I called the Mint last night and the rep. said that my status was backordered yet again ... The last time I wasable to check the status online it had said that mine would ship 2/21 ... I guess I'll wait another week and call back again. He also claimed that thousands of coins were ready to ship, but he had no info as to why they hadn't (could be the delivery issues that others have mentioned). He also said that since the mint took down the functionality to check status online it is causing other issues as well, not being able to see order history, etc.
With Gold now at $1,000, I wonder what the chances are of them cancelling, I know they said they wouldn't ... I had mine ordered within two hours of them being available 303*** ...
I had a pending charge on my card for the UHR, but now it is gone.
The CC co. said "they don't just fall off over time" and "if they put one on and took it back, we would see nothing now."
now.... they see nothing. no pending charge. >>
MsM, I had the same thing happen, I asked the mint rep about it, they said it was a normal thing to see and it meant that the mint was checking to see if the card was active and accessible. It also indicated that shipment was imminent. Of course . . . I saw this happen over 9 days ago and it still hasn't shipped, so their interpretation of imminent and mine are obviously somewhat different.
just a few days ago there was a thread about silver eagles due to come out during this current timeframe, maybe someone can remember and find it, anyway the thought I had on there was about not only this gold all sitting around on people's porches, so is a huge batch of silver now as well.
Has anyone heard about any silver eagles hitting the street lately?
Hi and thanks to those who have welcomed me to this thread.
I rec'd an email early this morning from the mint, they are shipping my lincoln silver dollars. Have tracking number, etc. No word about the UHR though.
Also, take a look at this article form yesterday regarding this situation, very interesting read:
U.S. Mint Issues Statements Regarding Fulfillment and Web Site Issues Friday February 20, 2009
The U.S. Mint has issued two statements this morning regarding the recent issues on its Web site. I'm going to publish both statements in their entirety because I know everyone will want to read them for themselves. The first statement seems to be a lot of blather that surrounds one very important point, which I have highlighted in bold. (Even though these statements are dated Feb. 19, they were released the morning of Feb. 20. The bold text does not appear in the original version sent by the Mint.) Product Shipping February 19, 2009
With the implementation of the United States Mint’s new contractor-operated fulfillment center and changes to shipping methods for our numismatic products, all shipments are now trackable.
Standard shipping is sent via FedEx Smart Post Presort (ground), which uses the United States Postal Service (USPS) for final delivery. All orders under standard shipping can be tracked through the FedEx Web site.
Expedited shipping (orders valued at more than $300 or by customer request) is now delivered by UPS (Air and International). All orders under expedited shipping can be tracked through the UPS Web site.
APO, FPO, and P.O. Box addresses are serviced by USPS Priority Mail. All orders shipped by Priority Mail can be tracked through the USPS Web site.
All packages will be insured for their full value.
When the United States Mint changed over to a new fulfillment contractor in January 2009, it dropped the signature requirement for most orders. Based on feedback from our customers, the United States Mint is preparing to return to a signature confirmation process for all orders of $300 or more and for all orders containing precious metal products. The United States Mint will announce the details of the reinstatement of this process by February 25, 2009.
Some shipping carriers do not immediately update their Web sites with the newest tracking information. It may take from six hours to several days for a United States Mint customer’s tracking information to be displayed on these sites. The United States Mint is exploring a way to upload this information to the carrier daily so customers have more timely access to their tracking information.
NOTE: The United States Mint has temporarily disabled its “Track My Order” feature on www.usmint.gov/catalog as it was referencing the old shipping methods. This feature will be restored in the next few days. However, customers can go directly to the carriers’ Web sites (FedEx, UPS, and USPS) to track their orders. Please refer to your order confirmation notice for the tracking number. So, buried in all this drivel is a very interesting admission on the part of the Mint: The fact that they admitted, without further explanation, dropping the signature requirement for "most orders." I can't help but wonder what the criteria is for qualifying for signature; it certainly isn't monetary value, with orders in excess of $350k being dumped on people's doorsteps. But I digress... What is alarming about this statement is the fact that the Mint seemingly intentionally did away with the security of requiring people to sign for their insured shipments! I find it really hard to believe that anybody would insure shipments of gold and silver coins without requiring some kind of oversight from the shippers! Was the Mint "self-insuring?" (Meaning that they would just eat the losses when they occurred?) None of this makes sense to anybody who thinks about it for more than 45 seconds. Although this is pure speculation, I think what happened was someone at the Mint screwed up and didn't prepare the fulfillment contract properly. Whether it was a typist who goofed and her boss didn't bother proofreading, or whether it was incompetence in the division that negotiates the fulfillment contracts, somebody dropped the ball here and the Mint doesn't want to admit it. I mean, think about it! Who in their right mind would intentionally create a system that ships thousands of dollars worth of solid gold coins, and not require any accountability on the part of the delivery chain? Without getting a signature from the end recipient, you could virtually never prove whether losses occurred because the UPS driver or postman pocketed the gold rather than delivering it, or the recipient decided to claim he never received it so he could steal it himself. It just boggles the mind that anybody would intentionally implement such a system! Thus my assertion that this has to have been a mistake on someone's part, and that the Mint has decided to try to cover it up. When you read the Mint's statement, it doesn't deny this possibility. The words say, "When the United States Mint changed over to a new fulfillment contractor in January 2009, it dropped the signature requirement for most orders." So true. But intentional? I don't think so! A real good question to ask might be why the Mint's fulfillment contractor, Pitney-Bowes Government Solutions, didn't catch this dangerous lapse and insist, for their own protection, that it be fixed. It's almost as if neither party bothered to read the contract closely. Just for the sake of discussion, though, let's assume that the Mint really did intend for this bizarre provision to be in the contract. What possible benefit would be there be for the Mint? Getting signature confirmation costs money, so maybe this was a money-saving effort! Maybe the Mint thought that the additional losses from theft and dishonesty would still cost them less than the small extra charge per order that the shippers charge to snag that sig. These charges typically run the Mint less than 0.5% (one half of one percent) of the order value (based on the fact that they kick in at the $300 order level and cost less than $2, sometimes little more than $1.) The sad thing about all this is that we have to speculate at all. If the Mint would be more forthcoming and direct, and less obstructive and secretive, the speculation would end because the truth would be out there for all to see. Instead we get absurd claims that the Mint created this order delivery security fiasco on purpose for some reason. IF this is true, the incompetency at the Mint is far worse than even the biggest skeptics claim. The Second Statement From the U.S. Mint All the smoke and mirrors about why they took the order tracking service offline is a distraction from the second issue - that of the Mint's Web site security breach. Here's the statement the Mint issued about that: Customer Orders February 19, 2009
The United States Mint is aware of a recent report, alleging that customer orders may have been cancelled without their authorization. Because the United States Mint is committed to respecting and protecting our customers' transactions on our catalog website, we take this report seriously and have taken steps to look into the matter. Once we have ascertained the facts, have determined the nature of this alleged activity, and have decided upon any corrective action, if needed, we will be able to provide you with an update. The functionality offered on our website through “Track My Order,” where the alleged activity may have occurred, is currently unavailable due to other maintenance issues. The “Track My Order” functionality will not be available until all potential issues have been addressed. This statement is basically a load of crap. Here's why: If the Mint's intention in taking down the tracking system was, as they say, to update the order-tracking options available from their shippers, then why take it off-line without notice and for a long period of time? If all they needed to do was an update, why not leave the service functioning for the benefit of their customers and then when the update is ready, swap out the old code and put in the new. It's done all the time on Web sites all over the net with nary a customer's notice. What really happened was that on Feb. 10, the Mint was formally notified in writing of the security breach, and by the morning of the 12th, the order tracking feature was suddenly non-functional. There was no error message nor any orderly process involved. Someone just suddenly yanked it from the Web, leaving a page that never loaded because the server kept trying to pull up a system that was disconnected at the other end. On about the 16th, the Mint finally fixed the non-loading page and put a terse explanation it its place, "This feature is temporarily unavailable. Please call 1-800-USA-MINT (872-6468) if you would like to track an order. We apologize for this inconvenience." The Mint's customer information security problems do not end with the order tracking feature on their Web site. After my own startling discovery that the Mint's customer service reps would read personal data from my file to me with nothing more than an order number and a first name, I began experimenting to see whether it was just this one poorly-trained rep at fault, or the entire system. I believe it's the entire system, because I was able to get reps to read all sorts of personal order details based on the order numbers alone. At one point, I asked a rep if she knew why the Mint's order tracking system on the Web was down, and she said, "yes, I do know, but I can't tell you why because it's confidential information!" Great customer service, huh? Even though the Mint managed to come up with two marginally informative statements this morning, we still do not have any answers about why customers who ordered the Ultra-High Relief coin got multiple and conflicting emails about their shipping dates. Since I've been asking about that since late January and still don't have an answer despite nearly daily promises that they would have it the next morning, I'm wondering what the big secret mess is behind that! If the Mint thinks that this is just going to go away if they procrastinate long enough, they're wrong. You know, it honestly pains me to have to write scathing coverage like this about our beloved Mint. I am about as pro-Mint as you can get! I love the coins they make, I am proud when American coins win international awards like COTY, and I generally try to portray our Mint in as favorable a light as possible. But everyone has a B.S. quota, and when that quota fills up, like most people, I get exasperated. I really wish the Mint would empower its Public Affairs office to be able to react and respond more quickly to public inquiries, without so much overhead and bureaucracy. For example, the first statement above was ready on Tuesday, but we didn't get it until Friday because it had to be vetted and approved by others. And I'm still waiting for information on other matters. What do you think about the Mint's latest statements? Share your thoughts in the Comments below, because the Mint does read the views you share, even if nothing ever seems to come of it...
