Wow - that's almost 50% over spot for the 1/2 ounce coins! Has the mint ever issued any precious metals with that level of mark up before?
Are they trying to take the dealers/flippers out of the picture and just deal with collectors? I think the number of collectors will fall this year with the mass melting that has gone on over the past year and now again with prices so high relative to melt value... I keep wondering what mintage level makes these unprofitable to produce and sell.
It also seems like the 2004 proof is about to be dethroned...
Eric
EAC member since 2011, one third of the way through my 1793 large cent type set
<< <i>Wow - that's almost 50% over spot for the 1/2 ounce coins! Has the mint ever issued any precious metals with that level of mark up before?
Are they trying to take the dealers/flippers out of the picture and just deal with collectors? I think the number of collectors will fall this year with the mass melting that has gone on over the past year and now again with prices so high relative to melt value... I keep wondering what mintage level makes these unprofitable to produce and sell.
It also seems like the 2004 proof is about to be dethroned...
The 08s are definitely going to be a big story in the platinum (and gold unc?) world--for the few dozen of us who really care. But as many have pointed out, there are undoubtedly fascinating things brewing with some of the older dates, such as the 01s and 02s. These could have landed in melting pots in huge numbers AND they have gorgeous designs to boot. People are going to pay attention to the artwork more as the series progresses, I think. As others have also stated, this could be the time to pick up some back dates if anyone needs them.
Looking at the latest pricing structure for the plat proofs, that 2007 anniv set is looking like a deal now, with the reverse proof commanding only a $150 premium over the regular proof.
EAC member since 2011, one third of the way through my 1793 large cent type set
<< <i>Uhhh, may I step in - GAT, honestly I do not see a rebounded interest in pewter coins. Can you cite examples? I agree with Gritsman that platinum certainly has MUCH more cache than does palladium and certainly more than pewter. >>
My absolute favorite coin is pewter....the Continental Dollar
According to this press release from the US Mint, the 2009 Ultra High Relief gold coin will have no mintage limit. I recall somewhere in this thread there was mention that this would have a mintage limit, but I'm too lazy to find the post.
<< <i>According to this press release from the US Mint, the 2009 Ultra High Relief gold coin will have no mintage limit. I recall somewhere in this thread there was mention that this would have a mintage limit, but I'm too lazy to find the post.
I thought I remember Eric Jones indicated that it was the unc versions that would be limited, while the proofs would be minted to demand... If I'm not remember this correctly, its the other way around.
Eric
EAC member since 2011, one third of the way through my 1793 large cent type set
These are the images of the 2009 Platinum Eagle reverse design candidates displayed on CoinWorld last week. The CFA pick (displayed directly below this) and the rest of the candidates. The images are courtesy of CW:
What a way to guarantee LOW mintages. These 2009 designs are terrible. It is no wonder all our new coins stick with old designs as we must have outsourced all our new art design to other countries (no talent available in the USA).
what is a privy mark and where would it be? .............. I googled my own answer from wikipedia:
A privy mark was originally a small mark or differentiation in the design of a coin for the purpose of identifying the mint, moneyer, or some other aspect of the coin's production or origin, for control purposes. Nowadays it is mainly used as a design and marketing feature.
MMMMMMM I dont like it as usual.....an American eagle should have an eagle you can see, plain and simple as always. I wish as usual its a bluff.......But Im sure to be disappointed as I was with a bizillion reverse proofs over priced.
I also dont like the interuption of a nice pattern since 2003.....one year just eagle, next year eagle and person. This even explained the pulled eagle/ owl for 2008.
The privy mark depicts the head of an eagle and it is small. According to an article I read a while back, the use of a privy mark is a work around since the mint is required to have an eagle on the back of the coin every year. A privy mark of an eagle would satisfy that requirement.
I personally think that the CFA's choice is probably the worst looking design available. It is plain and it lacks art. I don't believe that the CFA's choice will be the design that will end up in the back of the coins as CFA has very little say in it. The CCAC will be reviewing the design at ANA's World Fair of Money in Baltimore and they too will be making their recommendation. What you are looking at are just that, "recommendations". Whether they are chosen or not, remains to be seen yet.
These are the privy mark choices as of now. These images were presented in last week's CW article:
<< <i>These are the images of the 2009 Platinum Eagle reverse design candidates displayed on CoinWorld last week. The CFA pick (displayed directly below this) and the rest of the candidates. The images are courtesy of CW:
>>
Perfect examples of design by a politically correct committee.
I forgot to add above, thank you for posting the proposed images for 2009!
