FOIA FULL REPORT...complete plat and gold included..2006, 2007, 2008 NUMBERS NOW INCLUDED!

FloridaBill

The way I see it, the big lossers are the 2008W $10 PROOF plats.

The big winners are the 2008W $10 UNC Plats.

A few surprises in the gold also.....

Here are the raw numbers....

The mint disclaimer is as follows: “These figures represent raw data for coins produced. It is possible that not all these coins were sold or available for sale. These figures could (and does) include pieces condemned as un-useable, quality control pieces and pieces packeged (which may or may not have sold)."

All the following is 2008:

1 oz. Plat proof: 5423
½ oz. Plat proof: 5637
¼ oz. Plat proof: 4884
1/10 oz. Plat proof: 10,513

1 oz. Plat Unc: 5084
½ oz. Plat Unc: 4066
¼ oz. Plat Unc: 4476
1/10 oz. Plat Unc: 4585

2008 Buffs:
1 oz. Proof: 20,580
½ oz. Proof: 20,602
¼ oz. Proof: 22,060
1/10 oz proof : 24,725

1 oz. Unc: 21, 374
½ oz unc: 44,252
¼ oz unc 26,797
1/10 oz unc: 25,355

2008 AGE
1 oz. Proof: 35,173
½ oz. Proof: 25,244
¼ oz. Proof: 29,417
1/10 oz. Proof: 34,154

1 oz. Unc: 18.909
½ oz. Unc: 26,213
¼ oz. Unc: 16,332
1/10 oz. Unc: 27,461


“
That statement almost guarantees that final numbers will only go down from FOIA numbers.

I guess now the question is how much will they drop?

“

DING DING DING!!!!!

Compare the 2006 raw numbers to the 2006 FINAL numbers for clues.

Here are the raw numbers reported to me for 2006:

1 oz. Gold Buff Proof: 287,107

AGE UNC:
1/10 oz. : 21,864
¼ oz. : 17,926
½ oz. : 17,136
1 oz. : 47,049

AGE PROOF:
1/10 oz. : 55,334
¼ oz. : 42,027
½ oz. : 39,482
1 oz. : 55,382

APE PROOF:
1/10 oz. : 10,373
¼ oz. : 9,749
½ oz. : 8,705
1 oz. : 10,373

APE UNC:
1/10 oz. : 4,146
¼ oz. : 2956
½ oz. : 2745
1 oz. : 3174

2007:

2007 AGE Uncs
1oz. : 24,872
½ oz. : 19,698
¼ oz. : 21,372
1/10 oz. : 32,442

2007 AGE Proofs:
1 oz. : 59,981
½ oz. : 48,634
¼ oz. : 50,373
1/10 oz. : 63,371

2007 APE Uncs:
1 oz: 7,320
½ oz. : 4,509
½ oz. : 4,784
1/10 oz. : 8,004

2007 APE Proofs:
1 oz. : 10,485
½ oz. : 41,822
¼ oz. : 9,088
1/10 oz. : 11,642

2007 Plat Reverse Proof: 30,481

FloridaBill

wondercoin

Good information and very kind of you to share it. Wondercoin

HalfStrike

It's odd that they would strike more buffalo unc than buffalo proof. I'm guessing they had many pieces condemned as un-useable in both the buffalo unc and also the plat proof 1/10.

The plat proofs require many strikes to get the mirror finish and not all of them are struck properly. That may be why the numbers are high.

jmski52

Thanks, Bill. Good work on your part. Some surprising switcheroos in this data.

2manycoins2fewfunds

"These figures represent raw data for coins produced. It is possible that not all these coins were sold or available for sale. These figures could (and does) include pieces condemned as un-useable, quality control pieces and pieces packeged (which may or may not have sold)."

That statement almost guarantees that final numbers will only go down from FOIA numbers.

I guess now the question is how much will they drop?

jmski52

Bill, while your at it, did you get the 2007-W numbers as well?

Note, you are missing a digit in your 2006-W APE 1/10th oz. Proofs.

Mitch, didn't you have some thoughts on the attrition of the 2007-Ws during early last year, particularly the Plats? It seems that some of the 2007-W (both AGEs and Plats) could be contenders, based on this new data.


And now the questions begin to cascade forth:

Why can't the Mint reveal this information willingly and on a timely basis?

