I received my coins last Friday and I am checking them now. So far I checked five out of the five, four hane milky spots on the back and out of the four 2 were visible to the naked eye if you angle the coin. The fifth one has some sort of burr at top right before the A of America. What a shame, I will certainly send these back, so much for a free afternoon lol
More like they speculated and lost....the Mint is not there to make speculators happy. The coin and medal products are made for collectors. Those who order large quantities should accept the risks.
<< <i>...sounds like anyone who bought 25 got shafted.
More like they speculated and lost....the Mint is not there to make speculators happy. The coin and medal products are made for collectors. Those who order large quantities should accept the risks. >>
With a household limit of 100 coins I would venture to guess that they are also made for those that sell to collectors. Whether I buy one coin or 100 coins, and based on their return policy, I will continue to purchase knowing that I can return mint damaged coins.
<< <i>...sounds like anyone who bought 25 got shafted.
More like they speculated and lost....the Mint is not there to make speculators happy. The coin and medal products are made for collectors. Those who order large quantities should accept the risks. >>
With a household limit of 100 coins I would venture to guess that they are also made for those that sell to collectors. Whether I buy one coin or 100 coins, and based on their return policy, I will continue to purchase knowing that I can return mint damaged coins. >>
I'm thinking that the "damaged coins" the US Mint wants you to return does not require a 10x loupe to detect.
I'm also thinking that the damaged coins they DO want you to return will never get returned since they would more tham likely be considered "mint errors". (Off center strikes, double strikes, clips, planchet defects, die adjustment strikes, etc.)
I'm also thinking that 100 coins is quite a lot and I would wonder which of those folks that ordered 100 would actually have them in say 12 months or 3 years.
No Doubt the US Mint panders to the after market coin sellers when they specify ordering limits of "100 per houshold" but then not all Proofs have to be PR69DCAMs or higher to meet quality control standards.
I expect that folks are going for PR70DCAMs so that they can make a killing with the aftermarket and are really disappointed that they are not getting them.
Whatever. You take you chances.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>All these seconds make my beauty a real winner. >>
Check the reverse details with magnification, particularly on the banner at the base of the eagle's neck and on the spread wings. >>
Also the end of the C in America. 7 of my 25 had a good rub or abrasion.
Joe >>
I just looked at the first 35 I received. 3 subscription orders totaling 32 and a early order of 3. None had any abrasions or spotting. I am not good enough to determine if they would grade a 69 or 70 but they all looked fantastic and should grade at least a 69.
I have 65 coming tomorrow (two early orders made on the 19th). I will check them when they arrive and post once I have looked at them. All 100 are for my collection and I do not plan on sending any back even if the 65 that will come tomorrow have a few problems.
American Numismatic Association Governor 2023 to 2025 - My posts reflect my own thoughts and are not those of the ANA.
<< <i>FYI - The Mint’s fulfillment contractor has previously restricted purchasers who abuse the return privilege.
They are not there to support speculators, or people who think they are entitled to order a lot of coins, then keep only one or two. >>
The mint needs to not be in such a rush that they put out some of the worst junk they have put out in years. Not all of these coins are junk, but a lot of the first ones were . People like coin vault and other big sellers that were originally selling 69's and 70's have stopped. I wonder why? >>
The Fulfillment Center is NOT a First In/First Out Center but more along the lines of First In/Last Out or Last In/First Out center in that they DO NOT rotate their stock.
Those folks receiving the first shipments were most assuradly NOT receiving the first SAE's off the presses but coins which had been the latest sent to the fulfillment center.
Likewise, all the returns that will be processed over the next couple of weeks are more than likely the coins which will be sent out on orders over the next couple of weeks.
The REAL value of the 2010 SAE will be in the numbers produced. With a low enough mintage, those MS68's could get nice premiums.
Or not.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
Glad to know it wasn't just me. I'm primarily a currency person, but do have annual subscriptions for the silver proof sets and proof ASE's. I got my eagles in on Saturday and they didn't strike me as being as eye catching as previous years. Two are ok, but the third has a very noticeble bump/scuff/mark on Liberty's skirt - glaring, no magnification needed. Looks like yet another return.