<< <i>The CCAC will be reviewing the design at ANA's World Fair of Money in Baltimore and they too will be making their recommendation. What you are looking at are just that, "recommendations". Whether they are chosen or not, remains to be seen yet. >>
Exactly! Look at what happened to the eagle and owl design for this year. A week and half before the issue (at least as far as we knew), the design was changed...
Eric
EAC member since 2011, one third of the way through my 1793 large cent type set
Exactly! Look at what happened to the eagle and owl design for this year. A week and half before the issue (at least as far as we knew), the design was changed...
That is exactly right! The fact that the CFA has recommended a design doesn't mean that the chosen design will end up on the coin...
I have seen differing sales figures for uncirculated APEs, but am unclear if there are mintage years with with sales numbers lower than the proofs. Will someone please help? I've seen the Mints numbers, but it seems that they put W & non-W together.
Neostar, Thanks for sharing the designs and the privy marks. That privy mark is cheesy as a high school mascot art. Very disappointed with this direction, and it may be enough to make me stop collecting these after this year. This appears to be a severe problem with groupthink. Perhaps the desire to make the constitution designs has derailed the core reason these coins are made. THESE ARE AMERICAN EAGLES...Eagles are the core theme. If constitution commeratives are desired by the mint they should start its own series. I would rather the series end right here than bend the rules for a high school eagle mascot that requires a glass to see.
This appears to be a severe problem with groupthink. Perhaps the desire to make the constitution designs has derailed the core reason these coins are made. THESE ARE AMERICAN EAGLES...Eagles are the core theme. If constitution commeratives are desired by the mint they should start its own series. I would rather the series end right here than bend the rules for a high school eagle mascot that requires a glass to see.
I couldn't have said it any better, geek. I'm getting tired of the crap that Mr. Moy thinks is sooooo trendy.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
It's my pleasure posting the pictures guys! Thank you for looking at them and thank you for all the comments!
I like some of the designs available. I don't like the design the CFA chose and I think the privy marks need work. And I agree with you guys, some of the State Quarters have better designs than the ones proposed...
The Mint should consider a design depicting a clenched fist, middle finger extended, representing its message to collectors.
I don't understand what the CFA was thinking selecting a simplistic, stylized tree, uprooted, perched on a disembodied hand.
How does that fit with the giant "To Form a More Perfect Union" motto? (I'm not a fan of that either)
I like the design at the bottom middle best, but if they wanted a tree, the other tree is much better.
The interlocking hands probably fit the "union" logo best, since they look like a union symbol. The multicultural faces design isn't bad even if a bit too p.c. for my liking.
The Mint should consider a design depicting a clenched fist, middle finger extended, representing its message to collectors.
I don't understand what the CFA was thinking selecting a simplistic, stylized tree, uprooted, perched on a disembodied hand.
This is the thread where I should have made the following post in the first place:
The buzzword in the oil pits is the drop in demand due to higher retail fuel prices is "demand destruction", and certainly the same thing is happening in the Mint's product lineup as the precious metals head lower, without any price adjustments on the Mint's part.
Platinum is my example, simply because I ran the numbers last Friday. Last Friday, when platinum was at $1,740.00/oz., the 2008 Platinum Proofs ordered from the Mint had the following margins:
1/10 oz. Proof - 60.09% over spot 1/4 oz. Proof - 52.86% over spot 1/2 oz. Proof - 47.12% over spot 1 oz. Proof - 44.25% over spot 4-coin Proof Set - 42.58% over spot
Today, with spot platinum at $1,707.00/oz., the Mint's effective margins are:
1/10 oz. Proof - 64.00% over spot 1/4 oz. Proof - 55.82% over spot 1/2 oz. Proof - 49.96% over spot 1 oz. Proof - 47.04% over spot 4-coin Proof Set - 45.35% over spot
The longer this situation drags on without the Mint re-pricing these coins, the more dramatic impact it will have upon the final mintage figures. The same phenomenon is occuring in the Unc Plats, and all of the recent gold issues as well.
Another factor in the developing situation is the overall economic picture, with liquidity being an issue. Collector resources are being re-deployed in more important areas, such as normal everyday living expenses.
With the Mint's ever-burgeoning agenda, subsequent years will be even-lower mintages for all of these same reasons. One thing that the Mint should do is to make their pricing much closer to the market, and to quote prices in realtime. Other retail bullion vendors do this easily. It might help them keep their market.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
I don't think the mint as a government entity and the fact that these are collector coins (the proof and W unc) will allow for the platinum and gold coins to be sold as anything other then a fixed issue price.....
