>
Well, I would not count the 1 oz. non 20th anniv as a limitation on the set, as you can convert a FS 20th anny to a FS non 20th anny.
<< <i>Did you all catch the 2008 W plat PCGS MS70FS set that sold on Ebay for $8k - nearly $3K more than a non-FS set is bringing?? I just don't get why one would pay so much for a label that is literally meaningless. I understand that they do bring a premium, but nearly $3K??? Unreal. >>
I think the reason for this is that the only coins that qualified for FS were the ones purchased from the Mint at the initial Mint offering price when platinum spot was sky high. Hence this "cost of goods" factor seems to have been adjusted into the market price. The people who didn't make out are the ones who bought from the Mint at the high prices and didn't submit for FS. >>
Hi Coasterfan-
I can certainly understand why there are so few FS, it's just that I simply can't understand why the FS label - which is absolutely meaningless - brings such a high premium.
<< <i>Did you all catch the 2008 W plat PCGS MS70FS set that sold on Ebay for $8k - nearly $3K more than a non-FS set is bringing?? I just don't get why one would pay so much for a label that is literally meaningless. I understand that they do bring a premium, but nearly $3K??? Unreal. >>
Agree this is absurd. With time, the label craziness has got to go away, but it sure seems persistent for now. >>
I agree. I can certainly understand paying a premium for a PCGS 70. I think that the premium will be maintained as you are paying for a (perfect) grade. I'd bet that the premium for the FS label will fall off with time. I't incredible that it even exists at all.
>>Key date coins will probably be more about surviving populations and not first mintages. Let's assume for the moment that everyone here now believes that the 2008 plat unc are the kings. Platinum prices skyrocket in 2011 and some decide to melt coins. Which coins to melt, your "keys" or other platinum coins you have? Nearly all would melt the non-perceived keys.<<
Size matters here too. My guess is that most past and future melting would involve the one-ounce and half-ounce coins. I expect very few quarter-ounce 2006-W and 2008-W burnished plats to hit the melting pot, and none of the tenth-ounce.
Thus the mintage figures for the smaller denominations should be a more accurate guide to rarity than the mintage figures for the larger and more vulnerable coins.
The numbers come from an end of fiscal year report dated September 30th 2009 for 2008 dated coins. I am so very sorry that Half is not happy with the proof buffs numbers but thats life. I was not happy with the 2008 half and quarter plat proof moving up sightly over 4000 coins either. The numbers posted are the best data there is at this time. Please bring forth numbers that suit ones already cast expectations and be specific about why you think the Sept 30th report must be wrong. We need specifics not broad I dont believe it comments. I will try to get the disliked buff proof numbers up tomorrow. So we can call come to our own conclusions.
Half post what you have and I will post what I have.
thanks eric for getting info on proof buffalos.My mind is just wandering as I did keep a bunch for myself.I did have to sell about a 3rd of them but am very happy with what I have left. Again Thanks
<< <i>Did you all catch the 2008 W plat PCGS MS70FS set that sold on Ebay for $8k - nearly $3K more than a non-FS set is bringing?? I just don't get why one would pay so much for a label that is literally meaningless. I understand that they do bring a premium, but nearly $3K??? Unreal. >>
Because it would be VERY difficult to make a full 4 coin first strike set in MS70. Consider these numbers:
1/10 oz. there are 62 1/4 oz. there are 29 1/2 oz. there are 26 1 oz. there are 30
Now consider how many of these are being held individually by different people.
This means only 26 full sets can exist.
Now, how many full sets can be put together, considering these are spread out with different collectors?
This is certailny the king of the First Strike series. >>
This assumes there are no more FS eligible 2008-W APE coins out there. I can guarantee you 100% that there are still some FS eligible 2008-W APEs because I have some. Just waiting to gather enough stuff for a bulk submission.................
