IMO some of these are really hideous designs and they bode poorly for the future. They remind me of some of the silver dollar commemoratives. Certainly don't inspire me to continue the series which may be a real problem going forward. I'd rather see the series end then watch it wither under the weight of prices and poor design.
I've seen that inlocked hands one as a Communist symbol, somewhere. Since politics are off limits, I'll refrain from commenting about how suitably such an image fits the United States.
Secondly, don't worry about the designs. The mint changes the designs they've already announced, so no reason to worry about conceptuals.
I'd rather see the series end then watch it wither under the weight of prices and poor design.
I'd rather see the series end then watch it wither under the weight of prices and poor design.
I'd rather see the series end then watch it wither under the weight of prices and poor design.
Although the middle design in the bottom row looks ok, the CFA pick is amateurish and sloppy work, imo. (Not just the design, but the fact that CFA chose it is also amateurish and sloppy work, imo.) What the he11 is the symbolism in a disembodied hand holding a tree sprig by the roots that look like spaghetti? What is the thought process here? Quite frankly, I'm aghast that a "committee" can come up with such drivel as a recommendation. And the artist needs to go back to conceptualization school.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
I really like the the middle design in the bottom row. I like allegorical designs, whether on coins, stamps or currency. But it might not look so good on something as small as a 1/10 ouncer.
Well I hated to do it but I returned some 2008-W Uncirculated APEs this A.M.
Normally I would have just thrown them to the side as a long term investment but with the plunge in platinums price and a closing window of opportunity for return to the fulfillment center I had to act.
I'm glad I did.......out of 10 coins only 2 were keepers. Several had major rim damage. That was far and away the biggest problem. A couple had some kind of blackish streak on liberty's face.
I'd love to reorder but 50% premium over melt or $700 for a 1 oz. coin makes it really tough.
My 1/4 oz unc-W has a major hairline scratch on the obverse between the I and B in LIBERTY and extending into Liberty's crown. This one is definitely going back. I also notice the 1/10 oz has a much lower relief than the other denominations, making it look like a weak strike. >>
You're sure it's not a struck-through error? I saw a PCGS $25 2008 UNC plat with a struck through error of the same description...
"I'll split the atom! I am the fifth dimension! I am the eighth wonder of the world!" -Gef the talking mongoose.
I'd rather see the series end then watch it wither under the weight of prices and poor design.
I agree 100% with that.
And I'm still laughing at noob's picture with the middle finger guy; I especially appreciate his attention to detail in including the eagle head privy mark. Great work!
The Mint really should decide on, and publish, it's repricing policy for bullion coins.
Will the Mint reprice the platinum proofs and w-uncirculateds?
The sporadic way the Mint pulls these coins, seemingly at whim, and reprices them, makes it seem like the Mint doesn't have any plan in place, and that's a pretty lousy way to do business.
The Mint was quick to pull for repricing as platinum was moving up, but it doesn't seem that they have any plan for what to do now that platinum is falling.
To me, that shows a real lack of regard for collectors.
No system will please everyone, but I think the lack of information about what their policy is is a real problem.
If I had any input into how the Mint was running things, I'd recommend using an system that set an issue price floor.
My proposal: Use an issue price floor
The Mint should have a issue price system that takes costs of production into account in setting an issue price, and allows the Mint to float issue price up if spot increases to a point higher than the issue price floor, but would still protect early purchasers from significant issue price declines if spot subsequently drops below that floor.
I'm assuming the Mint strikes these coins in batches, and the price should really be tied to whatever they paid for the bullion used in each batch (ensuring they are never in a loss position). The Mint could price bullion coins at a fixed percentage above their bullion acquisition cost at striking, marked up to cover costs and use that as a price floor that could fluctuate up daily, if necessary, with bullion price.
Issue Price Floor: example
For instance, if the Mint purchased platinum bullion for the initial run at $1800 an ounce, and the markup is 20%, the issue price floor would be set at $2160 per ounce (staggered, as they do, so that smaller coins have a slightly higher premium to bullion than the larger coins). The Mint could reprice above that floor, but would not drop below it. That issue price floor would remain in place until the first batch is sold out.
So if platinum spot climbed from $1800 to $2400 an ounce, as spot reached the $2160 per ounce price, the Mint would float the issue price upwards on a daily basis at a fixed percentage over spot, say 2-5% - to ensure that issue price was never below spot, and to also ensure the Mint profitted from the increased spot price.