I also don't see the government dropping the price on these coins. Now a hypothecial situation: They have minted say 2500 of the 1/10 oz coins, they paid $200 for the platinum in the coin and $25 in making the coin. Meaning they have $225 in the cost of the coin. If the price of platinum drops $300 an ounce the platinum material dropped $30 for that coin, but the mint is not going to sell the coin at less then there cost because this is not a bullion issue, but a collector coin. This is probably obvious, but I figured I would put it out there anyways.
As far as mintages for the platinum coins this year, with sales being low and not likely to get moving in big numbers until the end, which the mint might just stop production, if you want platinum coins this year, get them now and be happy to have them.
This is what I did. I have my 1/10 oz coins on my desk right now
Collection under construction: VG Barber Quarters & Halves
Also presumably the Mint can't keep their liberal 30 day return policy along with an ever-changing daily re-pricing of the coins based on spot... what a return nightmare that would be for them.
Comments
Are they trying to take the dealers/flippers out of the picture and just deal with collectors? I think the number of collectors will fall this year with the mass melting that has gone on over the past year and now again with prices so high relative to melt value... I keep wondering what mintage level makes these unprofitable to produce and sell.
It also seems like the 2004 proof is about to be dethroned...
Eric
<< <i>Wow - that's almost 50% over spot for the 1/2 ounce coins! Has the mint ever issued any precious metals with that level of mark up before?
Are they trying to take the dealers/flippers out of the picture and just deal with collectors? I think the number of collectors will fall this year with the mass melting that has gone on over the past year and now again with prices so high relative to melt value... I keep wondering what mintage level makes these unprofitable to produce and sell.
It also seems like the 2004 proof is about to be dethroned...
Eric >>
The '04s may well be near melt by next year.
I was thinking about selling off my 1/10 oz proof gold coins (01 to 07) and putting the money in something that might actually have potential.....
<< <i>Uhhh, may I step in - GAT, honestly I do not see a rebounded interest in pewter coins. Can you cite examples? I agree with Gritsman that platinum certainly has MUCH more cache than does palladium and certainly more than pewter. >>
My absolute favorite coin is pewter....the Continental Dollar
2009 Ultra High Relief to be shown in Baltimore
<< <i>According to this press release from the US Mint, the 2009 Ultra High Relief gold coin will have no mintage limit. I recall somewhere in this thread there was mention that this would have a mintage limit, but I'm too lazy to find the post.
2009 Ultra High Relief to be shown in Baltimore >>
I thought I remember Eric Jones indicated that it was the unc versions that would be limited, while the proofs would be minted to demand... If I'm not remember this correctly, its the other way around.
Eric
1/4 oz $1225 wow!
1 oz $3600
You have to be kidding me.....
In reality I would rather then toss those and go back to the drawing board.....
Each of the designs with people on them is WAAAAY nicer than a tree. The clasped hands is pretty cool, too!
<< <i>And they picked the top one out of those choices?
You have to be kidding me..... >>
Horrible group! Horrible choice!
my early American coins & currency: -- http://yankeedoodlecoins.com/
They'll be using a privy mark shaped as an eagle instead of having an actual eagle on the reverse...
A privy mark was originally a small mark or differentiation in the design of a coin for the purpose of identifying the mint, moneyer, or some other aspect of the coin's production or origin, for control purposes. Nowadays it is mainly used as a design and marketing feature.
MMMMMMM I dont like it as usual.....an American eagle should have an eagle you can see, plain and simple as always. I wish as usual its a bluff.......But Im sure to be disappointed as I was with a bizillion reverse proofs over priced.
Bring back the owl.....
Positive BST Transactions (buyers and sellers): wondercoin, blu62vette, BAJJERFAN, privatecoin, blu62vette, AlanLastufka, privatecoin
#1 1951 Bowman Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#2 1980 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#8 (and climbing) 1972 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
I personally think that the CFA's choice is probably the worst looking design available. It is plain and it lacks art. I don't believe that the CFA's choice will be the design that will end up in the back of the coins as CFA has very little say in it. The CCAC will be reviewing the design at ANA's World Fair of Money in Baltimore and they too will be making their recommendation. What you are looking at are just that, "recommendations". Whether they are chosen or not, remains to be seen yet.
These are the privy mark choices as of now. These images were presented in last week's CW article:
<< <i>These are the images of the 2009 Platinum Eagle reverse design candidates displayed on CoinWorld last week. The CFA pick (displayed directly below this) and the rest of the candidates. The images are courtesy of CW:
Perfect examples of design by a politically correct committee.