<< <i>Did you all catch the 2008 W plat PCGS MS70FS set that sold on Ebay for $8k - nearly $3K more than a non-FS set is bringing?? I just don't get why one would pay so much for a label that is literally meaningless. I understand that they do bring a premium, but nearly $3K??? Unreal. >>
I think the reason for this is that the only coins that qualified for FS were the ones purchased from the Mint at the initial Mint offering price when platinum spot was sky high. Hence this "cost of goods" factor seems to have been adjusted into the market price. The people who didn't make out are the ones who bought from the Mint at the high prices and didn't submit for FS. >>
Hi Coasterfan-
I can certainly understand why there are so few FS, it's just that I simply can't understand why the FS label - which is absolutely meaningless - brings such a high premium. >>
Sure, there are some still eligible sealed FS boxes out there, but that will probably be relatively few.
Remember the whole First Strike for dealers only debacle? And remember how EXPENSIVE the plats were when first released? Both of these factors resulted in people being disgusted with PCGS and OPENED their boxes -because it didnt matter anyway to keep them sealed since they were not dealers and would not get FS labeling - also the pricing kept people away in general as the falling spot price of platinum woulkd result in lower prices later in the year.........well beyond FS eligibility dates.
So, even though there can POSSIBLY be more sets put together because of coins not yet graded.......it will probably be VERY VERY FEW.
Half post what you have and I will post what I have.
Eric
Florida Bill, where did you get your numbers? The 2007 numbers for the Burnished "W" Unc Plats that you posted the other day don't match up with other numbers that have been posted.
Eric, could you follow up with your 2007 final numbers?
Guys, I believe that it is important to refine all of the posts on final mintages and to have a consensus on the final numbers as soon as possible. The sooner the final numbers are made common knowledge in the general marketplace, the sooner we can expect the valuations to start tracking towards their (higher) true values. That is somewhat hard to do if different numbers keep popping up. We don't need confusion, we need something concrete.
In a separate post yesterday, I asked why QDB didn't get involved (since he is part owner in Whitman Publishing) in making sure that the Red Book numbers for Modern Bullion are accurate, instead of so hopelessly screwed up the way they currently are. I was told to contact Dentuck with the final numbers. If he's the guy, we need to get him the data, and it needs to be accurate.
Just my opinion, of course. jmski
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
I can certainly understand why there are so few FS, it's just that I simply can't understand why the FS label - which is absolutely meaningless - brings such a high premium. >>
There is some psychological forces involved in the collecting hobby. I don't think rational thought always the driver. It is rarity and having something that someone else doesn't have. I can't figure why some collectors get excited over mangled or defective coins (errors) but they do so why try to explain it. Why do some pay so much for a piece of cardboard with a baseball players image on it? The first strike designation creates another collectible class and there are those who will want them and pay more (maybe even alot more). Besides the little flag is cool.
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
<< <i>Half post what you have and I will post what I have.
Eric
Florida Bill, where did you get your numbers? The 2007 numbers for the Burnished "W" Unc Plats that you posted the other day don't match up with other numbers that have been posted.
Eric, could you follow up with your 2007 final numbers?
Guys, I believe that it is important to refine all of the posts on final mintages and to have a consensus on the final numbers as soon as possible. The sooner the final numbers are made common knowledge in the general marketplace, the sooner we can expect the valuations to start tracking towards their (higher) true values. That is somewhat hard to do if different numbers keep popping up. We don't need confusion, we need something concrete.
In a separate post yesterday, I asked why QDB didn't get involved (since he is part owner in Whitman Publishing) in making sure that the Red Book numbers for Modern Bullion are accurate, instead of so hopelessly screwed up the way they currently are. I was told to contact Dentuck with the final numbers. If he's the guy, we need to get him the data, and it needs to be accurate.
Just my opinion, of course. jmski >>
I have already done all this work. KP will have it on the press in March. I have master listings of all gold silver and plat eagles on just two pages. And the numbers have been multi source cross checked.
<< <i>Proof Gold Buffs per Sept 30th 2009 Report for 2008 Sales. $50 $25 $10 $5 25,496 16,620 15,767 25,516
This includes 14,436 four coin proof buff sets >>
Wow!
Only ~2,200 single 1/2s and only ~1,300 single 1/4s >>
I did a quick comparison with the previously reported sales numbers. There are increases in each size with an especially large increase in the number of 4 coin sets (14,436 sets..vs..7,931 sets previously reported).