<< <i>just a few days ago there was a thread about silver eagles due to come out during this current timeframe, maybe someone can remember and find it, anyway the thought I had on there was about not only this gold all sitting around on people's porches, so is a huge batch of silver now as well.
Has anyone heard about any silver eagles hitting the street lately?
No collector version of the ASE's have been released by the Mint and no date has been set. Only the business strikes are available, but not from the Mint. I believe you may be confused with the Lincoln Commem. $1 Silver Coins. Yes, delivery is being made, as I'm pounding the keys by UPS, and no signature is required at the time of delivery.
*still waiting for Yellerstone to explode >>
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
I'm the Coin Network fella who received the coin (a little before Charlie). Not only did we both cancel the book, but if you look at the earlier posts when everyone was doubting Charlie you will see that he suffered the same computer glitch I did. His order form was posted showing a 12:56AM order time, not PM. Mine did the same but was shown as 12:40AM. I was surprised you all didn't notice that it showed that he ordered it before it went on sale and kept taking about FIFO, so I joined to let you know how the early shipping happened.
Good Luck to the rest of you. >>
Wait, My order said it went through at 12:xx am (I can't check the exact time right now)
I guess I had the same glitch happen to me....I should have canceled my book!
I hope the combined FedEx/ USPS service is not like the one that UPS has with the USPS (it's called UPS Mail Innovations). It took me almost two weeks to get some memory modules I ordered using that "service". If the post office does change to 5 days a week service in the future, this will only slow it down worse.
I'm the Coin Network fella who received the coin (a little before Charlie). Not only did we both cancel the book, but if you look at the earlier posts when everyone was doubting Charlie you will see that he suffered the same computer glitch I did. His order form was posted showing a 12:56AM order time, not PM. Mine did the same but was shown as 12:40AM. I was surprised you all didn't notice that it showed that he ordered it before it went on sale and kept taking about FIFO, so I joined to let you know how the early shipping happened.
Good Luck to the rest of you. >>
Lureuin: please change your settings to allow "Private Messages" as I would like to contact you privately ASAP.
I have a question for MsMorrisine.....are your 91 posts just on this one thread? Did you join the message boards just to keep up with the UHR? No harm meant but I'm very curious. You do seem the most outspoken and p*ssed on here and I really don't blame you. I am just waiting for my UHR also and am worried cause I live in an apartment building in which packages are just left by my door. I want to KNOW when it ships and I WANT to TRACK the darn thing to know if it is expected at a certain date.
By the way I enjoy reading your mint updates and all the cr*ppy answers the mint gives you. Makes everyone here I'm sure feel like they are not aone.
"One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly making new discoveries" -A.A. Milne
I posted some on the Lincoln's thread and on wondercoins' "no signature" thread... but most are here.
when operations are this bad, one does not tell customers "i don't know" and then make no effort to even find the issue... much less escalate it to resolve it.
<< <i>I have a question for MsMorrisine.....are your 91 posts just on this one thread? Did you join the message boards just to keep up with the UHR? No harm meant but I'm very curious. You do seem the most outspoken and p*ssed on here and I really don't blame you. I am just waiting for my UHR also and am worried cause I live in an apartment building in which packages are just left by my door. I want to KNOW when it ships and I WANT to TRACK the darn thing to know if it is expected at a certain date.
By the way I enjoy reading your mint updates and all the cr*ppy answers the mint gives you. Makes everyone here I'm sure feel like they are not aone. >>
Apparently the Mint (now) shares your concern. The recent press release on the subject identifies the date of February 25th as when the tracking feature will be returned. I am guessing that they may well be holding up all the UHR orders from going out until the new tracking feature is in place.
MsM, Why not prepair a partition and let all the board members attach their signatures and send it to the Sect. of the Treasuary, a US Senator and a House or Represenative Member, stating all the lies and shenagians that have been going on. You seem to be very computer savvy. I am not or I would attempt it. This is not the way a division of the goverment should treat its customers. Chas. Edited to add: Coin World and Numismatic News should also receive a Copy.
Charles Crews ** CU Members that I have had Buy/sell deals with alohagary,dabigkahuna,goldman86,fivecents,endzone,clackamas,ericj96,Bochiman,Wingsrule,adriana,claychaser,holeinone1972,itsnotjustme,MJcoin,Kishul,jsego,TWQG,carlwolfort,jmski52,steelielee,grote15
Like I said no harm meant by my question, just curious. Thats good to know about the date they are planning to get the tracking page back up. I also have my Lincoln Comm. that has had my CC hit with an outstanding authorization for a while now but thats as far as I know its gone. ...atleast I hope so.
"One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly making new discoveries" -A.A. Milne
I was told today by the supervisor "Jan" then new date is Mar 6th... coincidentally, that's the same date on the website.... order now and you ship the same day as the rest of us!
(more lies)
in this thread are contacts at the mint...
i have already contacted the mint directors office and his assoc. dir. of sales and marketing and talked to someone there in legal.
look through the thread and you will see contact info. please use it too.
contact with serious issues, not individual order problems. remember: "major system failures." These are the top dogs running the mint. the inspector general's office cares about "waste, fraud, abuse" not one order.
mint director's office # 202-removed to protect my posterior his sales and marketing office # 202-removed to protect my posterior
they both have a voice mail, so leave the offices a message. Even if they don't call back they will have a feel for how farked PBGS is right now just by call volume.
There's a fax for the director's office, too: 202-remoed to protect my posterior
contact with serious issues, not individual order problems. remember: "major system failures." These are the top dogs running the mint. the inspector general's office cares about "waste, fraud, abuse" not one order.
contact with serious issues, not individual order problems. remember: "major system failures." These are the top dogs running the mint. the inspector general's office cares about "waste, fraud, abuse" not one order.
<< <i>MsM, Why not prepair a partition and let all the board members attach their signatures and send it to the Sect. of the Treasuary, a US Senator and a House or Represenative Member, stating all the lies and shenagians that have been going on. You seem to be very computer savvy. I am not or I would attempt it. This is not the way a division of the goverment should treat its customers. Chas. Edited to add: Coin World and Numismatic News should also receive a Copy. >>
I can't do it alone
I've made contact....
I beg you to call and leave messages or fax
contact with serious issues, not individual order problems. remember: "major system failures." These are the top dogs running the mint. the inspector general's office cares about "waste, fraud, abuse" not one order.