The above is my two cents worth - adjusted for inflation, YOU OWE me money. Please pay promptly.
...i'm wondering what complaints will arise with the 3 inch hockey pucks coming down the pike.
"government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is a force! like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." George Washington
<< <i>...i'm wondering what complaints will arise with the 3 inch hockey pucks coming down the pike. >>
Not nearly as many since they're not proof coins and not subject to hazing or frost breaks such as what has been described.
I expect a lot of goo-goo and gaa-gaa'ing to kick start the aftermarket on the "pucks" which IMO was a political Action move by the Silver Miners of the country and nothing more.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
I just looked at the first 35 I received. 3 subscription orders totaling 32 and a early order of 3. None had any abrasions or spotting. I am not good enough to determine if they would grade a 69 or 70 but they all looked fantastic and should grade at least a 69.
I have 65 coming tomorrow (two early orders made on the 19th). I will check them when they arrive and post once I have looked at them. All 100 are for my collection and I do not plan on sending any back even if the 65 that will come tomorrow have a few problems. >>
I too do not plan to send any back. I screen mine to send in for grading and of course only send in what I belive has a shot at a 70.
I sent in 9 total: 7 look perfect and 2 very near perfect.
All of my 25 I believe would be 69's the defects were minor (only seen with a loupe) but enough to not grade 70.
Overall I thought they looked pretty good. My friend also checked them out and his first impression was that they were better than usual.
Wish everyone good luck with their orders and happy I had 9 to send in. (more than usual, normally will send in 4-5 out of 25).
3 out of my first 5 looked great to me. waiting on my next order of five. I will send the ones that look great to me in hopes of 70's and 69's. The rest i will keep in ogp.
Ultimately all these returns are going to hurt the smaller collectors, who can only afford one or eve a few, when the stop returns.
A Big Thank You to Pitboss for putting us 2010 ASE PF owners on alert that many but not all of the recently received examples are simply ugly. Be on notice that the USM in Washington, DC is aware of this major problem of quality with many of their hurriedly released Silver Eagle Proof coins as well as a major coin publication. Again Pitboss, many of us serious collectors appreciate your 'Heads Up" thread.
Well, thank you HIGHLOWLEAVES, I just feel that the mint is wrong in sending us this kind of crap made in such a rush to get out as many coins as they possibly could in a short time and not paying attention to quality.
I will not stand for this type of treatment anymore and if they don't like it, then shut me off from buying from them at their inflated prices.
In defense of RWB's posts, I appreciate his position, and to a large degree take his side in this "flipper /speculator" field (as expectations are concerned regarding quality). It is foreign to collectors and it's foreign to numismatists, except for "study"; to exceed having one or two "proofs". Yet, I have friends who buy 10 or 20 each year. (It's their choice). Most of those boxes go unopened. I have to give credit to those who open the box and look at the coin, too. But as I tell my friends (it's an ounce of silver you're overpaying for). They say "But it's a PROOF". and I say, "that's my proof".
<< <i>You guys just miss the point. If I put out inferior quality products, do you thing my company would survive long or would people just say,ok I
will accept that as the best he can do. >>
The point is made. It's no good to provide an inferior product when we're supposed to have superiority. This is why Pandas sell for more than Eagles. If it's not quality, it's design. If it's not one thing, it's another. Nobody is putting the Eagle down as much as the thread title does, though. It groups the whole batch into one box of junk. Not that this is a bad thing. It's exposure of our inferiority as manufacturing is concerned to the whole world..., which opens the floodgates for our competition to "clean our clocks".
Eagles trade as junk. Let's face it. Pandas are collectible. Maple Leafs and Englehards stack nicely, too. Isn't that the point ? Maybe I missed it.
Pumping and dumping just got tougher with a thread that casts a dark shadow on a great collectible. U.S. Silver Proof Eagle coins are beautiful. How about that ? Or, how about , these coins are lackluster by strike ? Or better yet, LET's BOYCOTT this junk.