Here is my comparison of the recently reported numbers to the previously reported sales for the APEs and the Buffalos:
Differences between Actual Mintage and Sales Numbers
Actual Sales * Diff Actual Sales * Diff Actual Sales * Diff Actual Sales * Diff Size/Coin type 1 oz 0.5 oz 0.25 oz 0.10 oz
* Sales include 4cn Sets: APE Prf (2,598 sets), APE Unc (2,158 sets), & Buffalo Unc-W (6,303 sets plus 7,751 08-08 sets) & Buffalo Prf Sets (7,931 sets)
Bottom line conclusions: - APE Unc-W went down in every size - APE Prf-W went up and down in some sizes - Buffalo Unc-W went up and down in some sizes - Buffalo Prf-W went up in every size with the large number of 4 cn sets.
The market place pricing of 2008-Buffalo sets may have some importance in regard to whole discussion of price/demand vs. rarity.
I've watched final realized prices for raw buffalo 4 coin sets closely and despite significantly higher mintage the buffalo 4 coin proof sets have sold on average for $500 more than the same uncirculated sets.
Up to now demand has trumped rarity.
With these new mintage numbers it will be interesting to see if price gap closes or inverts..............
(As a disclaimer I hold equal numbers of both proof and unc. 4 coin buffalo sets)
So with the new buff proof mintage numbers, 7over8 might be RIGHT AGAIN about the buff proof prices peaking. I hereby dub him a master prognosticator, at least until the 2009-W buff proof ends up with a gigantic mintage.
nycouncel if you take the FOIA numbers and deduct the losses from bad strikes you get what might be possible for the 2008 buffalo proof. Not the other way around.
If someone didn't catch this huge error then I doubt they caught others.
Anyway for me this has changed how I see the mint numbers going forward. The sales report numbers are equally sloppy. How can you have 51,000 Lincoln Chronicles sets as a final number when you know it is wrong?
Don't mind me...but I've lost the thread here...has something appreciably changed regarding the Buffs and Plats numbers from earlier in the week when the Mint's "final" 2008 mintages were released?
And don't upset me...because I very merrily seemed to be sitting on a gold (platinum?) mine earlier this week, based on published mintages!
Can someone provide the Cliffs Notes version for the mentally drainined on a Friday afternoon, please?
They say the dog that yelps the loudest is the one that got hit.
ALL REPORTS INCLUDING THE FOIA ARE TENTATIVE PRIOR TO THE CLOSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER. THIS REPORT IS DATED SEPT 30TH THEREFORE IT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT IS NOT CLASSIFIED AS TENTATIVE.
Maybe it has some problems but its the best we have and thats what’s is going in the Red Book and KPs books in the spring unless that Mint changes its final report soon. So the broader market is going to accept the data soon as the publications start rolling out in the next 6 months. Better hope the mint has a big revision soon but I for one am not expecting one. But who knows!
Comments
The numbers are two widely reported on a weekly basis.....
<< <i>>>if one is looking for the lowest possible modern coin made....start looking over in the spouse series....no one cares about them....and becuase of that one day, low and behold the new modern KING will be a GIRL....<<
I doubt if any First Spouse gold coin will achieve a mintage of less than 2253, no matter how unpopular the series may become. Too many eyes are watching the week-to-week sales totals. >>
Well, if Bill's lifestyle catches up with him then the Hillary coin may beat that. Who wants her in a collecton? By then they might even get them to cackle.
<< <i>A first spouse coin with a mintage below 2250 would be difficult.....
The numbers are two widely reported on a weekly basis..... >>
I imagine if the numbers are that low, even the platinum collectors would buy a Spouse to ensure their kings are not displaced by mere gold.
<< <i>Did you all catch the 2008 W plat PCGS MS70FS set that sold on Ebay for $8k - nearly $3K more than a non-FS set is bringing?? I just don't get why one would pay so much for a label that is literally meaningless. I understand that they do bring a premium, but nearly $3K??? Unreal. >>
Agree this is absurd. With time, the label craziness has got to go away, but it sure seems persistent for now.