<< <i>I am just waiting for my UHR also and am worried cause I live in an apartment building in which packages are just left by my door. I want to KNOW when it ships and I WANT to TRACK the darn thing to know if it is expected at a certain date.
By the way I enjoy reading your mint updates and all the cr*ppy answers the mint gives you. Makes everyone here I'm sure feel like they are not aone. >>
MICMT - You can call UPS and tell them to require signature delivery on all packages delivered to your address... just in case
UHR Ordered on 1/22/09 @ 12:08PM Status: Received ... sent to grading
I just checked my CC account online and there's STILL a pending charge for $1193.00 that's been there for about a week already, and now they will not be shipping them until sometime in March?? My last email from them said 2/20
I'm tempted to call the mint on Monday and tell them to just cancel my order.
"MICMT - You can call UPS and tell them to require signature delivery on all packages delivered to your address... just in case"
Yes I've seen those posts. I will be doing that. I have been off work for the past few weeks after my move and have been home but I start my new job on monday so wont be here starting then....so I will need to contact them. Need to make sure thigns are not dropped off without a sig!!
"One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly making new discoveries" -A.A. Milne
When I called the US Mint yesterday, I was told they should be shipping sometime next week. Also, apparently many people have been calling and cancelling their orders.
I called the US Mint about another matter (returns) and then asked the status of my UHR order. The service rep said that the warehouse was closed on the weekend and that my order might ship next week but my credit card, which had been charged, now does not show any charge for the coin.
<< <i>I called the US Mint about another matter (returns) and then asked the status of my UHR order. The service rep said that the warehouse was closed on the weekend and that my order might ship next week but my credit card, which had been charged, now does not show any charge for the coin. >>
Seems to match the newest theory that the USMint is waiting until they have their new order tracking feature back on line by February 25th. Of course the other emerging theory is that they purposely sent out a few coins to get the 30 day First Strike Designation running, and will wait until the 30 days runs to send out the rest.
I talked to a higher up at someplace involved today.
Problem: potential issue is open regarding some accompanying material(s). I am keeping exaclty what thing or things a secret due to ---> the issue is in dispute with the parties involved. However, the issue doesn't and won't affect the coins.
What higher up told me: "They were told on friday to ship coins without those 'accompanying materials' ( ... shhh can't tell you what .. just going to say 'accompanying materials')" and when the issue is resolved the 'a. m.' will be shipped later at no cost to the consumer.
Obvious question asked: "Then why didn't they ship on friday?" Interpreted Reply: It takes time for the upper people to get the word and proper actions down to the lower people (my interpretation of what was said!).
I imparted my feelings that the "collecting public" would like the orders shipped next week, but also told higher up not to comment since I essentially ambushed the higher up and the higher up did not have key people to consult regarding anything exact. From what I can tell, with the large number of orders, it is not likely all the orders will ship the same day.
however, higher up is quite aware of the real issue and the idea of shipping just the coins as a solution, and I made higher up aware of "collecting public's" desire for getting the coins sooner rather than later.
<< <i>I called the US Mint about another matter (returns) and then asked the status of my UHR order. The service rep said that the warehouse was closed on the weekend and that my order might ship next week but my credit card, which had been charged, now does not show any charge for the coin. >>
Seems to match the newest theory that the USMint is waiting until they have their new order tracking feature back on line by February 25th. Of course the other emerging theory is that they purposely sent out a few coins to get the 30 day First Strike Designation running, and will wait until the 30 days runs to send out the rest. >>
Why would the mint want the 30 day window to close on First Strikes? I am not sure why they would have an interest. Please elaborate.
I talked to a higher up at someplace involved today.
Problem: potential issue is open regarding some accompanying material(s). I am keeping exaclty what thing or things a secret due to ---> the issue is in dispute with the parties involved. However, the issue doesn't and won't affect the coins.
What higher up told me: "They were told on friday to ship coins without those 'accompanying materials' ( ... shhh can't tell you what .. just going to say 'accompanying materials')" and when the issue is resolved the 'a. m.' will be shipped later at no cost to the consumer.
Obvious question asked: "Then why didn't they ship on friday?" Interpreted Reply: It takes time for the upper people to get the word and proper actions down to the lower people (my interpretation of what was said!).
I imparted my feelings that the "collecting public" would like the orders shipped next week, but also told higher up not to comment since I essentially ambushed the higher up and the higher up did not have key people to consult regarding anything exact. From what I can tell, with the large number of orders, it is not likely all the orders will ship the same day.
however, higher up is quite aware of the real issue and the idea of shipping just the coins as a solution, and I made higher up aware of "collecting public's" desire for getting the coins sooner rather than later.
I talked to a higher up at someplace involved today.
(edit) I am keeping exaclty what thing or things a secret due to ---> the issue is in dispute with the parties involved. However, the issue doesn't and won't affect the coins. (edit) ( ... shhh can't tell you what .. just going to say 'accompanying materials')" (edit)
I talked to a higher up at someplace involved today.
Problem: potential issue is open regarding some accompanying material(s). I am keeping exaclty what thing or things a secret due to ---> the issue is in dispute with the parties involved. However, the issue doesn't and won't affect the coins.
What higher up told me: "They were told on friday to ship coins without those 'accompanying materials' ( ... shhh can't tell you what .. just going to say 'accompanying materials')" and when the issue is resolved the 'a. m.' will be shipped later at no cost to the consumer.
Obvious question asked: "Then why didn't they ship on friday?" Interpreted Reply: It takes time for the upper people to get the word and proper actions down to the lower people (my interpretation of what was said!).
Didnt someone already say the books were screwed up and had to be re-printed?
I imparted my feelings that the "collecting public" would like the orders shipped next week, but also told higher up not to comment since I essentially ambushed the higher up and the higher up did not have key people to consult regarding anything exact. From what I can tell, with the large number of orders, it is not likely all the orders will ship the same day.
however, higher up is quite aware of the real issue and the idea of shipping just the coins as a solution, and I made higher up aware of "collecting public's" desire for getting the coins sooner rather than later.
It was actually stated in a earlier thread that the books arrived with folds in the covers and considered useless and that was what was holding up shipping until replacements arrived..
Because of extraordinary circumstances, FS window will probably close before many coins will be submitted.....as such the window should be extended. Extension should be thirty days beyond the real "initial" shipment of coins, not the one or two that dribbled out by mistake.
It is very apparent what happened.
Time to talk to PCGS management. That's who you need to work on.
Because of extraordinary circumstances, FS window will probably close before many coins will be submitted.....as such the window should be extended. Extension should be thirty days beyond the real "initial" shipment of coins, not the one or two that dribbled out by mistake.
It is very apparent what happened.
Time to talk to PCGS management. That's who you need to work on. >>
start a new UHS specific FS/First Release thread on it.
no offense to CharlieC, but I would think he would want PCGS to honor it's rule.
Me? well, it'd be nice if they did extend it, but on what basis do they then stop FS/ER labelling?
What would PCGS/NGC use as proof of an early order? I could alter my order e-mail to show an earlier number and order time and e-mail that to PCGS.
we do know from coins.about.com that the mint pre-produced 29,000 coins. if only the mint would issue a press release and announce the day the first 29,000 were shipped.... maybe if that could be arranged, then that might be a viable solution... who knows though since the mint does not recognize any single coin as FS since they don't keep track of mint date and time for each coin.
And all graders would likely need to extend it, or one Co. would use it against the other in marketing.
lots of issues separate from pure "where's my UHR order" so, my vote is for a new thread on it.
not trying to be defeatist sounding.... just trying to make a point that there will likely be lots of discussion... so my vote is a new thread for it. thus the comments above as an example of all the different talk that might come up... besides the pictures such as the "addiction" one above.