Why are the discrepancies between the last numbers reported by NN and the FOIA Request so large?

Why didn't NN pick up on this information?

Who's minding the store (besides Florida Bill, that is).

TwoSides2aCoin

1 of 3174 is accounted for.

SNMAN

Thanks for posting the numbers

nycounsel

Great info Bill, thanks for sharing!

It's hard to tell exactly how this will play out, since this is raw data - no telling how closely the released coins will track these numbers.

Ballpark, I think it's probably reasonable to discount 10-20%.

It IS pretty strange that they can release raw numbers, but can't tell us how many were sold -- you'd think that months after these coins went off sale, it would simply be a number on a spreadsheet. Seems like the average grocery store has better inventory control than the U.S. Mint.

FloridaBill

per request, 2007 numbers now added

FB

jmski52

Thanks again, Bill. Much appreciated.

Jeepers, it looks like we could just pick a number out of a hat instead of stewing over this info for months on-end before the Mint gets a "round tuit".

Steve27

Thanks for the info!

jmski52

Bill, would you please check your numbers for the 1/10 oz. 2006-W Unc AGE vs. the 2008-W Unc Gold Buff?

and also your numbers for the 1/10th oz. 2006-W Unc AGE vs. the 1 oz. 2006-W Unc AGE?

Thanks, jmski

FloridaBill

Correction made to 2008-W 1/10 oz. buff. The other numbers are correct. Thanks!

FloridaBill

pf70collector

Something fishy about the platinum reverse proof at 30,000. I thought they only sold about 19000 sets.

coasterfan

The last reported sales number for the unc buff ouncer was well under 10K. Seeing the raw number of 21K is a huge disconnect. So this joins the 2008 prf plat dime as yet another shocker.

7over8

Bill -

My numbers rec'd for a separate FOIA on the PLAT UNC W's was rec'd last week and agrees with your numbers above.

Many of you don't know that there was a tremendous amount of time expended and disappointments along the way to get these numbers. Original Requests were submitted beginning in November, 2008. It is not as easy as you think to obtain data from the USM.

Echoing the comments of many - some of these numbers are shocking, especially the Buffalo Gold, Platinum Prf $10, even the AGE's that were thought to be short struck.

The problem with numbers like these accompanied by a healthy disclaimer - is that we really don't know how much to discount the amounts for waste -

It seems logical to some to use waste percentages, based on prior year. We'll hear all the stories of how hard it is to strike Platinum (no need to correct me, I agree with striking issues with hard metals), and then we see the huge waste on the Buffalo Gold and AGE's as compared to published "Orders" or "Sales" numbers and wonder why so much waste on a gold issue?

Or how much do we discount these for potential "stock" still left in the coffers (as in "pieces packaged (which may or MAY NOT have sold)"

We could all place our own "spin" on the numbers, but we won't know what the final numbers are until we get final mintages.

HalfStrike

7/8 the only way to have a complete understanding of these numbers is to have many years of data including audited final sales, total coins struck and NN sales to see what this all means.

However I still think the numbers given do show that there were less 2006 w unc struck than 2008 w unc struck so that agrees with the sales numbers.

Chances are the 2006 w unc plat will be the king of the platinum coins, possibly by a smaller margin that the current sales show but still lower by hundreds of coins.

The proof plat coins are a tougher call for the 1/10 size however it appears the 2008 1/4 and 1/2 will be the lowest.

If the mint continues the 1 ounce proof then any of the past years could fall under a platinum price spike to a later year.

For me this almost closes the book on these coins. I am not expecting drastic changes to what we already know, only minor corrections is all if the mint revises numbers later this year.

2manycoins2fewfunds

It is confusing. .........
Waste from Platinum because it is so hard.........
Waste from 24K Buffalos because they are so soft
Waste from proofs because of multiple strikes.

How many returned as damaged are in fact reshipped vs. held for destruction?

Pending final AUDITED sales figures all we can fall back on are published mintage numbers, along with surveys of recorded sales and various TPG services population reports.

bumanchu

Are you sure you didn't file a "Freedom of Misinformation Act" request?

bumanchu





edited for spelling

coolest

NO way! how can the $50 unc Buff go from less than 10,000 after they were listed as sold out, to 21,000.