Okay, let's assume for a moment that gold goes up to $3636 an ounce.
Using the Mint's pricing grid as a guide, I calculate that First Spouse coins would be priced at $1979 for proofs and $1966 for uncs.
With bullion value of each half-ounce FS coin at $1818, the premium to gold would be less than 8.9% for proofs and 8.2% for uncs.
This is not that much higher than premiums for half-ounce gold American Eagles, plus you get .9999 fine gold instead of an alloy. The gold weight is clearly stated on the coin, making it easy to use a FS as a bullion coin if necessary.
Because the percent premium shrinks as the price of gold increases, I would expect that sales of First Spouse coins would not decline to 50% of current levels, and might actually rise, as long as the Mint's pricing policy does not change.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
A little perspective..............
When the 2008-W $50 1/2 oz. APE unc. were purchased in early Dec. 2008 they were $599 with spot at $800/oz
This represented a 33% premium to base metal value.
In last few days I purchased same coin in MS70 for $950 with platinum spot at $1375.
This represented a premium of less than 40%.
Too many of use fixate on the absolute dollar figure per coin and ignore what is in fact a very modest premium to base metal content.
If we moved decimile point left 1 or 2 spaces all of this discussion would be of no interest.
I could easily buy ~2 rolls of BU common date morgans for a similar price and premium to base metal content as the APE.
As far as bullion play vs. numismatic play both investments are very similar.
Either can be viewed as an investment........I just find the APE a little more interesting as a single coin rather than 2 tubes of coins.
I also think there is a greater potential for numismatic appreciation in the APE than the 2 rolls of morgans.
You can reasonably ask.............which is really "Just bullion" ...........the 2,500 mintage APE or the 2 rolls of 19 million+ 1886 morgans ??
<< <i>>>About the only way I see a sub 2250 FS is if Gold makes a big run.<<
Okay, let's assume for a moment that gold goes up to $3636 an ounce.
Using the Mint's pricing grid as a guide, I calculate that First Spouse coins would be priced at $1979 for proofs and $1966 for uncs.
With bullion value of each half-ounce FS coin at $1818, the premium to gold would be less than 8.9% for proofs and 8.2% for uncs.
This is not that much higher than premiums for half-ounce gold American Eagles, plus you get .9999 fine gold instead of an alloy. The gold weight is clearly stated on the coin, making it easy to use a FS as a bullion coin if necessary.
Because the percent premium shrinks as the price of gold increases, I would expect that sales of First Spouse coins would not decline to 50% of current levels, and might actually rise, as long as the Mint's pricing policy does not change. >>
If Gold were to rise to $ 3636.00 an ounce, no one would want to buy at all. Gold Might tumble fast some day.
However the proof gold buffalo fractional numbers seem way off. The 4 coin set numbers are way high and the single coins numbers are way way way low. This doesn't make sense.
I haven't seen the latest 4-coin set numbers. Could you share them?
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
I don't want to say what the buffalo proof is as it is impossible.
I knew it would happen.
Agreed-- without questioning the accuracy of the shared information, a source would be appreciated.
<< <i>Did you all catch the 2008 W plat PCGS MS70FS set that sold on Ebay for $8k - nearly $3K more than a non-FS set is bringing?? I just don't get why one would pay so much for a label that is literally meaningless. I understand that they do bring a premium, but nearly $3K??? Unreal. >>
Because it would be VERY difficult to make a full 4 coin first strike set in MS70. Consider these numbers:
1/10 oz. there are 62
1/4 oz. there are 29
1/2 oz. there are 26
1 oz. there are 30
Now consider how many of these are being held individually by different people.
This means only 26 full sets can exist.
Now, how many full sets can be put together, considering these are spread out with different collectors?
This is certailny the king of the First Strike series.
Cashback from Mr. Rebates
Wondercoin
<< <i>The "King" of the FS series is actually the 2006 Proof Gold FS. There are -8- possible sets (and 2 of the coins are pop 8 and 10). Folks overlooked the FS submissions on these especially knowing the 3-pc 20th anniv sets were right around the corner containing a proof $50 coin.