<< <i>I called the US Mint about another matter (returns) and then asked the status of my UHR order. The service rep said that the warehouse was closed on the weekend and that my order might ship next week but my credit card, which had been charged, now does not show any charge for the coin. >>
Seems to match the newest theory that the USMint is waiting until they have their new order tracking feature back on line by February 25th. Of course the other emerging theory is that they purposely sent out a few coins to get the 30 day First Strike Designation running, and will wait until the 30 days runs to send out the rest. >>
Why would the mint want the 30 day window to close on First Strikes? I am not sure why they would have an interest. Please elaborate. >>
Well obviously that supposition is a bit tongue in cheek, but if you read the USMint's response to the whole First Strike thing (as it was posted on the deleted thread from yesterday that was lambasting First Strikes) you could infer that there may well be some bias against the whole First Strike designations by the US Mint officials.
<< <i>I called the US Mint about another matter (returns) and then asked the status of my UHR order. The service rep said that the warehouse was closed on the weekend and that my order might ship next week but my credit card, which had been charged, now does not show any charge for the coin. >>
Seems to match the newest theory that the USMint is waiting until they have their new order tracking feature back on line by February 25th. Of course the other emerging theory is that they purposely sent out a few coins to get the 30 day First Strike Designation running, and will wait until the 30 days runs to send out the rest. >>
Why would the mint want the 30 day window to close on First Strikes? I am not sure why they would have an interest. Please elaborate. >>
Well obviously that supposition is a bit tongue in cheek, but if you read the USMint's response to the whole First Strike thing (as it was posted on the deleted thread from yesterday that was lambasting First Strikes) you could infer that there may well be some bias against the whole First Strike designations by the US Mint officials. >>
Does the mint not want TPG rating coins as first strikes. I have heard this mentioned and am curious why they would oppose the designation.
Can someone please give me a little info on the "mint lambasting the whole FS thing". Was it posted by the mint? What did it say?
CryptoMan- You were obviously in a G-2 type environment, so should be use to the lack of intelligence when dealing with the government. It was most likely the canceling of the book on the first day that caused a few to get shipped out. One of the first things you learn in the military is "Don't shoot the messenger", be happy you got some info. Do yourself a favor and leave the IG out of this one. lol Also, there are more than 2 out already.
All= I thought it was the AM/PM thing but you all have already corrected me on that, and I thank you for that.
MsM- You can send your message, but please don't get carried away. I want everyone to get their coin as bad as everyone wants to get them. I also know no one at or involved with the mint or PBGS if that's where you're going.
The United States Mint has received inquiries from consumers regarding use of the term "first strike." The term has appeared in connection with the advertising and grading of 2005 and 2006 silver, gold, and platinum proof and bullion American Eagle Coins, and the new 2006 24-karat proof and bullion American Buffalo Gold Coins. Currently, there is no widely-accepted and standardized numismatic industry definition of "first strike." Coin dealers and grading services may use this term in varying ways. Some base its use on dates appearing on United States Mint product packaging or packing slips, or on the dates of product releases or ceremonial coin strike events. Consumers should carefully review the following information along with each dealer’s or grading service’s definition of "first strike" when considering a purchase of coins with this designation.
The United States Mint has not designated any 2005 or 2006 American Eagle Coins or 2006 American Buffalo Coins as "first strikes," nor do we track the order in which we mint such coins during their production. The United States Mint held a launch ceremony for the 2006 American Buffalo Gold Coin on June 20, 2006, two days before its release on June 22, at which two proof coins and two uncirculated coins were ceremonially struck. However, those coins were not individually identified and were put in regular inventory after the ceremony. The United States Mint did not hold any striking ceremonies for the 2005 or 2006 American Eagle Coins.
The United States Mint strives to produce coins of consistently high quality throughout the course of production. Our strict quality controls assure that coins of this caliber are produced from each die set throughout its useful life. Our manufacturing facilities use a die set as long as the quality of resulting coins meets United States Mint standards, and then replace the dies, continually changing sets throughout the production process. For bullion American Eagle and American Buffalo Coins, the United States Mint makes an average of about 6,000 coins from one die set. For proof versions of the 2006 American Buffalo Coins, the yield is an average of about 1,500 coins per die set. For proof versions of the American Eagle Coins, the yield is an average of about 300-500 coins per die set. This means that coins may be minted from new die sets at any point and at multiple times while production of a coin is ongoing, not just the first day or at the beginning of production. To put this in context, in 2005 the United States Mint produced approximately 356,500 one-ounce gold, 8,891,000 silver, and 6,300 one-ounce platinum American Eagle Bullion Coins.
American Eagle and American Buffalo Coins are not individually numbered and the United States Mint does not keep track of the order or date of minting of individual bullion or proof coins. The United States Mint begins production several weeks before these coins are scheduled to be released. By the release dates for 2005 and 2006 bullion coins, the United States Mint had already minted approximately 50% of the projected sales numbers for these coins. Any dates on shipping boxes containing uncirculated bullion coins sent to Authorized Purchasers are strictly for quality control and accounting purposes at the United States Mint at West Point. The date on the box represents the date that the box was packed, verified as 500 ounces and sealed, and the date of packaging does not necessarily correlate with the date of manufacture. The date on shipping labels and packing slips for proof coins, which are sent directly to United States Mint customers from our fulfillment center, is the date the item was packed and shipped by the fulfillment center. The other numbers on the shipping label and packing slip are used to track the order and for quality control.
Thanks Captain Q!!! Earlier in this thread I thought I read that something had been posted and then removed. This is the current statement in "Hot Topics" at the mint. I thought something new had been released and then removed. Thanks for the response and hope you get your coin soon.
The United States Mint has received inquiries from consumers regarding use of the term "first strike." The term has appeared in connection with the advertising and grading of 2005 and 2006 silver, gold, and platinum proof and bullion American Eagle Coins, and the new 2006 24-karat proof and bullion American Buffalo Gold Coins. Currently, there is no widely-accepted and standardized numismatic industry definition of "first strike." Coin dealers and grading services may use this term in varying ways. Some base its use on dates appearing on United States Mint product packaging or packing slips, or on the dates of product releases or ceremonial coin strike events. Consumers should carefully review the following information along with each dealer’s or grading service’s definition of "first strike" when considering a purchase of coins with this designation.
The United States Mint has not designated any 2005 or 2006 American Eagle Coins or 2006 American Buffalo Coins as "first strikes," nor do we track the order in which we mint such coins during their production. The United States Mint held a launch ceremony for the 2006 American Buffalo Gold Coin on June 20, 2006, two days before its release on June 22, at which two proof coins and two uncirculated coins were ceremonially struck. However, those coins were not individually identified and were put in regular inventory after the ceremony. The United States Mint did not hold any striking ceremonies for the 2005 or 2006 American Eagle Coins.
The United States Mint strives to produce coins of consistently high quality throughout the course of production. Our strict quality controls assure that coins of this caliber are produced from each die set throughout its useful life. Our manufacturing facilities use a die set as long as the quality of resulting coins meets United States Mint standards, and then replace the dies, continually changing sets throughout the production process. For bullion American Eagle and American Buffalo Coins, the United States Mint makes an average of about 6,000 coins from one die set. For proof versions of the 2006 American Buffalo Coins, the yield is an average of about 1,500 coins per die set. For proof versions of the American Eagle Coins, the yield is an average of about 300-500 coins per die set. This means that coins may be minted from new die sets at any point and at multiple times while production of a coin is ongoing, not just the first day or at the beginning of production. To put this in context, in 2005 the United States Mint produced approximately 356,500 one-ounce gold, 8,891,000 silver, and 6,300 one-ounce platinum American Eagle Bullion Coins.
American Eagle and American Buffalo Coins are not individually numbered and the United States Mint does not keep track of the order or date of minting of individual bullion or proof coins. The United States Mint begins production several weeks before these coins are scheduled to be released. By the release dates for 2005 and 2006 bullion coins, the United States Mint had already minted approximately 50% of the projected sales numbers for these coins. Any dates on shipping boxes containing uncirculated bullion coins sent to Authorized Purchasers are strictly for quality control and accounting purposes at the United States Mint at West Point. The date on the box represents the date that the box was packed, verified as 500 ounces and sealed, and the date of packaging does not necessarily correlate with the date of manufacture. The date on shipping labels and packing slips for proof coins, which are sent directly to United States Mint customers from our fulfillment center, is the date the item was packed and shipped by the fulfillment center. The other numbers on the shipping label and packing slip are used to track the order and for quality control.