If spot then crashed from $2400 to $1500, the Mint would continue to float the issue price at 2-5% over spot during the drop from $2400 to $2160. Once spot dropped below $2160, the issue price would not float, but would stay fixed at the $2160 floor for the subsequent drop from $2160 to $1500.
Prices would never drop below the Mint's issue price floor for that run, which would insulate the Mint from the downside of bullion fluctuation and also help insulate collectors who purchased early from getting burned by subsequent lower issue prices).
Collectors and speculators might still have an incentive to buy the first run at $1500 spot with the $2160 issue price, since the higher premium to melt would result in lower interest, lower sales, and lower mintage figures, which might keep secondary market prices inflated once sales ended.
Assuming the initial run sold out with spot at $1500 despite its high premium to melt, and a second run was required, the Mint could raise its premium a bit to protect the first run buyers from a big mintage as the second run buyers swoop in.
So if the initial run was at spot $1800 + 20%, and the Mint's spot price for the second run was $1400, instead of setting the second run issue price floor at spot plus +20% ($1680 -- which would reward fence sitters, who might buy a significant quantity and raise mintages to the detriment of early purchasers), the Mint could would set the second run issue price floor taking into account the first run, and select an in-between point for the markup -- say, +30% -- which would make the second run issue price floor $1920 per ounce -- that would pass some of the savings from the drop in bullion to buyers who waited, while still keeping prices high enough above spot to ensure the possibility of lower mintages that would protect the early buyers from price deflation a bit.
@The Raven -- I suspect you are probably right. Still, they adjusted prices upwards as platinum increased, but aren't doing anything now that it's crashed.
Platinum started the year at below $1600 an ounce, and within two months popped to $2200 a month. It's hard to say what the Mint's acquisition cost was, though I suspect it purchased what it needed before the pop.
The 2007 reverse set pricing indicates that's the case-- those coins were minted before the platinum spot shot up, and the repricing only reflects the Mint wanting to take advantage of that.
No matter what, it would potential buyers tremendously if we knew what the Mint's intentions were.
If issue prices aren't going to be adjusted downwards for the 2008s, let us know. If there is some policy used to detemine prices, let us know.
The way the repricing has been handled is ridiculous. One day coins are available, the next they disappear from the Mint's website with no information, only to reappear weeks later with a price that seems to be have been set at random. Did the Mint Director throw a dart at a dartboard? Who knows?
There is a complete disconnect now between the issue price on the platinum collector coins and what the bullion market is, and we have no idea what, if anything, the Mint intends to do from here. I think we deserve better than that.
Amidst the platinum mayhem, I just got my 2001 $50 proof plat from Quattrocoins. She's gorgeous! The 2001 (SouthWest motif) is my second favorite of the series. Now, only the 2000 and 1997 to go! Thanks Don!
Assuming they bought platinum for the 2008 coins when spot price was high, what happens if spot price and purchases remain depressed? The Mint is now sitting on a heap of expensive platinum. Will that force them to price the 2009 coins high as well?
I would imagine they would have to purchase some more platinum to produce 2009 material (bullion, proof & W unc).
This would probably allow them to melt the 2008 and mix that with the cheaper platinum to cost average the coins.
Or they could have minted 2500 of each coin and they will sell those out. I would not expect to see any additional platinum coins (Proof & W Unc) to be minted this year.
Collection under construction: VG Barber Quarters & Halves
Assuming they bought platinum for the 2008 coins when spot price was high, what happens if spot price and purchases remain depressed? The Mint is now sitting on a heap of expensive platinum. Will that force them to price the 2009 coins high as well?
Do we know conclusively that the Mint is mandated to never take a loss on material costs? I had never heard that until recently, here on this board.
I don't see how the Mint can play in this sandbox without either taking a loss occasionally or keeping the prices high - in which case, sales will be low. It's not like they can control the market in platinum.
Added: I have noticed that there are no platinum auctions left on ebay - almost every listing is now a fixed price or a "buy it now." This tells me that everyone is balking at the drop in prices, not just the Mint.
Industrial demand will ultimately set the price, if it needs setting.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Even though these are trying times to be a platinum collector, we need to try to ignore the spot price and let the NUMISMATIC value of these coins be established.
2006 w platinum coins were selling for 2 to 3x melt value back when platinum was $1200 an ounce.
2004 w platinum proofs were selling for $6,000+ a set when platinum was $900 an ounce.
These coins should not track spot.