That implies they sell $1,000 items and have no idea how many they have to sell or how many they have sold. I just refuser to belive that

any greedy entity (US MINT) would be that casual about how many gold coins they have.

Sounds very bizarre.

nycounsel

My numbers rec'd for a separate FOIA on the PLAT UNC W's was rec'd last week and agrees with your numbers above.

7over8

so after pushing your sub-2006 theory on us for months, you received a FOIA request response with this data and sat on it. nice.

that said, i agree that these raw numbers are only an indicator to help guess final numbers. the actual numbers should be something less than the raw numbers. how much less is hard to say. my personal feeling is that somewhere between 10 to 25% is a reasonable expectation.

Raufus

For whatever these numbers are worth, this has big implications for the 2008 w 0.5 oz plat proof which would no longer be the king of plat proofs mintage wise and would be higher than '04, as well as the 2008 w 0.25 oz plat proof which would now be the lowest mintage plat proof of the entire series. Of course, the relationship of these numbers to the final, audited numbers are totally unclear.

2008 w plat proofs:

1 oz. Plat proof: 5423
½ oz. Plat proof: 5637
¼ oz. Plat proof: 4884
1/10 oz. Plat proof: 10,513

coasterfan

<< <i>For whatever these numbers are worth, this has big implications for the 2008 w 0.5 oz plat proof which would no longer be the king of plat proofs mintage wise and would be higher than '04, as well as the 2008 w 0.25 oz plat proof which would now be the lowest mintage plat proof of the entire series. Of course, the relationship of these numbers to the final, audited numbers are totally unclear.

2008 w plat proofs:

1 oz. Plat proof: 5423
½ oz. Plat proof: 5637
¼ oz. Plat proof: 4884
1/10 oz. Plat proof: 10,513 >>


Although if the final number for the '08 prf half is 15% less than the raw number, that would make it lower than the '04, and sub-5K to boot.

Raufus

<< <i>

<< <i>For whatever these numbers are worth, this has big implications for the 2008 w 0.5 oz plat proof which would no longer be the king of plat proofs mintage wise and would be higher than '04, as well as the 2008 w 0.25 oz plat proof which would now be the lowest mintage plat proof of the entire series. Of course, the relationship of these numbers to the final, audited numbers are totally unclear.

2008 w plat proofs:

1 oz. Plat proof: 5423
½ oz. Plat proof: 5637
¼ oz. Plat proof: 4884
1/10 oz. Plat proof: 10,513 >>


Although if the final number for the '08 prf half is 15% less than the raw number, that would make it lower than the '04, and sub-5K to boot. >>



Coaster-

I agree with you 100%. I have no doubt that the 2008 W plat proof 0.5 will be lower than the '04s. I was excited about how much lower the '08s seemed - looked like clear kings by a large margin. It will be interesting to see how much that margin shrinks. I have no idea what to make of these numbers, although as a previous poster suggested, it would be informative to have such numbers in past years to to compare to final, audited numbers.

When will the final, audited numbers appear?? Wish I knew.

nycounsel

When will the final, audited numbers appear?? Wish I knew.

Agreed. It will be especially interesting now that we have these raw numbers- the difference between the raw and final will give us some insight into production problems.

2manycoins2fewfunds

I would guess AUDITED numbers would have to be completed in time for year-end report.
When is annual report due?

Its not like they have damaged 1 oz. APEs and blanks sitting around as coasters.
Thank God these people don't make nuclear weapons.

jmski52

It will be especially interesting now that we have these raw numbers- the difference between the raw and final will give us some insight into production problems.

It would be as interesting if NN or CW could get one of their reporters to actually interview someone in Mint Management for insights into both production problems and final sales data resolution methodology.

Nah, sorry - I must have been dreaming.

coasterfan

<< <i>It would be as interesting if NN or CW could get one of their reporters to actually interview someone in Mint Management for insights into both production problems and final sales data resolution methodology.

Nah, sorry - I must have been dreaming. >>


I'm sure the editors of CW and NN are always looking for ideas to write about. This would be right up their alley. Hey, if such an article was written, that would get me to subscribe!

coasterfan

Final audited figures for 2006 and 2007 proof eagles now available at the US Mint site.