Wondercoin >>
Well, I would not count the 1 oz. non 20th anniv as a limitation on the set, as you can convert a FS 20th anny to a FS non 20th anny.
Cashback from Mr. Rebates
<< <i>
<< <i>Did you all catch the 2008 W plat PCGS MS70FS set that sold on Ebay for $8k - nearly $3K more than a non-FS set is bringing?? I just don't get why one would pay so much for a label that is literally meaningless. I understand that they do bring a premium, but nearly $3K??? Unreal. >>
I think the reason for this is that the only coins that qualified for FS were the ones purchased from the Mint at the initial Mint offering price when platinum spot was sky high. Hence this "cost of goods" factor seems to have been adjusted into the market price. The people who didn't make out are the ones who bought from the Mint at the high prices and didn't submit for FS. >>
Hi Coasterfan-
I can certainly understand why there are so few FS, it's just that I simply can't understand why the FS label - which is absolutely meaningless - brings such a high premium.
<< <i>
<< <i>Did you all catch the 2008 W plat PCGS MS70FS set that sold on Ebay for $8k - nearly $3K more than a non-FS set is bringing?? I just don't get why one would pay so much for a label that is literally meaningless. I understand that they do bring a premium, but nearly $3K??? Unreal. >>
Agree this is absurd. With time, the label craziness has got to go away, but it sure seems persistent for now. >>
I agree. I can certainly understand paying a premium for a PCGS 70. I think that the premium will be maintained as you are paying for a (perfect) grade. I'd bet that the premium for the FS label will fall off with time. I't incredible that it even exists at all.
Size matters here too. My guess is that most past and future melting would involve the one-ounce and half-ounce coins. I expect very few quarter-ounce 2006-W and 2008-W burnished plats to hit the melting pot, and none of the tenth-ounce.
Thus the mintage figures for the smaller denominations should be a more accurate guide to rarity than the mintage figures for the larger and more vulnerable coins.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Half post what you have and I will post what I have.
Eric
<< <i>
<< <i>Did you all catch the 2008 W plat PCGS MS70FS set that sold on Ebay for $8k - nearly $3K more than a non-FS set is bringing?? I just don't get why one would pay so much for a label that is literally meaningless. I understand that they do bring a premium, but nearly $3K??? Unreal. >>
Because it would be VERY difficult to make a full 4 coin first strike set in MS70. Consider these numbers:
1/10 oz. there are 62
1/4 oz. there are 29
1/2 oz. there are 26
1 oz. there are 30
Now consider how many of these are being held individually by different people.
This means only 26 full sets can exist.
Now, how many full sets can be put together, considering these are spread out with different collectors?
This is certailny the king of the First Strike series. >>
......................................................................................................
This assumes there are no more FS eligible 2008-W APE coins out there.
I can guarantee you 100% that there are still some FS eligible 2008-W APEs because I have some.
Just waiting to gather enough stuff for a bulk submission.................
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Did you all catch the 2008 W plat PCGS MS70FS set that sold on Ebay for $8k - nearly $3K more than a non-FS set is bringing?? I just don't get why one would pay so much for a label that is literally meaningless. I understand that they do bring a premium, but nearly $3K??? Unreal. >>
I think the reason for this is that the only coins that qualified for FS were the ones purchased from the Mint at the initial Mint offering price when platinum spot was sky high. Hence this "cost of goods" factor seems to have been adjusted into the market price. The people who didn't make out are the ones who bought from the Mint at the high prices and didn't submit for FS. >>
Hi Coasterfan-
I can certainly understand why there are so few FS, it's just that I simply can't understand why the FS label - which is absolutely meaningless - brings such a high premium. >>
.......................................................................................
Greater fool theory.............
Got your point on the last post.
Sure, there are some still eligible sealed FS boxes out there, but that will probably be relatively few.
Remember the whole First Strike for dealers only debacle? And remember how EXPENSIVE the plats were when first released? Both of these factors resulted in people being disgusted with PCGS and OPENED their boxes -because it didnt matter anyway to keep them sealed since they were not dealers and would not get FS labeling - also the pricing kept people away in general as the falling spot price of platinum woulkd result in lower prices later in the year.........well beyond FS eligibility dates.