The highwater mark of spot platinum, at around $2300 an ounce, largely obliterated numismatic premiums for all platinum coins except the 2004 proofs and the $10, $25 and $50 2006 w coins (and the $100 at MS70).
Now that spot has receded, the numismatic premium will be re-established.
The only question is where.
One of the coins we can easily track numismatic premium with is the 2006 w $100 coin, either raw or in MS69.
It's low mintage, and enjoyed a numismatic premium early in its life, but when platinum reached $1700-1800 the premium disappeared and started to track melt.
Now that platinum is back to $1550, I expect this coin to establish a secondary market price floor of somewhere around $1700.
I could be completely wrong - the platinum collector population may have been decimated when platinum popped to $2300 an ounce, creating what I will prematurely call the Great Platinum Melt of 2008.
If platinum returns to a more attainable price of $1200 an ounce or so, maybe we'll start to repopulate our diminished ranks.
We need a better 2009 platinum coin design than what is currently proposed
Now that platinum seems to be dropping, what I think we need to have to bring collectors back is more reasonable prices on the 2009 platinum coins, AND a more compelling design than the uprooted tree on a disembodied hand selected by some committee. Sorry about the links, but I haven't mastered the art of putting images directly in posts.
The hand is disconnected from the body, the tree is disconnected from the soil, and the image is disconnected from the motto of "To Form a More Perfect Union."
"To Form a More Perfect Union" seems like a pretty lame motto, but if that's what it's going to be, use a better image.
That motto suggests the Constitution, and an image related to the signing or the document itself would seem more appropriate.
Perhaps modify an existing image showing the joining of the 3 branches, such as this one, on which justice carries a banner celebrating the birth of the Constitution
(eagle already included).
Or use an image of the Eagle carrying the Constitution in its talons.
I don't suggest this image, but it depicts how an Eagle could have a partly unfurled Constitution in its talons.
Actually this eagle works for me --
Eagles from the original Pennsylvania Station, by Adolph Weinman, ca. 1910 Seventh Ave. at 32nd St.
It has the big feet of our 2008 batman eagle, but it's a better looking bird.
Stick a partly unfurled Constitution in his talons, and we have a nice looking, relevant coin.
Looking at what the Post Office came up with for that motto, I don't have much hope.
Or just lose the motto completely, and focus on making a nice looking coin.
Amen, Nycounsel......NO PRIVEY MARK, the overall theme that makes this collector base is the EAGLE. Give people an excuse to stop collecting on a theme and they will. Especially at these prices. I have zero interest in constitution themes upstaging the Eagle. 11 years of changing designs and the only unified theme is the eagle.....That is what holds it togather. Why not ditch the series of gold coins honoring the bald eagle (which only has a few years in it) and use those designs. Then make a constitution series in gold all for itself.
I just cant believe some of the hairbrained things I've seen the past couple years.....Like thousands of overpriced reverse proofs and bending the limits on the 2007 half proofs.....I'ts like an all out assualt on a loyal collectors pocket book and common sense, and a very direct reason for the low sales this year. It almost seems like a purposeful distruction of the collector base, but why???????
"We need a better 2009 platinum coin design than what is currently proposed"
Here's my suggestion: an eagle over a nest with 13 eggs.......either that or a gigantic eagle scooping up indians and other races in its talons (although that would interupt the eagle alone one year and with a person the next pattern)
My 1/4 oz unc-W has a major hairline scratch on the obverse between the I and B in LIBERTY and extending into Liberty's crown. This one is definitely going back. I also notice the 1/10 oz has a much lower relief than the other denominations, making it look like a weak strike. >>
You're sure it's not a struck-through error? I saw a PCGS $25 2008 UNC plat with a struck through error of the same description... >>
Thanks for the pointer, kiyote. I think it is a struck-through error. I've decided to keep it. Might get it slabbed if I can get it labelled as such.
OMG what in Hades is going on with those proposed Plat designs? Looks like some sort of cheap token designs or at best some look like State Quarter candidates. Where is Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?
The noob design is a start in the right direction but some modification may be in order. How about using Liberty on the obverse with a finger in place of the torch? That might symbolize our new attitude toward all the refugees yearning to get on our welfare rolls.
the platinum collector population may have been decimated when platinum popped to $2300 an ounce, creating what I will prematurely call the Great Platinum Melt of 2008.
If platinum returns to a more attainable price of $1200 an ounce or so, maybe we'll start to repopulate our diminished ranks.