$1800 was a safe premium to pay considering there may be very few Early Release. I think they will be released in time for thousands to be designated Early Release/First Strike but at this time we don't know for sure (and believe it or not, I've been wrong before).
Comments
I called the Mint last night and the rep. said that my status was backordered yet again ... The last time I wasable to check the status online it had said that mine would ship 2/21 ... I guess I'll wait another week and call back again. He also claimed that thousands of coins were ready to ship, but he had no info as to why they hadn't (could be the delivery issues that others have mentioned). He also said that since the mint took down the functionality to check status online it is causing other issues as well, not being able to see order history, etc.
With Gold now at $1,000, I wonder what the chances are of them cancelling, I know they said they wouldn't ... I had mine ordered within two hours of them being available 303*** ...
Bob
<< <i>Retaliation from PBGS?
I had a pending charge on my card for the UHR, but now it is gone.
The CC co. said "they don't just fall off over time" and "if they put one on and took it back, we would see nothing now."
now.... they see nothing. no pending charge. >>
MsM, I had the same thing happen, I asked the mint rep about it, they said it was a normal thing to see and it meant that the mint was checking to see if the card was active and accessible. It also indicated that shipment was imminent. Of course . . . I saw this happen over 9 days ago and it still hasn't shipped, so their interpretation of imminent and mine are obviously somewhat different.
Has anyone heard about any silver eagles hitting the street lately?
*still waiting for Yellerstone to explode
I rec'd an email early this morning from the mint, they are shipping my lincoln silver dollars. Have tracking number, etc. No word about the UHR though.
Also, take a look at this article form yesterday regarding this situation, very interesting read:
U.S. Mint Issues Statements Regarding Fulfillment and Web Site Issues
Friday February 20, 2009
The U.S. Mint has issued two statements this morning regarding the recent issues on its Web site. I'm going to publish both statements in their entirety because I know everyone will want to read them for themselves. The first statement seems to be a lot of blather that surrounds one very important point, which I have highlighted in bold. (Even though these statements are dated Feb. 19, they were released the morning of Feb. 20. The bold text does not appear in the original version sent by the Mint.)
Product Shipping
February 19, 2009
With the implementation of the United States Mint’s new contractor-operated fulfillment center and changes to shipping methods for our numismatic products, all shipments are now trackable.
Standard shipping is sent via FedEx Smart Post Presort (ground), which uses the United States Postal Service (USPS) for final delivery. All orders under standard shipping can be tracked through the FedEx Web site.
Expedited shipping (orders valued at more than $300 or by customer request) is now delivered by UPS (Air and International). All orders under expedited shipping can be tracked through the UPS Web site.
APO, FPO, and P.O. Box addresses are serviced by USPS Priority Mail. All orders shipped by Priority Mail can be tracked through the USPS Web site.
All packages will be insured for their full value.
When the United States Mint changed over to a new fulfillment contractor in January 2009, it dropped the signature requirement for most orders. Based on feedback from our customers, the United States Mint is preparing to return to a signature confirmation process for all orders of $300 or more and for all orders containing precious metal products. The United States Mint will announce the details of the reinstatement of this process by February 25, 2009.
Some shipping carriers do not immediately update their Web sites with the newest tracking information. It may take from six hours to several days for a United States Mint customer’s tracking information to be displayed on these sites. The United States Mint is exploring a way to upload this information to the carrier daily so customers have more timely access to their tracking information.
NOTE: The United States Mint has temporarily disabled its “Track My Order” feature on www.usmint.gov/catalog as it was referencing the old shipping methods. This feature will be restored in the next few days. However, customers can go directly to the carriers’ Web sites (FedEx, UPS, and USPS) to track their orders. Please refer to your order confirmation notice for the tracking number.
So, buried in all this drivel is a very interesting admission on the part of the Mint: The fact that they admitted, without further explanation, dropping the signature requirement for "most orders." I can't help but wonder what the criteria is for qualifying for signature; it certainly isn't monetary value, with orders in excess of $350k being dumped on people's doorsteps. But I digress...
What is alarming about this statement is the fact that the Mint seemingly intentionally did away with the security of requiring people to sign for their insured shipments! I find it really hard to believe that anybody would insure shipments of gold and silver coins without requiring some kind of oversight from the shippers! Was the Mint "self-insuring?" (Meaning that they would just eat the losses when they occurred?) None of this makes sense to anybody who thinks about it for more than 45 seconds.
Although this is pure speculation, I think what happened was someone at the Mint screwed up and didn't prepare the fulfillment contract properly. Whether it was a typist who goofed and her boss didn't bother proofreading, or whether it was incompetence in the division that negotiates the fulfillment contracts, somebody dropped the ball here and the Mint doesn't want to admit it. I mean, think about it! Who in their right mind would intentionally create a system that ships thousands of dollars worth of solid gold coins, and not require any accountability on the part of the delivery chain? Without getting a signature from the end recipient, you could virtually never prove whether losses occurred because the UPS driver or postman pocketed the gold rather than delivering it, or the recipient decided to claim he never received it so he could steal it himself. It just boggles the mind that anybody would intentionally implement such a system! Thus my assertion that this has to have been a mistake on someone's part, and that the Mint has decided to try to cover it up.
When you read the Mint's statement, it doesn't deny this possibility. The words say, "When the United States Mint changed over to a new fulfillment contractor in January 2009, it dropped the signature requirement for most orders." So true. But intentional? I don't think so!
A real good question to ask might be why the Mint's fulfillment contractor, Pitney-Bowes Government Solutions, didn't catch this dangerous lapse and insist, for their own protection, that it be fixed. It's almost as if neither party bothered to read the contract closely.
Just for the sake of discussion, though, let's assume that the Mint really did intend for this bizarre provision to be in the contract. What possible benefit would be there be for the Mint? Getting signature confirmation costs money, so maybe this was a money-saving effort! Maybe the Mint thought that the additional losses from theft and dishonesty would still cost them less than the small extra charge per order that the shippers charge to snag that sig. These charges typically run the Mint less than 0.5% (one half of one percent) of the order value (based on the fact that they kick in at the $300 order level and cost less than $2, sometimes little more than $1.)
The sad thing about all this is that we have to speculate at all. If the Mint would be more forthcoming and direct, and less obstructive and secretive, the speculation would end because the truth would be out there for all to see. Instead we get absurd claims that the Mint created this order delivery security fiasco on purpose for some reason. IF this is true, the incompetency at the Mint is far worse than even the biggest skeptics claim.
The Second Statement From the U.S. Mint
All the smoke and mirrors about why they took the order tracking service offline is a distraction from the second issue - that of the Mint's Web site security breach. Here's the statement the Mint issued about that:
Customer Orders
February 19, 2009
The United States Mint is aware of a recent report, alleging that customer orders may have been cancelled without their authorization. Because the United States Mint is committed to respecting and protecting our customers' transactions on our catalog website, we take this report seriously and have taken steps to look into the matter. Once we have ascertained the facts, have determined the nature of this alleged activity, and have decided upon any corrective action, if needed, we will be able to provide you with an update. The functionality offered on our website through “Track My Order,” where the alleged activity may have occurred, is currently unavailable due to other maintenance issues. The “Track My Order” functionality will not be available until all potential issues have been addressed.
This statement is basically a load of crap. Here's why: If the Mint's intention in taking down the tracking system was, as they say, to update the order-tracking options available from their shippers, then why take it off-line without notice and for a long period of time? If all they needed to do was an update, why not leave the service functioning for the benefit of their customers and then when the update is ready, swap out the old code and put in the new. It's done all the time on Web sites all over the net with nary a customer's notice.