I'm not against anyone "dealing". But dealing a fit isn't dealing. It's ruining the good name of the U.S. Mint. These people are doing the same things they've always done. They show up for work, get x amount of paid holidays every year and have great benefits. Quit complaining. Otherwise they may go on strike and we won't get any 2011's to go with our 1099s
<< <i>You guys just miss the point. If I put out inferior quality products, do you thing my company would survive long or would people just say,ok I
will accept that as the best he can do. >>
The point is made. It's no good to provide an inferior product when we're supposed to have superiority. This is why Pandas sell for more than Eagles. If it's not quality, it's design. If it's not one thing, it's another. Nobody is putting the Eagle down as much as the thread title does, though. It groups the whole batch into one box of junk. Not that this is a bad thing. It's exposure of our inferiority as manufacturing is concerned to the whole world..., which opens the floodgates for our competition to "clean our clocks".
Eagles trade as junk. Let's face it. Pandas are collectible. Maple Leafs and Englehards stack nicely, too. Isn't that the point ? Maybe I missed it.
Pumping and dumping just got tougher with a thread that casts a dark shadow on a great collectible. U.S. Silver Proof Eagle coins are beautiful. How about that ? Or, how about , these coins are lackluster by strike ? Or better yet, LET's BOYCOTT this junk.
I'm not against anyone "dealing". But dealing a fit isn't dealing. It's ruining the good name of the U.S. Mint. These people are doing the same things they've always done. They show up for work, get x amount of paid holidays every year and have great benefits. Quit complaining. Otherwise they may go on strike and we won't get any 2011's to go with our 1099s
>>
The prioblem is not my complaining, it is "QUALITY CONTROL" at the US Mint!
<< <i>Well, thank you HIGHLOWLEAVES, I just feel that the mint is wrong in sending us this kind of crap made in such a rush to get out as many coins as they possibly could in a short time and not paying attention to quality. >>
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with "a rush to get out as many coins as they possibly could in a short time and not paying attention to quality."
The US Mint has been producing crappy proofs for years.
..
..
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
Go grab them on Coin Vault for $129.00 for an NCG PF 70. Not really a bad price except shipping is $18.95 which I won't pay for. Ebay prices are approaching those $110 levels.
<< <i>Check the reverse details with magnification, particularly on the banner at the base of the eagle's neck and on the spread wings. >>
I received an order of 5 yesterday and just checked them....they ALL have gouges (3-4 all in one place) on the "Unum" side of the banner near the eagle's neck.
I rechecked my other 3 orders (5,5,10) and NONE have these issues and look great (a couple with pinhole die marks)
This is a vote for separate orders so you don't get all the coins from one batch
pitboss... I'm not worried about these coins or the complaints. I'm just boosting the thread to keep them alive. If they're accepted into IRAs, they're "investment" quality coins. No complaints... just sell 'em "As is".
If someone wants to speculate in items issued by the mint or any other place, that is fine. But, they have to accept the risks when they lose. Until the mint tightened its return policy, a small number of speculators were happy to abuse the return privilege. However, doing so simply increases the cost for of doing business for the mint and thus increases prices (or diminishes service quality) for everyone else. (If the mint business model is like most, it costs more to process a return than to process the original order.)
An irritating part of the OP’s screed is broadly labeling “2010 proof eagles are junk” with nothing more than his very tiny experience as an example. No production process is perfect, and dealing with the very delicate mirror surfaces of “proof” coins is especially daunting. Errors can occur at every point of production and packaging, which is why there is a return option.
The seven day return period is reasonable for collectors. But, if it catches speculators with their pants down, too bad: they have to accept the consequences of their actions.
Personally, it is very important that real coin collectors and numismatists, and the casual collecting public, get the quality and value they expect.
(PS: I have two proofs of each year - a set for each of my kids.)
<< <i>pitboss... I'm not worried about these coins or the complaints. I'm just boosting the thread to keep them alive. If they're accepted into IRAs, they're "investment" quality coins. No complaints... just sell 'em "As is". >>
I have many proof coins and none of them look like what they are offering this year.