The difference now is that the economy is in worse shape than when platinum was last at $1200 an ounce. Demand for low-mintage platinum is likely to be less now than it was in 2005 to 2007. Also, the remaining demand may be shifting to the smaller fractionals. The $10 2006-W burnished plat appears to be holding up better, pricewise, than the larger denominations.
The difference now is that the economy is in worse shape than when platinum was last at $1200 an ounce. Demand for low-mintage platinum is likely to be less now than it was in 2005 to 2007.
That's an excellent point, and very true. Tighter credit and overall concern about housing and the rest of the market will almost certainly have a negative impact on collector demand.
Also, the remaining demand may be shifting to the smaller fractionals. The $10 2006-W burnished plat appears to be holding up better, pricewise, than the larger denominations.
Again, I basically agree with your point, though I'm not sure that we are observing a shift in demand on the smaller fractionals, so much as continued numismatic strength in existing demand.
Since the smaller fractionals are more affordable, the numismatic premium on those coins has demonstrated continued reslience even as bullion reached $2000 per ounce. So the 2006 w $10 coins continue to sell for $400+ per coin -- 2 to 3x melt -- while the equally rare $100 coins approached melt.
Even as an ardent supporter of many politically-correct causes, I HATE this! I'd vote for some natural beauty, but I guess that's out of the question with the NP quarters coming up. Or endangered species? I think Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa have done outstanding jobs featuring their unique wildlife on coins. Why couldn't we? Maybe a series on other birds of prey besides eagles?
If the chosen design does prevail, I will certainly consider dropping the series. Only problem: the mintage of these is going to be close to zero, which will probably make them the keys to the series. AAAARGH!
<< <i>Only problem: the mintage of these is going to be close to zero, which will probably make them the keys to the series. AAAARGH! >>
Mintage is meaningless if no one is going to collect them. >>
Probably right on that--at least for a couple of decades. The problem with ugly coins is that sometimes they start to look a lot better later on. I remember thinking the Library of Congress bimetallic looked cheap and gimmicky when it came out. Now I really love it and am kicking myself for not picking one up. On the other hand, Ikes have just gotten uglier (sorry IKE-GUYS), but they are at least interesting.
I am done with the entire series. I have collected the $50's in proof and MS for the 2006-2008 W subset. The only one missing is the 2008W MS $50 and I probably won't buy it.
<< <i>there are probably so few platinum collectors left that they could put OUR faces on this coin. >>
I like that idea!! You can already do that with stamps. Since the mint is issuing coins more and more like the post office issues stamps it just makes sense.
Comments
<< <i>yuck.
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)
>>
You will be assimilated... Resistance is futile....
<< <i>Ewww. Me no like. The design in the middle of the bottom row would have been stunning. >>
I agree. I also like the current "Branches of Govt." plats a lot better than these designs.....
<< <i>
If that made that coin it would probably be a good seller
They remind me of some of the silver dollar commemoratives.
Certainly don't inspire me to continue the series which may be a real problem going forward.
I'd rather see the series end then watch it wither under the weight of prices and poor design.
I've seen that inlocked hands one as a Communist symbol, somewhere. Since politics are off limits, I'll refrain from commenting about how suitably such an image fits the United States.
Secondly, don't worry about the designs. The mint changes the designs they've already announced, so no reason to worry about conceptuals.
I'd rather see the series end then watch it wither under the weight of prices and poor design.
I'd rather see the series end then watch it wither under the weight of prices and poor design.
Although the middle design in the bottom row looks ok, the CFA pick is amateurish and sloppy work, imo. (Not just the design, but the fact that CFA chose it is also amateurish and sloppy work, imo.) What the he11 is the symbolism in a disembodied hand holding a tree sprig by the roots that look like spaghetti? What is the thought process here? Quite frankly, I'm aghast that a "committee" can come up with such drivel as a recommendation. And the artist needs to go back to conceptualization school.
I knew it would happen.
Normally I would have just thrown them to the side as a long term investment but with the plunge in platinums price and a closing window of opportunity for return to the fulfillment center I had to act.
I'm glad I did.......out of 10 coins only 2 were keepers.
Several had major rim damage.
That was far and away the biggest problem.
A couple had some kind of blackish streak on liberty's face.
I'd love to reorder but 50% premium over melt or $700 for a 1 oz. coin makes it really tough.