With what is happening/being done to our country in these days.... that almost seems insulting or a joke to put that on the coins.
Positive BST Transactions (buyers and sellers): wondercoin, blu62vette, BAJJERFAN, privatecoin, blu62vette, AlanLastufka, privatecoin
#1 1951 Bowman Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#2 1980 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
#8 (and climbing) 1972 Topps Los Angeles Rams Team Set
<< <i>The CCAC will be reviewing the design at ANA's World Fair of Money in Baltimore and they too will be making their recommendation. What you are looking at are just that, "recommendations". Whether they are chosen or not, remains to be seen yet. >>
Exactly! Look at what happened to the eagle and owl design for this year. A week and half before the issue (at least as far as we knew), the design was changed...
Eric
That is exactly right! The fact that the CFA has recommended a design doesn't mean that the chosen design will end up on the coin...
Thanks, Confused
I'm with all of you. Not nearly up to snuff with any of these designs. Many of the state quarters looked much better.
Ren
I couldn't have said it any better, geek. I'm getting tired of the crap that Mr. Moy thinks is sooooo trendy.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
>>
Argh... that looks like something out of a sci-fi/horror movie... mutant plants bursting out of humans!
-Mike
I like some of the designs available. I don't like the design the CFA chose and I think the privy marks need work. And I agree with you guys, some of the State Quarters have better designs than the ones proposed...
Well, just Love coins, period.
The Mint should consider a design depicting a clenched fist, middle finger extended, representing its message to collectors.
I don't understand what the CFA was thinking selecting a simplistic, stylized tree, uprooted, perched on a disembodied hand.
How does that fit with the giant "To Form a More Perfect Union" motto? (I'm not a fan of that either)
I like the design at the bottom middle best, but if they wanted a tree, the other tree is much better.
The interlocking hands probably fit the "union" logo best, since they look like a union symbol. The multicultural faces design isn't bad even if a bit too p.c. for my liking.
The Mint should consider a design depicting a clenched fist, middle finger extended, representing its message to collectors.
I don't understand what the CFA was thinking selecting a simplistic, stylized tree, uprooted, perched on a disembodied hand.
This is the thread where I should have made the following post in the first place:
The buzzword in the oil pits is the drop in demand due to higher retail fuel prices is "demand destruction", and certainly the same thing is happening in the Mint's product lineup as the precious metals head lower, without any price adjustments on the Mint's part.
Platinum is my example, simply because I ran the numbers last Friday. Last Friday, when platinum was at $1,740.00/oz., the 2008 Platinum Proofs ordered from the Mint had the following margins:
1/10 oz. Proof - 60.09% over spot
1/4 oz. Proof - 52.86% over spot
1/2 oz. Proof - 47.12% over spot
1 oz. Proof - 44.25% over spot
4-coin Proof Set - 42.58% over spot
Today, with spot platinum at $1,707.00/oz., the Mint's effective margins are:
1/10 oz. Proof - 64.00% over spot
1/4 oz. Proof - 55.82% over spot
1/2 oz. Proof - 49.96% over spot
1 oz. Proof - 47.04% over spot
4-coin Proof Set - 45.35% over spot
The longer this situation drags on without the Mint re-pricing these coins, the more dramatic impact it will have upon the final mintage figures. The same phenomenon is occuring in the Unc Plats, and all of the recent gold issues as well.
Another factor in the developing situation is the overall economic picture, with liquidity being an issue. Collector resources are being re-deployed in more important areas, such as normal everyday living expenses.
With the Mint's ever-burgeoning agenda, subsequent years will be even-lower mintages for all of these same reasons. One thing that the Mint should do is to make their pricing much closer to the market, and to quote prices in realtime. Other retail bullion vendors do this easily. It might help them keep their market.
I knew it would happen.
I also don't see the government dropping the price on these coins. Now a hypothecial situation: They have minted say 2500 of the 1/10 oz coins, they paid $200 for the platinum in the coin and $25 in making the coin. Meaning they have $225 in the cost of the coin. If the price of platinum drops $300 an ounce the platinum material dropped $30 for that coin, but the mint is not going to sell the coin at less then there cost because this is not a bullion issue, but a collector coin. This is probably obvious, but I figured I would put it out there anyways.
As far as mintages for the platinum coins this year, with sales being low and not likely to get moving in big numbers until the end, which the mint might just stop production, if you want platinum coins this year, get them now and be happy to have them.
This is what I did. I have my 1/10 oz coins on my desk right now