You try to sell them "as is", you will not even get what you paid for them until silver reaches $50 which will probably be soon.
<< <i>You guys just miss the point. If I put out inferior quality products, do you thing my company would survive long or would people just say,ok I
will accept that as the best he can do. >>
I don't think most of us do miss the point.....
I think what is missing is what YOU declare the bar is for an acceptable vs unacceptable product. From your posts, it sounds like only perfect (PF70) coins under a 10x loupe would be considered acceptable. It is also most likely that you plan to slab/sell all (or the vast majority) of a large purchase of these. Thus, you aren't looking at it from a collector's viewpoint, as some are in response to your posts, but from a flipper's viewpoint. For B&M dealers, I don't think they are as concerned as you are since they sell to the general public, of which, very few likely scrutinize coins like these that intensely.
So, it would be nice to know exactly what your bar is, and why you think that bar is acceptable to have, particularly in volume, given what the stated purposes of these are (ie...collector coins in proof......I have never seen the USMint guarantee a grade on their items)
<< <i>You guys just miss the point. If I put out inferior quality products, do you thing my company would survive long or would people just say,ok I
will accept that as the best he can do. >>
I don't think most of us do miss the point.....
I think what is missing is what YOU declare the bar is for an acceptable vs unacceptable product. From your posts, it sounds like only perfect (PF70) coins under a 10x loupe would be considered acceptable. It is also most likely that you plan to slab/sell all (or the vast majority) of a large purchase of these. Thus, you aren't looking at it from a collector's viewpoint, as some are in response to your posts, but from a flipper's viewpoint. For B&M dealers, I don't think they are as concerned as you are since they sell to the general public, of which, very few likely scrutinize coins like these that intensely.
So, it would be nice to know exactly what your bar is, and why you think that bar is acceptable to have, particularly in volume, given what the stated purposes of these are (ie...collector coins in proof......I have never seen the USMint guarantee a grade on their items) >>
These are visable with the naked eye. I just used the scope to find out how bad they were!!!
If these coins are acceptable to you then buy them, they are not acceptable to me and if they give me more crap it will go right back to them.
What my bar is has nothing to do with what the mint is trying to give to us as acceptable coins.
The only risk that mint product speculators should have to deal with is future market price of the mint product. You win some, you lose some. Quality at the production end should not be a matter of risk, especially from the US Mint.
Just to play Devil's Advocate here...if the Mint actually attempted to achieve a 70 (or even a 69) for every coin, how many blanks would they end up striking and then discarding...maybe 3 or 5 or 10 times the actual finished mintage. Would that be cost effective...and what would the initial price of the actual coin have to be to absorb all that extra time and labor?
Let's remember that at the heart of this operation, we're dealing with metal dies striking metal disks...with all the resulting friction and heat involved in such a process. Therefore, there is bound to be some chipping, flaking and abrasions inparted on the resulting coins...and this is why 70 coins should (and do) cost a premium and not be expected as the end result 100% (or even 50%) of the time. Instead, a perfect coin should actually be considered a gift from the Coin Gods and not be expected as par for the course, with the vast majority of the remaining coins falling into the "acceptable" bin.
That having been said, yes, any truly gross clashes or dings on a proof coin that can be seen with the naked eye should be deemed unacceptable. But under serious magnification...with a 70 or bust attitude...that's another thing entirely. The Mint will never achieve utter perfection in all its products, for the simple reason that complete perfection is an impossibility.
And for those who want to hark back to the "good old days" of Mint quality...wasn't there a little green or pink slip included in proof sets back in the 1960s that basically said, "Here are your coins...thanks for buying...and if you see anything you don't like, too bad for you! Have a nice day."
<< <i>pitboss... I'm not worried about these coins or the complaints. I'm just boosting the thread to keep them alive. If they're accepted into IRAs, they're "investment" quality coins. No complaints... just sell 'em "As is". >>
I have many proof coins and none of them look like what they are offering this year.