<< <i>
My 1/4 oz unc-W has a major hairline scratch on the obverse between the I and B in LIBERTY and extending into Liberty's crown. This one is definitely going back. I also notice the 1/10 oz has a much lower relief than the other denominations, making it look like a weak strike. >>
You're sure it's not a struck-through error? I saw a PCGS $25 2008 UNC plat with a struck through error of the same description...
I agree 100% with that.
And I'm still laughing at noob's picture with the middle finger guy; I especially appreciate his attention to detail in including the eagle head privy mark. Great work!
I'd buy it!
Will the Mint reprice the platinum proofs and w-uncirculateds?
The sporadic way the Mint pulls these coins, seemingly at whim, and reprices them, makes it seem like the Mint doesn't have any plan in place, and that's a pretty lousy way to do business.
The Mint was quick to pull for repricing as platinum was moving up, but it doesn't seem that they have any plan for what to do now that platinum is falling.
To me, that shows a real lack of regard for collectors.
No system will please everyone, but I think the lack of information about what their policy is is a real problem.
If I had any input into how the Mint was running things, I'd recommend using an system that set an issue price floor.
My proposal: Use an issue price floor
The Mint should have a issue price system that takes costs of production into account in setting an issue price, and allows the Mint to float issue price up if spot increases to a point higher than the issue price floor, but would still protect early purchasers from significant issue price declines if spot subsequently drops below that floor.
I'm assuming the Mint strikes these coins in batches, and the price should really be tied to whatever they paid for the bullion used in each batch (ensuring they are never in a loss position). The Mint could price bullion coins at a fixed percentage above their bullion acquisition cost at striking, marked up to cover costs and use that as a price floor that could fluctuate up daily, if necessary, with bullion price.
Issue Price Floor: example
For instance, if the Mint purchased platinum bullion for the initial run at $1800 an ounce, and the markup is 20%, the issue price floor would be set at $2160 per ounce (staggered, as they do, so that smaller coins have a slightly higher premium to bullion than the larger coins). The Mint could reprice above that floor, but would not drop below it. That issue price floor would remain in place until the first batch is sold out.
So if platinum spot climbed from $1800 to $2400 an ounce, as spot reached the $2160 per ounce price, the Mint would float the issue price upwards on a daily basis at a fixed percentage over spot, say 2-5% - to ensure that issue price was never below spot, and to also ensure the Mint profitted from the increased spot price.
If spot then crashed from $2400 to $1500, the Mint would continue to float the issue price at 2-5% over spot during the drop from $2400 to $2160. Once spot dropped below $2160, the issue price would not float, but would stay fixed at the $2160 floor for the subsequent drop from $2160 to $1500.
Prices would never drop below the Mint's issue price floor for that run, which would insulate the Mint from the downside of bullion fluctuation and also help insulate collectors who purchased early from getting burned by subsequent lower issue prices).
Collectors and speculators might still have an incentive to buy the first run at $1500 spot with the $2160 issue price, since the higher premium to melt would result in lower interest, lower sales, and lower mintage figures, which might keep secondary market prices inflated once sales ended.
Assuming the initial run sold out with spot at $1500 despite its high premium to melt, and a second run was required, the Mint could raise its premium a bit to protect the first run buyers from a big mintage as the second run buyers swoop in.
So if the initial run was at spot $1800 + 20%, and the Mint's spot price for the second run was $1400, instead of setting the second run issue price floor at spot plus +20% ($1680 -- which would reward fence sitters, who might buy a significant quantity and raise mintages to the detriment of early purchasers), the Mint could would set the second run issue price floor taking into account the first run, and select an in-between point for the markup -- say, +30% -- which would make the second run issue price floor $1920 per ounce -- that would pass some of the savings from the drop in bullion to buyers who waited, while still keeping prices high enough above spot to ensure the possibility of lower mintages that would protect the early buyers from price deflation a bit.
Platinum started the year at below $1600 an ounce, and within two months popped to $2200 a month. It's hard to say what the Mint's acquisition cost was, though I suspect it purchased what it needed before the pop.
The 2007 reverse set pricing indicates that's the case-- those coins were minted before the platinum spot shot up, and the repricing only reflects the Mint wanting to take advantage of that.
No matter what, it would potential buyers tremendously if we knew what the Mint's intentions were.
If issue prices aren't going to be adjusted downwards for the 2008s, let us know. If there is some policy used to detemine prices, let us know.