So, even though there can POSSIBLY be more sets put together because of coins not yet graded.......it will probably be VERY VERY FEW.
Glad I have my full FS MS70 set of 08-W's.
Eric
Florida Bill, where did you get your numbers? The 2007 numbers for the Burnished "W" Unc Plats that you posted the other day don't match up with other numbers that have been posted.
Eric, could you follow up with your 2007 final numbers?
Guys, I believe that it is important to refine all of the posts on final mintages and to have a consensus on the final numbers as soon as possible. The sooner the final numbers are made common knowledge in the general marketplace, the sooner we can expect the valuations to start tracking towards their (higher) true values. That is somewhat hard to do if different numbers keep popping up. We don't need confusion, we need something concrete.
In a separate post yesterday, I asked why QDB didn't get involved (since he is part owner in Whitman Publishing) in making sure that the Red Book numbers for Modern Bullion are accurate, instead of so hopelessly screwed up the way they currently are. I was told to contact Dentuck with the final numbers. If he's the guy, we need to get him the data, and it needs to be accurate.
Just my opinion, of course. jmski
I knew it would happen.
I've gone back several pages and seem to have missed them in all the APE excitement.
Anyone have the numbers??
$50 $25 $10 $5
25,496 16,620 15,767 25,516
This includes 14,436 four coin proof buff sets.
The report had a zero dropped on one of the line items but it is corrected above. Thats why I did not post it right away.
Looks like the MS buffs are quite a bit rarer than the proofs after all the dust settled........
<< <i>Proof Gold Buffs per Sept 30th 2009 Report for 2008 Sales.
$50 $25 $10 $5
25,496 16,620 15,767 25,516
This includes 14,436 four coin proof buff sets >>
Wow!
Only ~2,200 single 1/2s and only ~1,300 single 1/4s
I bet the mint lost a bundle on designing and purchasing packaging for these 2 items.
.......................................................................................
Greater fool theory............. >>
There is some psychological forces involved in the collecting hobby. I don't think rational thought always the driver. It is rarity and having something that someone else doesn't have. I can't figure why some collectors get excited over mangled or defective coins (errors) but they do so why try to explain it. Why do some pay so much for a piece of cardboard with a baseball players image on it? The first strike designation creates another collectible class and there are those who will want them and pay more (maybe even alot more). Besides the little flag is cool.
<< <i>Half post what you have and I will post what I have.
Eric
Florida Bill, where did you get your numbers? The 2007 numbers for the Burnished "W" Unc Plats that you posted the other day don't match up with other numbers that have been posted.
Eric, could you follow up with your 2007 final numbers?
Guys, I believe that it is important to refine all of the posts on final mintages and to have a consensus on the final numbers as soon as possible. The sooner the final numbers are made common knowledge in the general marketplace, the sooner we can expect the valuations to start tracking towards their (higher) true values. That is somewhat hard to do if different numbers keep popping up. We don't need confusion, we need something concrete.
In a separate post yesterday, I asked why QDB didn't get involved (since he is part owner in Whitman Publishing) in making sure that the Red Book numbers for Modern Bullion are accurate, instead of so hopelessly screwed up the way they currently are. I was told to contact Dentuck with the final numbers. If he's the guy, we need to get him the data, and it needs to be accurate.
Just my opinion, of course. jmski
I have already done all this work. KP will have it on the press in March. I have master listings of all gold silver and plat eagles on just two pages. And the numbers have been multi source cross checked.
<< <i>
<< <i>Proof Gold Buffs per Sept 30th 2009 Report for 2008 Sales.
$50 $25 $10 $5
25,496 16,620 15,767 25,516
This includes 14,436 four coin proof buff sets >>
Wow!
Only ~2,200 single 1/2s and only ~1,300 single 1/4s >>
I did a quick comparison with the previously reported sales numbers. There are increases in each size with an especially large increase in the number of 4 coin sets (14,436 sets..vs..7,931 sets previously reported).