You try to sell them "as is", you will not even get what you paid for them until silver reaches $50 which will probably be soon. >>
We need a "Speculators Forum".
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Just to play Devil's Advocate here...but if the Mint actually attempted to achieve a 70 (or even a 69) for every coin, how many blanks would they end up striking and then discarding...maybe 3 or 5 times the actual finished mintage.
Would that be cost effective...and what would the initial price of the actual coin have to be to absorb all that extra time and labor?
Let's remember that at the heart of this operation, we're dealing with metal dies striking metal disks...with all the resulting friction and heat involved in such a process. Therefore, there is bound to be some chipping, flaking and abrasions inparted on the resulting coins...and this is why 70 coins should cost a premium and not be expected as the end result 100% of the time.
And I'll get down from my soapbox now. >>
Excellent point. However, we are not talking about mass mechanical production of bullion coins. Proof coins undergo a more detailed and time consuming production process. The mint goes to greater expense (i.e. hand fed blanks, more visual inspection) to produce a higher quality collecor coin in a process that removes, as much as possible, the opportunity for mechancial damage. Because of the special proof process (and the custom box/coa), the mint charges the customer more for these coins. Based on this the customer is not out of line to expect a top quality coin.
My cutoff for quality on mint proof products is PR/PF69. Anything less is unacceptable mint damage.
<<My cutoff for quality on mint proof products is PR/PF69. Anything less is unacceptable mint damage. >>
Of course, if everyone had perfect coins delivered from the Mint, there wouldn't be any market premium possible on the secondary market. And how much fun would that be to people like us?
Kinda like in school...where many of the dumb kids (and yes, I went to school with kids that made bricks look bright) are now given credit for managing not to drool...how fair is that to the truly exceptional kids in the class? Like kids, coins and statistics...there are the few exceptional...the mostly average...and the few damaged. I think the bell graph goes something like 10-80-10.
<< <i>Excellent point. However, we are not talking about mass mechanical production of bullion coins. Proof coins undergo a more detailed and time consuming production process. The mint goes to greater expense (i.e. hand fed blanks, more visual inspection) to produce a higher quality collecor coin in a process that removes, as much as possible, the opportunity for mechancial damage. Because of the special proof process (and the custom box/coa), the mint charges the customer more for these coins. Based on this the customer is not out of line to expect a top quality coin.
My cutoff for quality on mint proof products is PR/PF69. Anything less is unacceptable mint damage. >>
For the record, I do not believe for one second that the mint "hand feeds" these coins into the press. The feeding mechanism is definitely different than production business strikes but there's no way these are actually hand fed. These coins are "mass" produced and not allowed to come in contact with each other "after" the planchet polishing phase but they are not individually handled.
I don;t think the packaging is even done on a coin by coin basis. It's simply too labor intensive and expensive.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
I did a random search of five SAE's from my four shipments, 19 coins are Fine one had a little brush against the breast , gotta tilt the coin to see it. So 19 out of 20 Thumbs ups 1 minor blemish. Guess the mint likes me ... Not even gonna check the other 80 my sample doesn't warrant it. Not one milk spot woo hoo
<< <i>Just to play Devil's Advocate here...if the Mint actually attempted to achieve a 70 (or even a 69) for every coin, how many blanks would they end up striking and then discarding...maybe 3 or 5 or 10 times the actual finished mintage. Would that be cost effective...and what would the initial price of the actual coin have to be to absorb all that extra time and labor? >>
Frankly, I don't think that 98+% conversion is unrealistic at all. Considering the extra care that goes into these, it takes as much to make a chitty one as it does a nice one. Perhaps they should sell the crappy ones as seconds or blemished goods.
<< <i>I did a random search of five SAE's from my four shipments, 19 coins are Fine one had a little brush against the breast , gotta tilt the coin to see it. So 19 out of 20 Thumbs ups 1 minor blemish. Guess the mint likes me ... Not even gonna check the other 80 my sample doesn't warrant it. Not one milk spot woo hoo >>
I wouldn't assume the other 80 were produced at the same time or from the same dies as the first 20.