The way the repricing has been handled is ridiculous. One day coins are available, the next they disappear from the Mint's website with no information, only to reappear weeks later with a price that seems to be have been set at random. Did the Mint Director throw a dart at a dartboard? Who knows?
There is a complete disconnect now between the issue price on the platinum collector coins and what the bullion market is, and we have no idea what, if anything, the Mint intends to do from here. I think we deserve better than that.
This would probably allow them to melt the 2008 and mix that with the cheaper platinum to cost average the coins.
Or they could have minted 2500 of each coin and they will sell those out. I would not expect to see any additional platinum coins (Proof & W Unc) to be minted this year.
Do we know conclusively that the Mint is mandated to never take a loss on material costs? I had never heard that until recently, here on this board.
I don't see how the Mint can play in this sandbox without either taking a loss occasionally or keeping the prices high - in which case, sales will be low. It's not like they can control the market in platinum.
Added: I have noticed that there are no platinum auctions left on ebay - almost every listing is now a fixed price or a "buy it now." This tells me that everyone is balking at the drop in prices, not just the Mint.
Industrial demand will ultimately set the price, if it needs setting.
I knew it would happen.
2006 w platinum coins were selling for 2 to 3x melt value back when platinum was $1200 an ounce.
2004 w platinum proofs were selling for $6,000+ a set when platinum was $900 an ounce.
These coins should not track spot.
The highwater mark of spot platinum, at around $2300 an ounce, largely obliterated numismatic premiums for all platinum coins except the 2004 proofs and the $10, $25 and $50 2006 w coins (and the $100 at MS70).
Now that spot has receded, the numismatic premium will be re-established.
The only question is where.
One of the coins we can easily track numismatic premium with is the 2006 w $100 coin, either raw or in MS69.
It's low mintage, and enjoyed a numismatic premium early in its life, but when platinum reached $1700-1800 the premium disappeared and started to track melt.
Now that platinum is back to $1550, I expect this coin to establish a secondary market price floor of somewhere around $1700.
I could be completely wrong - the platinum collector population may have been decimated when platinum popped to $2300 an ounce, creating what I will prematurely call the Great Platinum Melt of 2008.
If platinum returns to a more attainable price of $1200 an ounce or so, maybe we'll start to repopulate our diminished ranks.
Now that platinum seems to be dropping, what I think we need to have to bring collectors back is more reasonable prices on the 2009 platinum coins, AND a more compelling design than the uprooted tree on a disembodied hand selected by some committee. Sorry about the links, but I haven't mastered the art of putting images directly in posts.
The hand is disconnected from the body, the tree is disconnected from the soil, and the image is disconnected from the motto of "To Form a More Perfect Union."
"To Form a More Perfect Union" seems like a pretty lame motto, but if that's what it's going to be, use a better image.
That motto suggests the Constitution, and an image related to the signing or the document itself would seem more appropriate.
Perhaps modify an existing image showing the joining of the 3 branches, such as this one, on which justice carries a banner celebrating the birth of the Constitution
Or use an image of the Eagle carrying the Constitution in its talons.
I don't suggest this image, but it depicts how an Eagle could have a partly unfurled Constitution in its talons.
Actually this eagle works for me --
Eagles from the original Pennsylvania Station, by Adolph Weinman, ca. 1910
Seventh Ave. at 32nd St.
It has the big feet of our 2008 batman eagle, but it's a better looking bird.
Stick a partly unfurled Constitution in his talons, and we have a nice looking, relevant coin.
Looking at what the Post Office came up with for that motto, I don't have much hope.
Or just lose the motto completely, and focus on making a nice looking coin.
Proud recipient of two "You Suck" awards
We don't need some PC trash, we get that on the rest of the coins.....
I just cant believe some of the hairbrained things I've seen the past couple years.....Like thousands of overpriced reverse proofs and bending the limits on the 2007 half proofs.....I'ts like an all out assualt on a loyal collectors pocket book and common sense, and a very direct reason for the low sales this year. It almost seems like a purposeful distruction of the collector base, but why???????
Or just bad timing.
Here's my suggestion: an eagle over a nest with 13 eggs.......either that or a gigantic eagle scooping up indians and other races in its talons (although that would interupt the eagle alone one year and with a person the next pattern)
<< <i>
<< <i>
My 1/4 oz unc-W has a major hairline scratch on the obverse between the I and B in LIBERTY and extending into Liberty's crown. This one is definitely going back. I also notice the 1/10 oz has a much lower relief than the other denominations, making it look like a weak strike. >>
You're sure it's not a struck-through error? I saw a PCGS $25 2008 UNC plat with a struck through error of the same description... >>
Thanks for the pointer, kiyote. I think it is a struck-through error. I've decided to keep it. Might get it slabbed if I can get it labelled as such.