Here is my comparison of the recently reported numbers to the previously reported sales for the APEs and the Buffalos:
Differences between Actual Mintage and Sales Numbers
Actual Sales * Diff Actual Sales * Diff Actual Sales * Diff Actual Sales * Diff
Size/Coin type 1 oz 0.5 oz 0.25 oz 0.10 oz
2008-W APE Prf 4,769 5,030 (261) 4,020 3,654 366 4,153 3,891 262 5,138 5,650 (512)
2008-W APE Unc 2,876 4,063 (1,187) 2,253 3,415 (1,162) 2,481 3,894 (1,413) 3,706 4,623 (917)
2008-W Buffalo Prf 25,496 19,591 5,905 16,620 12,569 4,051 15,767 13,903 1,864 25,516 19,294 6,222
2008-W Buffalo Unc 9,074 9,427 (353) 16000+ 17,351 TBD 9,949 10,420 (471) 17,471 18,847 (1,376)
* Sales include 4cn Sets: APE Prf (2,598 sets), APE Unc (2,158 sets), & Buffalo Unc-W (6,303 sets plus 7,751 08-08 sets)
& Buffalo Prf Sets (7,931 sets)
Bottom line conclusions:
- APE Unc-W went down in every size
- APE Prf-W went up and down in some sizes
- Buffalo Unc-W went up and down in some sizes
- Buffalo Prf-W went up in every size with the large number of 4 cn sets.
I've watched final realized prices for raw buffalo 4 coin sets closely and despite significantly higher mintage the buffalo 4 coin proof sets have sold on average for $500 more than the same uncirculated sets.
Up to now demand has trumped rarity.
With these new mintage numbers it will be interesting to see if price gap closes or inverts..............
(As a disclaimer I hold equal numbers of both proof and unc. 4 coin buffalo sets)
<< <i>To bad they did not make a platinum buffalo coin.... >>
Shh! Don't give them any ideas!
<< <i>Proof Gold Buffs per Sept 30th 2009 Report for 2008 Sales.
$50 $25 $10 $5
25,496 16,620 15,767 25,516
This includes 14,436 four coin proof buff sets.
>>
That's close to what I have.
1 11,060
1/2 2184
1/4 1331
1/10 11080
4 coin 14,436
Now doesn't anyone see the big problems with these numbers?
They are impossible.
For starters, let's compare to the FOIA numbers.
2008 Buffs:
1 oz. Proof: 20,580
½ oz. Proof: 20,602
¼ oz. Proof: 22,060
1/10 oz proof : 24,725
So somehow I am suppose to believe that the mint made more one ounce proof coins than they struck?
Impossible. 25,469 is over 20,580. That is impossible.
Also, does anyone here really believe they had over 14,000 4 coin sets? I don't.
1331 1/4 proof buffalo singles, is that possible? No.
These numbers are bad and should not be relied upon, and IMO casts doubt on *all* numbers from the mint for many years.
Why is it so difficult for the Mint to provide accurate numbers for coins with populations under 25,000?
If someone didn't catch this huge error then I doubt they caught others.
Anyway for me this has changed how I see the mint numbers going forward. The sales report numbers are equally sloppy. How can you have 51,000 Lincoln Chronicles sets as a final number when you know it is wrong?
Don't mind me...but I've lost the thread here...has something appreciably changed regarding the Buffs and Plats numbers from earlier in the week when the Mint's "final" 2008 mintages were released?
And don't upset me...because I very merrily seemed to be sitting on a gold (platinum?) mine earlier this week, based on published mintages!
Can someone provide the Cliffs Notes version for the mentally drainined on a Friday afternoon, please?
They say the dog that yelps the loudest is the one that got hit.
ALL REPORTS INCLUDING THE FOIA ARE TENTATIVE PRIOR TO THE CLOSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER. THIS REPORT IS DATED SEPT 30TH THEREFORE IT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT IS NOT CLASSIFIED AS TENTATIVE.
Maybe it has some problems but its the best we have and thats what’s is going in the Red Book and KPs books in the spring unless that Mint changes its final report soon. So the broader market is going to accept the data soon as the publications start rolling out in the next 6 months. Better hope the mint has a big revision soon but I for one am not expecting one. But who knows!
Eric