My subscription showed up today. It is for four, only. And it doesn't look half bad.
It is not for me to knock or embellish. It doesn't need to be a Proof 69 or a Proof 70. It is what it is. The 2010 American Silver Eagle Proof coin in deep cameo with frosted devices.
I've stated that the one sent to me for my subscription was acceptable to me. Maybe I'm just too blind not to see its imperfections. Those whose ASEs are inferior, please show the problems so that I might look at mine for the same problems. I guess it's obvious that I'm just a collector and not a flipper or dealer, so my expectations might be a little lower than yours.
<< Check the reverse details with magnification, particularly on the banner at the base of the eagle's neck and on the spread wings. >>
I received an order of 5 yesterday and just checked them....they ALL have gouges (3-4 all in one place) on the "Unum" side of the banner near the eagle's neck.
As I stated in a previous post this is where I found the most consistent issues....I cannot image them 'cuz I sent them back for replacement
Re quality contol (or lack thereof) of pricey things...
Way back in the day, I worked in the giftware department of B. Altman's Department Store...where they sold the Waterford glass sets. Now, back in the 1980s, these glasses cost about $40 each, and that was big money when you were buying a set of nearly 100 pieces. And, of course, each glass was supposed to have been triple checked at the factory in Ireland and was supposed to be perfect.
Well, I can tell you that at least half (or more) of them had small bubbles, ripples or other "imperfections" in the glass.
So my point is this, there are far more pricier things also being produced by private entities in much smaller quantities that are supposed to be spot on perfect, but aren't.
i would think it's hit or miss especially on ten or less. even 25. none of what i looked at was "junk", yet i could have assembled a dissapointing group of 30, easy.
if the mint wants to stop flipping by a naiveté such as myself. they shouldn't have set the limit so high at 100. i think it will take a new policy to stop this, but i don't know what it would be.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>All these seconds make my beauty a real winner. >>
Check the reverse details with magnification, particularly on the banner at the base of the eagle's neck and on the spread wings. >>
Also the end of the C in America. 7 of my 25 had a good rub or abrasion.
Joe
I used to be famous now I just collect coins.
Link to My Registry Set.
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-specialty-sets/washington-quarters-complete-variety-set-circulation-strikes-1932-1964/publishedset/78469
Varieties Are The Spice Of LIFE and Thanks to Those who teach us what to search For.
More like they speculated and lost....the Mint is not there to make speculators happy. The coin and medal products are made for collectors. Those who order large quantities should accept the risks.
<< <i>...sounds like anyone who bought 25 got shafted.
More like they speculated and lost....the Mint is not there to make speculators happy. The coin and medal products are made for collectors. Those who order large quantities should accept the risks. >>
With a household limit of 100 coins I would venture to guess that they are also made for those that sell to collectors. Whether I buy one coin or 100 coins, and based on their return policy, I will continue to purchase knowing that I can return mint damaged coins.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
<< <i>
<< <i>...sounds like anyone who bought 25 got shafted.
More like they speculated and lost....the Mint is not there to make speculators happy. The coin and medal products are made for collectors. Those who order large quantities should accept the risks. >>
With a household limit of 100 coins I would venture to guess that they are also made for those that sell to collectors. Whether I buy one coin or 100 coins, and based on their return policy, I will continue to purchase knowing that I can return mint damaged coins. >>
I'm thinking that the "damaged coins" the US Mint wants you to return does not require a 10x loupe to detect.
I'm also thinking that the damaged coins they DO want you to return will never get returned since they would more tham likely be considered "mint errors". (Off center strikes, double strikes, clips, planchet defects, die adjustment strikes, etc.)
I'm also thinking that 100 coins is quite a lot and I would wonder which of those folks that ordered 100 would actually have them in say 12 months or 3 years.
No Doubt the US Mint panders to the after market coin sellers when they specify ordering limits of "100 per houshold" but then not all Proofs have to be PR69DCAMs or higher to meet quality control standards.