What really happened was that on Feb. 10, the Mint was formally notified in writing of the security breach, and by the morning of the 12th, the order tracking feature was suddenly non-functional. There was no error message nor any orderly process involved. Someone just suddenly yanked it from the Web, leaving a page that never loaded because the server kept trying to pull up a system that was disconnected at the other end. On about the 16th, the Mint finally fixed the non-loading page and put a terse explanation it its place, "This feature is temporarily unavailable. Please call 1-800-USA-MINT (872-6468) if you would like to track an order. We apologize for this inconvenience."
The Mint's customer information security problems do not end with the order tracking feature on their Web site. After my own startling discovery that the Mint's customer service reps would read personal data from my file to me with nothing more than an order number and a first name, I began experimenting to see whether it was just this one poorly-trained rep at fault, or the entire system. I believe it's the entire system, because I was able to get reps to read all sorts of personal order details based on the order numbers alone.
At one point, I asked a rep if she knew why the Mint's order tracking system on the Web was down, and she said, "yes, I do know, but I can't tell you why because it's confidential information!" Great customer service, huh?
Even though the Mint managed to come up with two marginally informative statements this morning, we still do not have any answers about why customers who ordered the Ultra-High Relief coin got multiple and conflicting emails about their shipping dates. Since I've been asking about that since late January and still don't have an answer despite nearly daily promises that they would have it the next morning, I'm wondering what the big secret mess is behind that! If the Mint thinks that this is just going to go away if they procrastinate long enough, they're wrong.
You know, it honestly pains me to have to write scathing coverage like this about our beloved Mint. I am about as pro-Mint as you can get! I love the coins they make, I am proud when American coins win international awards like COTY, and I generally try to portray our Mint in as favorable a light as possible. But everyone has a B.S. quota, and when that quota fills up, like most people, I get exasperated. I really wish the Mint would empower its Public Affairs office to be able to react and respond more quickly to public inquiries, without so much overhead and bureaucracy. For example, the first statement above was ready on Tuesday, but we didn't get it until Friday because it had to be vetted and approved by others. And I'm still waiting for information on other matters.
What do you think about the Mint's latest statements? Share your thoughts in the Comments below, because the Mint does read the views you share, even if nothing ever seems to come of it...
<< <i>just a few days ago there was a thread about silver eagles due to come out during this current timeframe, maybe someone can remember and find it, anyway the thought I had on there was about not only this gold all sitting around on people's porches, so is a huge batch of silver now as well.
Has anyone heard about any silver eagles hitting the street lately?
No collector version of the ASE's have been released by the Mint and no date has been set. Only the business strikes are available, but not from the Mint.
I believe you may be confused with the Lincoln Commem. $1 Silver Coins. Yes, delivery is being made, as I'm pounding the keys by UPS, and no signature is required at the time of delivery.
*still waiting for Yellerstone to explode >>
I'm still on my first coffee of the day...
<< <i>Congrats Charley
I'm the Coin Network fella who received the coin (a little before Charlie). Not only did we both cancel the book, but if you look at the earlier posts when everyone was doubting Charlie you will see that he suffered the same computer glitch I did. His order form was posted showing a 12:56AM order time, not PM. Mine did the same but was shown as 12:40AM. I was surprised you all didn't notice that it showed that he ordered it before it went on sale and kept taking about FIFO, so I joined to let you know how the early shipping happened.
Good Luck to the rest of you. >>
Wait, My order said it went through at 12:xx am (I can't check the exact time right now)
I guess I had the same glitch happen to me....I should have canceled my book!
-Paul
Thanks for the info RedSoxinNYC!
also sarcatically said "if you know that orders were recevied out of turn, contact the mint. I don't know that and have no way of confirming that."
<< <i>Congrats Charley
I'm the Coin Network fella who received the coin (a little before Charlie). Not only did we both cancel the book, but if you look at the earlier posts when everyone was doubting Charlie you will see that he suffered the same computer glitch I did. His order form was posted showing a 12:56AM order time, not PM. Mine did the same but was shown as 12:40AM. I was surprised you all didn't notice that it showed that he ordered it before it went on sale and kept taking about FIFO, so I joined to let you know how the early shipping happened.
Good Luck to the rest of you. >>
Lureuin: please change your settings to allow "Private Messages" as I would like to contact you privately ASAP.
By the way I enjoy reading your mint updates and all the cr*ppy answers the mint gives you. Makes everyone here I'm sure feel like they are not aone.
when operations are this bad, one does not tell customers "i don't know" and then make no effort to even find the issue... much less escalate it to resolve it.
(and lie to make it worse)
<< <i>I have a question for MsMorrisine.....are your 91 posts just on this one thread? Did you join the message boards just to keep up with the UHR? No harm meant but I'm very curious. You do seem the most outspoken and p*ssed on here and I really don't blame you. I am just waiting for my UHR also and am worried cause I live in an apartment building in which packages are just left by my door. I want to KNOW when it ships and I WANT to TRACK the darn thing to know if it is expected at a certain date.
By the way I enjoy reading your mint updates and all the cr*ppy answers the mint gives you. Makes everyone here I'm sure feel like they are not aone. >>
Apparently the Mint (now) shares your concern. The recent press release on the subject identifies the date of February 25th as when the tracking feature will be returned. I am guessing that they may well be holding up all the UHR orders from going out until the new tracking feature is in place.
Why not prepair a partition and let all the board members attach their signatures and send it to the Sect. of the Treasuary, a US Senator and a House or Represenative Member, stating all the lies and shenagians that have been going on. You seem to be very computer savvy. I am not or I would attempt it. This is not the way a division of the goverment should treat its customers. Chas. Edited to add: Coin World and Numismatic News should also receive a Copy.
(more lies)
in this thread are contacts at the mint...
i have already contacted the mint directors office and his assoc. dir. of sales and marketing and talked to someone there in legal.
look through the thread and you will see contact info. please use it too.
contact with serious issues, not individual order problems. remember: "major system failures." These are the top dogs running the mint. the inspector general's office cares about "waste, fraud, abuse" not one order.
mint director's office # 202-removed to protect my posterior
his sales and marketing office # 202-removed to protect my posterior
they both have a voice mail, so leave the offices a message. Even if they don't call back they will have a feel for how farked PBGS is right now just by call volume.
There's a fax for the director's office, too: 202-remoed to protect my posterior
contact with serious issues, not individual order problems. remember: "major system failures." These are the top dogs running the mint. the inspector general's office cares about "waste, fraud, abuse" not one order.
<< <i>MsM,
Why not prepair a partition and let all the board members attach their signatures and send it to the Sect. of the Treasuary, a US Senator and a House or Represenative Member, stating all the lies and shenagians that have been going on. You seem to be very computer savvy. I am not or I would attempt it. This is not the way a division of the goverment should treat its customers. Chas. Edited to add: Coin World and Numismatic News should also receive a Copy. >>
I can't do it alone
I've made contact....
I beg you to call and leave messages or fax
contact with serious issues, not individual order problems. remember: "major system failures." These are the top dogs running the mint. the inspector general's office cares about "waste, fraud, abuse" not one order.
<< <i>I am just waiting for my UHR also and am worried cause I live in an apartment building in which packages are just left by my door. I want to KNOW when it ships and I WANT to TRACK the darn thing to know if it is expected at a certain date.
By the way I enjoy reading your mint updates and all the cr*ppy answers the mint gives you. Makes everyone here I'm sure feel like they are not aone. >>
MICMT - You can call UPS and tell them to require signature delivery on all packages delivered to your address... just in case
Status: Received
I'm tempted to call the mint on Monday and tell them to just cancel my order.
Yes I've seen those posts. I will be doing that. I have been off work for the past few weeks after my move and have been home but I start my new job on monday so wont be here starting then....so I will need to contact them. Need to make sure thigns are not dropped off without a sig!!
Also, apparently many people have been calling and cancelling their orders.
<< <i>I called the US Mint about another matter (returns) and then asked the status of my UHR order. The service rep said that the warehouse was closed on the weekend and that my order might ship next week but my credit card, which had been charged, now does not show any charge for the coin.