Sales figures from Mint

nycounsel

Final audited figures for 2006 and 2007 eagles now available at the US Mint site.

bizarre. they don't even have a listing for uncirculated w plats.

coasterfan

The Web site doesn't have mintage numbers for the uncirculated w eagles.

Uncirculated eagles without mintage figures

CaptHenway

Does anybody have the final sales figures for the bullion grade 2007 platinum eagles by denomination?
Thanks,
TD

jmski52

Does anybody have the final sales figures for the bullion grade 2007 platinum eagles by denomination?
Thanks,
TD

Last known NN data for 2007 regular issue AGEs:

1/10th oz. - 190,010

1/4 oz. - 34,004

1/2 oz. - 47,002

1 oz. - 140,016

coasterfan

<< <i>Does anybody have the final sales figures for the bullion grade 2007 platinum eagles by denomination?
Thanks,
TD >>


Here are the numbers for 1986 through 2008.

Final Figures for American Eagle Bullion

CaptHenway

<< <i>

<< <i>Does anybody have the final sales figures for the bullion grade 2007 platinum eagles by denomination?
Thanks,
TD >>


Here are the numbers for 1986 through 2008.

Final Figures for American Eagle Bullion >>



Thank yew!!!!
TD

HalfStrike

I thought the purpose of getting these struck numbers was to see if the 2008 w unc plat were short struck, at least that is what I remember as being the reason some here liked the plat unc over the proof or buffaloes.

But the numbers do show that the 2008 w unc plats were not short struck, so this did prove that.

The thing is though that these are maximum coins struck and I have a feeling that the mint tried to improve product quality for 2008 so for some issues they may have actually had someone screen all the coins more carefully and only release the visually perfect coins.

I thought from most of the coins I received they were much better than in past years and perhaps the struck numbers reflect a higher reject rate than in past years where those coins were let through to the marketplace.

Also the buffalo were made of the softest gold planchets so they could have been getting many that were scratching or perhaps a bad die ruined many.

I still say the sales were fairly accurate and think these struck numbers have not changed that idea.

plat unc w ** 2006 ** 2007 ** 2008

1 oz. Plat Unc: ** 3174 ** 7,320 ** 5084
½ oz. Plat Unc: ** 2745 ** 4,509 ** 4066
¼ oz. Plat Unc: ** 2956 ** 4,784 ** 4476
1/10 oz. Plat Unc: ** 4,146 ** 8,004 ** 4585

You can see the 2008 w unc 1/4 was struck very close to the 2007 numbers, not 2006. The closest strike to 2006 was the 2008 1/10..

However what it shows most of all is the 2006 w unc plats were the coins that were short struck, and by a wide margin except for the 1/10 size.

coasterfan

Here are the percentage difference between the raw numbers (first column) and the Mint published sales numbers (second column). The percentage drops are all over the place. I don't think we can use these to extrapolate 2008 at all.

2006 gold
1 55382 37096 -33%
½ 39482 34322 -13%
¼ 42027 36127 -14%
1/10 55334 47277 -14.6%

2007 gold
1 59981 51810 -13.6%
½ 48634 44025 -9.5%
¼ 50373 46189 -8.3%
1/10 63371 58553 -7.6%

2006 plat
1 10373 9152 -11.8%
½ 8705 7649 -12.1%
¼ 9749 7813 -20%
1/10 10373 10205 -1.6%

2007 plat
1 10485 8363 -20%
½ 41822 5936 *
¼ 9088 6017 -34%
1/10 11642 8176 -30%

*Mint numbers don't include the coins in the 2007 plat anniversary set, so comparison is invalid.

RichR

I'll just add my 10 cents...

Let's also assume that in addition to damage during production, that a coin is also destroyed whenever it's returned with a stated "defect" by a customer (real or imagined)...and all of the final plat numbers decrease by 20%...where would that put us in regards to rarities vs. prior years?

I only ask because I can easily imagine quite a few returns going back for "quality" issues (aka...not qualifying as an MS70) by the more an*l retentive flippers out there (present company excluded, of course)...even if a coin was fine otherwise. Let's not forget that quite a few of these coins made several round trips as the precious metals tides were ebbing and flowing last fall!

Kingplatinum

... is there a way to transfer this thread onto the main platinum thread, so I don't have to
be looking on two separate threads?

Raufus

<< <i>I would guess AUDITED numbers would have to be completed in time for year-end report.
When is annual report due?