I expect that folks are going for PR70DCAMs so that they can make a killing with the aftermarket and are really disappointed that they are not getting them.
Whatever. You take you chances.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>All these seconds make my beauty a real winner. >>
Check the reverse details with magnification, particularly on the banner at the base of the eagle's neck and on the spread wings. >>
Also the end of the C in America. 7 of my 25 had a good rub or abrasion.
Joe >>
I just looked at the first 35 I received. 3 subscription orders totaling 32 and a early order of 3. None had any abrasions or spotting. I am not good enough to determine if they would grade a 69 or 70 but they all looked fantastic and should grade at least a 69.
I have 65 coming tomorrow (two early orders made on the 19th). I will check them when they arrive and post once I have looked at them. All 100 are for my collection and I do not plan on sending any back even if the 65 that will come tomorrow have a few problems.
My Numismatics with Kenny eBay Store Over 6000 listings and growing with more than 39,000 items sold
My Numismatics with Kenny Twitter Page Instagram - numismatistkenny
My Numismatics with Kenny Blog Page Best viewed on a laptop or monitor.
ANA Life Member & Volunteer District Representative
2019 ANA Young Numismatist of the Year
Doing my best to introduce Young Numismatists and Young Adults into the hobby.
<< <i>
<< <i>FYI - The Mint’s fulfillment contractor has previously restricted purchasers who abuse the return privilege.
They are not there to support speculators, or people who think they are entitled to order a lot of coins, then keep only one or two. >>
The mint needs to not be in such a rush that they put out some of the worst junk they have put out in years. Not all of these coins are junk, but a lot of the first ones were . People like coin vault and other big sellers that were originally selling 69's and 70's have stopped. I wonder why? >>
The Fulfillment Center is NOT a First In/First Out Center but more along the lines of First In/Last Out or Last In/First Out center in that they DO NOT rotate their stock.
Those folks receiving the first shipments were most assuradly NOT receiving the first SAE's off the presses but coins which had been the latest sent to the fulfillment center.
Likewise, all the returns that will be processed over the next couple of weeks are more than likely the coins which will be sent out on orders over the next couple of weeks.
The REAL value of the 2010 SAE will be in the numbers produced. With a low enough mintage, those MS68's could get nice premiums.
Or not.
The name is LEE!
SPMC LM #371
...i'm wondering what complaints will arise with the 3 inch hockey pucks coming down the pike.
<< <i>...i'm wondering what complaints will arise with the 3 inch hockey pucks coming down the pike.
Not nearly as many since they're not proof coins and not subject to hazing or frost breaks such as what has been described.
I expect a lot of goo-goo and gaa-gaa'ing to kick start the aftermarket on the "pucks" which IMO was a political Action move by the Silver Miners of the country and nothing more.
The name is LEE!
I just looked at the first 35 I received. 3 subscription orders totaling 32 and a early order of 3. None had any abrasions or spotting. I am not good enough to determine if they would grade a 69 or 70 but they all looked fantastic and should grade at least a 69.
I have 65 coming tomorrow (two early orders made on the 19th). I will check them when they arrive and post once I have looked at them. All 100 are for my collection and I do not plan on sending any back even if the 65 that will come tomorrow have a few problems. >>
I too do not plan to send any back. I screen mine to send in for grading and of course only send in what I belive has a shot at a 70.
I sent in 9 total: 7 look perfect and 2 very near perfect.
All of my 25 I believe would be 69's the defects were minor (only seen with a loupe) but enough to not grade 70.
Overall I thought they looked pretty good. My friend also checked them out and his first impression was that they were better than usual.
Wish everyone good luck with their orders and happy I had 9 to send in. (more than usual, normally will send in 4-5 out of 25).
Joe
Ultimately all these returns are going to hurt the smaller collectors, who can only afford one or eve a few, when the stop returns.
Well, thank you HIGHLOWLEAVES, I just feel that the mint is wrong in sending us this kind of crap made in such a rush to get out as many coins as they possibly could in a short time and not paying attention to quality.