Seems to match the newest theory that the USMint is waiting until they have their new order tracking feature back on line by February 25th. Of course the other emerging theory is that they purposely sent out a few coins to get the 30 day First Strike Designation running, and will wait until the 30 days runs to send out the rest.
I talked to a higher up at someplace involved today.
Problem: potential issue is open regarding some accompanying material(s). I am keeping exaclty what thing or things a secret due to ---> the issue is in dispute with the parties involved. However, the issue doesn't and won't affect the coins.
What higher up told me: "They were told on friday to ship coins without those 'accompanying materials' ( ... shhh can't tell you what .. just going to say 'accompanying materials')" and when the issue is resolved the 'a. m.' will be shipped later at no cost to the consumer.
Obvious question asked: "Then why didn't they ship on friday?" Interpreted Reply: It takes time for the upper people to get the word and proper actions down to the lower people (my interpretation of what was said!).
I imparted my feelings that the "collecting public" would like the orders shipped next week, but also told higher up not to comment since I essentially ambushed the higher up and the higher up did not have key people to consult regarding anything exact. From what I can tell, with the large number of orders, it is not likely all the orders will ship the same day.
however, higher up is quite aware of the real issue and the idea of shipping just the coins as a solution, and I made higher up aware of "collecting public's" desire for getting the coins sooner rather than later.
So, that is what I have for now.
<< <i>
<< <i>I called the US Mint about another matter (returns) and then asked the status of my UHR order. The service rep said that the warehouse was closed on the weekend and that my order might ship next week but my credit card, which had been charged, now does not show any charge for the coin.
Seems to match the newest theory that the USMint is waiting until they have their new order tracking feature back on line by February 25th. Of course the other emerging theory is that they purposely sent out a few coins to get the 30 day First Strike Designation running, and will wait until the 30 days runs to send out the rest. >>
Why would the mint want the 30 day window to close on First Strikes? I am not sure why they would have an interest. Please elaborate.
<< <i>I cannot disclose my source
I talked to a higher up at someplace involved today.
Problem: potential issue is open regarding some accompanying material(s). I am keeping exaclty what thing or things a secret due to ---> the issue is in dispute with the parties involved. However, the issue doesn't and won't affect the coins.
What higher up told me: "They were told on friday to ship coins without those 'accompanying materials' ( ... shhh can't tell you what .. just going to say 'accompanying materials')" and when the issue is resolved the 'a. m.' will be shipped later at no cost to the consumer.
Obvious question asked: "Then why didn't they ship on friday?" Interpreted Reply: It takes time for the upper people to get the word and proper actions down to the lower people (my interpretation of what was said!).
I imparted my feelings that the "collecting public" would like the orders shipped next week, but also told higher up not to comment since I essentially ambushed the higher up and the higher up did not have key people to consult regarding anything exact. From what I can tell, with the large number of orders, it is not likely all the orders will ship the same day.
however, higher up is quite aware of the real issue and the idea of shipping just the coins as a solution, and I made higher up aware of "collecting public's" desire for getting the coins sooner rather than later.
So, that is what I have for now. >>
I guess we are talking about the books???
<< <i>
<< <i>I cannot disclose my source
I talked to a higher up at someplace involved today.
(edit)
I am keeping exaclty what thing or things a secret due to ---> the issue is in dispute with the parties involved. However, the issue doesn't and won't affect the coins.
(edit)
( ... shhh can't tell you what .. just going to say 'accompanying materials')"
(edit)
So, that is what I have for now. >>
I guess we are talking about the books??? >>
are we?
I don't recall at this time.
<< <i>I cannot disclose my source
I talked to a higher up at someplace involved today.
Problem: potential issue is open regarding some accompanying material(s). I am keeping exaclty what thing or things a secret due to ---> the issue is in dispute with the parties involved. However, the issue doesn't and won't affect the coins.
What higher up told me: "They were told on friday to ship coins without those 'accompanying materials' ( ... shhh can't tell you what .. just going to say 'accompanying materials')" and when the issue is resolved the 'a. m.' will be shipped later at no cost to the consumer.
Obvious question asked: "Then why didn't they ship on friday?" Interpreted Reply: It takes time for the upper people to get the word and proper actions down to the lower people (my interpretation of what was said!).
Didnt someone already say the books were screwed up and had to be re-printed?
I imparted my feelings that the "collecting public" would like the orders shipped next week, but also told higher up not to comment since I essentially ambushed the higher up and the higher up did not have key people to consult regarding anything exact. From what I can tell, with the large number of orders, it is not likely all the orders will ship the same day.
however, higher up is quite aware of the real issue and the idea of shipping just the coins as a solution, and I made higher up aware of "collecting public's" desire for getting the coins sooner rather than later.
So, that is what I have for now. >>
thus, not a word more.
and has no qualms about it.
when did the customer go from king to shiite ?
PCGS should take notice.....
Because of extraordinary circumstances, FS window will probably close before many coins will be submitted.....as such the window should be extended. Extension should be thirty days beyond the real "initial" shipment of coins, not the one or two that dribbled out by mistake.
It is very apparent what happened.
Time to talk to PCGS management. That's who you need to work on.
When you ask em when your
coins have went
and they answer, please get bent
Take a moment and be of good cheer
your coins will arrive, sometime next year.
Camelot
<< <i>I said this many times....
PCGS should take notice.....
Because of extraordinary circumstances, FS window will probably close before many coins will be submitted.....as such the window should be extended. Extension should be thirty days beyond the real "initial" shipment of coins, not the one or two that dribbled out by mistake.
It is very apparent what happened.
Time to talk to PCGS management. That's who you need to work on. >>
start a new UHS specific FS/First Release thread on it.
no offense to CharlieC, but I would think he would want PCGS to honor it's rule.
Me? well, it'd be nice if they did extend it, but on what basis do they then stop FS/ER labelling?
What would PCGS/NGC use as proof of an early order? I could alter my order e-mail to show an earlier number and order time and e-mail that to PCGS.
we do know from coins.about.com that the mint pre-produced 29,000 coins. if only the mint would issue a press release and announce the day the first 29,000 were shipped.... maybe if that could be arranged, then that might be a viable solution... who knows though since the mint does not recognize any single coin as FS since they don't keep track of mint date and time for each coin.
And all graders would likely need to extend it, or one Co. would use it against the other in marketing.
lots of issues separate from pure "where's my UHR order" so, my vote is for a new thread on it.
not trying to be defeatist sounding.... just trying to make a point that there will likely be lots of discussion... so my vote is a new thread for it. thus the comments above as an example of all the different talk that might come up... besides the pictures such as the "addiction" one above.
What would PCGS want to change the "First Strike" date. they have nothing to gain and a lot to lose.
If there remains only a handful of First Stirkes (maybe 1 or 2) it would bring great PR for first strikes.
I think they shouild keep it the way it is. I too am waiting for my UHR's and still can not believe that the
Mint will not ship these before 3/11.
And if they don't, oh well, this too we will survive.
Joe
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I called the US Mint about another matter (returns) and then asked the status of my UHR order. The service rep said that the warehouse was closed on the weekend and that my order might ship next week but my credit card, which had been charged, now does not show any charge for the coin.
Seems to match the newest theory that the USMint is waiting until they have their new order tracking feature back on line by February 25th. Of course the other emerging theory is that they purposely sent out a few coins to get the 30 day First Strike Designation running, and will wait until the 30 days runs to send out the rest. >>
Why would the mint want the 30 day window to close on First Strikes? I am not sure why they would have an interest. Please elaborate. >>
Well obviously that supposition is a bit tongue in cheek, but if you read the USMint's response to the whole First Strike thing (as it was posted on the deleted thread from yesterday that was lambasting First Strikes) you could infer that there may well be some bias against the whole First Strike designations by the US Mint officials.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I called the US Mint about another matter (returns) and then asked the status of my UHR order. The service rep said that the warehouse was closed on the weekend and that my order might ship next week but my credit card, which had been charged, now does not show any charge for the coin.