Its not like they have damaged 1 oz. APEs and blanks sitting around as coasters.
Thank God these people don't make nuclear weapons. >>



I love you last statement!! How is it that we can shoot down bits of a falling satellite moving over 10K mph yet The Mint can't simply release the final numbers in a timely fashion?? You would think that they would have a centralized system which would track this stuff in real time - i.e., coin sole, coin returned, coin destroyed, etc. Sales over, return period ends, final numbers appear. How difficult is this? Boggles the mind.

TwoSides2aCoin

<< <i>.... Sales over, return period ends, final numbers appear. How difficult is this?.... >>


Hurry up and wait. It's quite simple.

jmski52

How is it that we can shoot down bits of a falling satellite moving over 10K mph yet The Mint can't simply release the final numbers in a timely fashion?? You would think that they would have a centralized system which would track this stuff in real time - i.e., coin sole, coin returned, coin destroyed, etc.

Reminds me of Lilly Tomlin's bit on Saturday Night Live about the phone company.

"We're the U.S. Mint. We don't care. We don't have to."

RichR

So...these preliminary numbers being what they are...what's the expected impact on the sale price of the 2008 Proof and Unc 4-coin platinum sets?!? Significant drop or will they hold steady at current prices?

I also find it interesting that very few sets have been offered for sale on eBay for quite some time.

Raufus

ttt

7over8

NY Counsel -

Hang on one minute.......aren't you the pot calling the kettle black.....!

Get your facts straight.

I received my FOIA request response by mail a day after Bill received his by FAX. Bill received his last Thursday. I didn't sit on any data.

You should be thanking the members that made phone call after phone call, kept on the issue for months, in order to get the details - rather than just sharing your smart remarks.

Now back to the data. I am still of the opinion that circulating data that is not understood is not good practice. We don't know what this data means, how do we interpret it, does it correlate with any other data points we have, etc.?

Regardless, the data is out there. For the benefit of the coin collecting community.

Members will put their spin on this data. Waste percentages. Prior year comparisons. Platinum and Gold striking issues, etc. Any one of them could be right, or be wrong.

What is very surprising and disturbing are all of the Buff Unc and Proof figures, AGE Uncs, as well as the Proof Plat $10's. These figures are SIGNIFICANTLY different from what Sales Reports have indicated.

ernie11

Despite the higher numbers, I'm pretty happy. I bought the unc 2008-W 1/2 ounce platinum, and 4,066 is still the lowest total of all options for 2008, and 4th lowest in the plat series, it seems. NN listed sales at 3,415, so I assume the real number's between those two.

Raufus

I must be missing something, but aren't the sales figures released by The Mint the ceiling for the total mintage of an issue? They supposedly reflect total sales, not taking into account returns. They even reflect backorders apparently until the orders are canceled (am I correct on this?).

In any case, should not the sales figures which have appeared in NN and this forum many times be taken to represent the max. out there with the total, audited figures expected to be lower than the sales figures once returns are factored in?

I must be missing something, but this is how it appears to me.

jmski52

Now back to the data. I am still of the opinion that circulating data that is not understood is not good practice. We don't know what this data means, how do we interpret it, does it correlate with any other data points we have, etc.?

I think that circulating data that is not understood is one of the best ways for that data to become better understood. If you were to sit on the data, you would have a single perspective and a single opinion. I like having a whole forum's inputs before I make up my mind how I decide to interpret it.

HalfStrike

7/8 I have a gut feeling that had the 2008 w unc plats come in with lower strike numbers than the 2006 you would have posted that ASAP with all sirens blaring.



This FOIA request was suppose to settle whether the 2008 were short struck.

So it did settle that and that is easy enough to interpret. The numbers speak for themselves and they were not short struck.

****** We don't know what this data means, how do we interpret it, does it correlate with any other data points we have, etc.?*************

So yes we do, it means the 2006 have fewer coins struck than 2008 for the plat unc.

7over8

Until we truly understand the WHOLE process at the production facilities, how waste is handled, how stock is handled, how orders are taken and accounted for, how sales are recorded and revised, etc..........

we will not know how to interpret these numbers.

The forum will chew, spin and interpret this data many ways, probably none of which will be correct.

What else did you expect from the Government?