The noob design is a start in the right direction but some modification may be in order. How about using Liberty on the obverse with a finger in place of the torch? That might symbolize our new attitude toward all the refugees yearning to get on our welfare rolls.
the platinum collector population may have been decimated when platinum popped to $2300 an ounce, creating what I will prematurely call the Great Platinum Melt of 2008.
If platinum returns to a more attainable price of $1200 an ounce or so, maybe we'll start to repopulate our diminished ranks.
The difference now is that the economy is in worse shape than when platinum was last at $1200 an ounce. Demand for low-mintage platinum is likely to be less now than it was in 2005 to 2007. Also, the remaining demand may be shifting to the smaller fractionals. The $10 2006-W burnished plat appears to be holding up better, pricewise, than the larger denominations.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
That's an excellent point, and very true. Tighter credit and overall concern about housing and the rest of the market will almost certainly have a negative impact on collector demand.
Also, the remaining demand may be shifting to the smaller fractionals. The $10 2006-W burnished plat appears to be holding up better, pricewise, than the larger denominations.
Again, I basically agree with your point, though I'm not sure that we are observing a shift in demand on the smaller fractionals, so much as continued numismatic strength in existing demand.
Since the smaller fractionals are more affordable, the numismatic premium on those coins has demonstrated continued reslience even as bullion reached $2000 per ounce. So the 2006 w $10 coins continue to sell for $400+ per coin -- 2 to 3x melt -- while the equally rare $100 coins approached melt.
<< <i>This is the CCAC Recommendation:
What a shame. Shame on the CCAC. That is just ugly and looks cheap imho.
<< <i>This is the CCAC Recommendation:
Political correctness run amuck.
I'm surprised the women aren't kissing and the men holding hands.
<< <i>
<< <i>This is the CCAC Recommendation:
Political correctness run amuck.
I'm surprised the women aren't kissing and the men holding hands. >>
1. CCAC - Communal Citizens for American Correctness
2. Where does the privy mark go?
3. Obvious PC coin: Asian-, Indian-, African-, Euro-American. Where's the Latino? The Pacific Islander? The Illegal Alien? The Islamic terrorist?
Ren
The mint ain't going to be gettin' a penny out of my wallet for this #$%&!
mbogoman
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/classic-issues-colonials-through-1964/zambezi-collection-trade-dollars/7345Asesabi Lutho
If the chosen design does prevail, I will certainly consider dropping the series. Only problem: the mintage of these is going to be close to zero, which will probably make them the keys to the series. AAAARGH!
<< <i>Only problem: the mintage of these is going to be close to zero, which will probably make them the keys to the series. AAAARGH! >>
Mintage is meaningless if no one is going to collect them.
<< <i>
<< <i>Only problem: the mintage of these is going to be close to zero, which will probably make them the keys to the series. AAAARGH! >>
Mintage is meaningless if no one is going to collect them.
Probably right on that--at least for a couple of decades. The problem with ugly coins is that sometimes they start to look a lot better later on. I remember thinking the Library of Congress bimetallic looked cheap and gimmicky when it came out. Now I really love it and am kicking myself for not picking one up. On the other hand, Ikes have just gotten uglier (sorry IKE-GUYS), but they are at least interesting.
my early American coins & currency: -- http://yankeedoodlecoins.com/
mbogoman
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/classic-issues-colonials-through-1964/zambezi-collection-trade-dollars/7345Asesabi Lutho
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>This is the CCAC Recommendation:
Political correctness run amuck.
I'm surprised the women aren't kissing and the men holding hands. >>
1. CCAC - Communal Citizens for American Correctness
2. Where does the privy mark go?
3. Obvious PC coin: Asian-, Indian-, African-, Euro-American. Where's the Latino? The Pacific Islander? The Illegal Alien? The Islamic terrorist?
Ren >>
More diversity tripe from the communist compost heap. Just what this country needs.
I knew it would happen.
Box of 20
<< <i>there are probably so few platinum collectors left that they could put OUR faces on this coin. >>
I like that idea!!
You can already do that with stamps.
Since the mint is issuing coins more and more like the post office issues stamps it just makes sense.