Seems to match the newest theory that the USMint is waiting until they have their new order tracking feature back on line by February 25th. Of course the other emerging theory is that they purposely sent out a few coins to get the 30 day First Strike Designation running, and will wait until the 30 days runs to send out the rest. >>
Why would the mint want the 30 day window to close on First Strikes? I am not sure why they would have an interest. Please elaborate. >>
Well obviously that supposition is a bit tongue in cheek, but if you read the USMint's response to the whole First Strike thing (as it was posted on the deleted thread from yesterday that was lambasting First Strikes) you could infer that there may well be some bias against the whole First Strike designations by the US Mint officials. >>
Does the mint not want TPG rating coins as first strikes. I have heard this mentioned and am curious why they would oppose the designation.
<< <i>OK....wake me up when you are getting to the grassy knoll part of this story. >>
I think we've already been there ...
Where is Jim Garrison when we need him ....
<< <i>OK....wake me up when you are getting to the grassy knoll part of this story. >>
I say there's a 2nd mint taking the orders somewhere
<< <i>
<< <i>OK....wake me up when you are getting to the grassy knoll part of this story. >>
I say there's a 2nd mint taking the orders somewhere
Shhhhhhh
CryptoMan- You were obviously in a G-2 type environment, so should be use to the lack of intelligence when dealing with the government. It was most likely the canceling of the book on the first day that caused a few to get shipped out. One of the first things you learn in the military is "Don't shoot the messenger", be happy you got some info. Do yourself a favor and leave the IG out of this one. lol Also, there are more than 2 out already.
All= I thought it was the AM/PM thing but you all have already corrected me on that, and I thank you for that.
MsM- You can send your message, but please don't get carried away. I want everyone to get their coin as bad as everyone wants to get them. I also know no one at or involved with the mint or PBGS if that's where you're going.
"First Strike"
The United States Mint has received inquiries from consumers regarding use of the term "first strike." The term has appeared in connection with the advertising and grading of 2005 and 2006 silver, gold, and platinum proof and bullion American Eagle Coins, and the new 2006 24-karat proof and bullion American Buffalo Gold Coins. Currently, there is no widely-accepted and standardized numismatic industry definition of "first strike." Coin dealers and grading services may use this term in varying ways. Some base its use on dates appearing on United States Mint product packaging or packing slips, or on the dates of product releases or ceremonial coin strike events. Consumers should carefully review the following information along with each dealer’s or grading service’s definition of "first strike" when considering a purchase of coins with this designation.
The United States Mint has not designated any 2005 or 2006 American Eagle Coins or 2006 American Buffalo Coins as "first strikes," nor do we track the order in which we mint such coins during their production. The United States Mint held a launch ceremony for the 2006 American Buffalo Gold Coin on June 20, 2006, two days before its release on June 22, at which two proof coins and two uncirculated coins were ceremonially struck. However, those coins were not individually identified and were put in regular inventory after the ceremony. The United States Mint did not hold any striking ceremonies for the 2005 or 2006 American Eagle Coins.
The United States Mint strives to produce coins of consistently high quality throughout the course of production. Our strict quality controls assure that coins of this caliber are produced from each die set throughout its useful life. Our manufacturing facilities use a die set as long as the quality of resulting coins meets United States Mint standards, and then replace the dies, continually changing sets throughout the production process. For bullion American Eagle and American Buffalo Coins, the United States Mint makes an average of about 6,000 coins from one die set. For proof versions of the 2006 American Buffalo Coins, the yield is an average of about 1,500 coins per die set. For proof versions of the American Eagle Coins, the yield is an average of about 300-500 coins per die set. This means that coins may be minted from new die sets at any point and at multiple times while production of a coin is ongoing, not just the first day or at the beginning of production. To put this in context, in 2005 the United States Mint produced approximately 356,500 one-ounce gold, 8,891,000 silver, and 6,300 one-ounce platinum American Eagle Bullion Coins.
American Eagle and American Buffalo Coins are not individually numbered and the United States Mint does not keep track of the order or date of minting of individual bullion or proof coins. The United States Mint begins production several weeks before these coins are scheduled to be released. By the release dates for 2005 and 2006 bullion coins, the United States Mint had already minted approximately 50% of the projected sales numbers for these coins. Any dates on shipping boxes containing uncirculated bullion coins sent to Authorized Purchasers are strictly for quality control and accounting purposes at the United States Mint at West Point. The date on the box represents the date that the box was packed, verified as 500 ounces and sealed, and the date of packaging does not necessarily correlate with the date of manufacture. The date on shipping labels and packing slips for proof coins, which are sent directly to United States Mint customers from our fulfillment center, is the date the item was packed and shipped by the fulfillment center. The other numbers on the shipping label and packing slip are used to track the order and for quality control.
Mint Link
<< <i>For Lureuin:
"First Strike"
The United States Mint has received inquiries from consumers regarding use of the term "first strike." The term has appeared in connection with the advertising and grading of 2005 and 2006 silver, gold, and platinum proof and bullion American Eagle Coins, and the new 2006 24-karat proof and bullion American Buffalo Gold Coins. Currently, there is no widely-accepted and standardized numismatic industry definition of "first strike." Coin dealers and grading services may use this term in varying ways. Some base its use on dates appearing on United States Mint product packaging or packing slips, or on the dates of product releases or ceremonial coin strike events. Consumers should carefully review the following information along with each dealer’s or grading service’s definition of "first strike" when considering a purchase of coins with this designation.
The United States Mint has not designated any 2005 or 2006 American Eagle Coins or 2006 American Buffalo Coins as "first strikes," nor do we track the order in which we mint such coins during their production. The United States Mint held a launch ceremony for the 2006 American Buffalo Gold Coin on June 20, 2006, two days before its release on June 22, at which two proof coins and two uncirculated coins were ceremonially struck. However, those coins were not individually identified and were put in regular inventory after the ceremony. The United States Mint did not hold any striking ceremonies for the 2005 or 2006 American Eagle Coins.
The United States Mint strives to produce coins of consistently high quality throughout the course of production. Our strict quality controls assure that coins of this caliber are produced from each die set throughout its useful life. Our manufacturing facilities use a die set as long as the quality of resulting coins meets United States Mint standards, and then replace the dies, continually changing sets throughout the production process. For bullion American Eagle and American Buffalo Coins, the United States Mint makes an average of about 6,000 coins from one die set. For proof versions of the 2006 American Buffalo Coins, the yield is an average of about 1,500 coins per die set. For proof versions of the American Eagle Coins, the yield is an average of about 300-500 coins per die set. This means that coins may be minted from new die sets at any point and at multiple times while production of a coin is ongoing, not just the first day or at the beginning of production. To put this in context, in 2005 the United States Mint produced approximately 356,500 one-ounce gold, 8,891,000 silver, and 6,300 one-ounce platinum American Eagle Bullion Coins.
American Eagle and American Buffalo Coins are not individually numbered and the United States Mint does not keep track of the order or date of minting of individual bullion or proof coins. The United States Mint begins production several weeks before these coins are scheduled to be released. By the release dates for 2005 and 2006 bullion coins, the United States Mint had already minted approximately 50% of the projected sales numbers for these coins. Any dates on shipping boxes containing uncirculated bullion coins sent to Authorized Purchasers are strictly for quality control and accounting purposes at the United States Mint at West Point. The date on the box represents the date that the box was packed, verified as 500 ounces and sealed, and the date of packaging does not necessarily correlate with the date of manufacture. The date on shipping labels and packing slips for proof coins, which are sent directly to United States Mint customers from our fulfillment center, is the date the item was packed and shipped by the fulfillment center. The other numbers on the shipping label and packing slip are used to track the order and for quality control.
Mint Link >>
Thanks for resurrecting that out of the deleted thread that was lambasting First Strikes.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>SEE THE FIRST NGC UHR MS69 ON EBAY. EBAY # 150327771708 >>
Wonder if he'll get the 3K BIN? For just a 69 - an NGC 69. Wonder what that 70 PCGS would go for. >>
Link Ebay 150327771708
It sold for his reserve price of $1800.