I will not stand for this type of treatment anymore and if they don't like it, then shut me off from buying from them at their inflated prices.
You guys just miss the point. If I put out inferior quality products, do you thing my company would survive long or would people just say,ok I
will accept that as the best he can do.
<< <i>You guys just miss the point. If I put out inferior quality products, do you thing my company would survive long or would people just say,ok I
will accept that as the best he can do. >>
The point is made. It's no good to provide an inferior product when we're supposed to have superiority. This is why Pandas sell for more than Eagles. If it's not quality, it's design. If it's not one thing, it's another. Nobody is putting the Eagle down as much as the thread title does, though. It groups the whole batch into one box of junk. Not that this is a bad thing. It's exposure of our inferiority as manufacturing is concerned to the whole world..., which opens the floodgates for our competition to "clean our clocks".
Eagles trade as junk. Let's face it. Pandas are collectible. Maple Leafs and Englehards stack nicely, too. Isn't that the point ? Maybe I missed it.
Pumping and dumping just got tougher with a thread that casts a dark shadow on a great collectible. U.S. Silver Proof Eagle coins are beautiful. How about that ? Or, how about , these coins are lackluster by strike ? Or better yet, LET's BOYCOTT this junk.
I'm not against anyone "dealing". But dealing a fit isn't dealing. It's ruining the good name of the U.S. Mint. These people are doing the same things they've always done. They show up for work, get x amount of paid holidays every year and have great benefits. Quit complaining. Otherwise they may go on strike and we won't get any 2011's to go with our 1099s
It is beautiful. Is it a 70? I don't care. -Preussen
<< <i>
<< <i>You guys just miss the point. If I put out inferior quality products, do you thing my company would survive long or would people just say,ok I
will accept that as the best he can do. >>
The point is made. It's no good to provide an inferior product when we're supposed to have superiority. This is why Pandas sell for more than Eagles. If it's not quality, it's design. If it's not one thing, it's another. Nobody is putting the Eagle down as much as the thread title does, though. It groups the whole batch into one box of junk. Not that this is a bad thing. It's exposure of our inferiority as manufacturing is concerned to the whole world..., which opens the floodgates for our competition to "clean our clocks".
Eagles trade as junk. Let's face it. Pandas are collectible. Maple Leafs and Englehards stack nicely, too. Isn't that the point ? Maybe I missed it.
Pumping and dumping just got tougher with a thread that casts a dark shadow on a great collectible. U.S. Silver Proof Eagle coins are beautiful. How about that ? Or, how about , these coins are lackluster by strike ? Or better yet, LET's BOYCOTT this junk.
I'm not against anyone "dealing". But dealing a fit isn't dealing. It's ruining the good name of the U.S. Mint. These people are doing the same things they've always done. They show up for work, get x amount of paid holidays every year and have great benefits. Quit complaining. Otherwise they may go on strike and we won't get any 2011's to go with our 1099s
The prioblem is not my complaining, it is "QUALITY CONTROL" at the US Mint!
<< <i>Well, thank you HIGHLOWLEAVES, I just feel that the mint is wrong in sending us this kind of crap made in such a rush to get out as many coins as they possibly could in a short time and not paying attention to quality. >>
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with "a rush to get out as many coins as they possibly could in a short time and not paying attention to quality."
The US Mint has been producing crappy proofs for years.
The name is LEE!
Box of 20
they make hundreds of thousands of silver proof sets a year. maybe the quantities make them rush the handling of them, too.
I do wish they'd pull the ones with imperfections visible to the naked eye before they hit the market.
Although, while I'm at the mint sales counter, I see almost all those buying without looking at what they are handed.
<< <i>Check the reverse details with magnification, particularly on the banner at the base of the eagle's neck and on the spread wings. >>
I received an order of 5 yesterday and just checked them....they ALL have gouges (3-4 all in one place) on the "Unum" side of the banner near the eagle's neck.
I rechecked my other 3 orders (5,5,10) and NONE have these issues and look great (a couple with pinhole die marks)
This is a vote for separate orders so you don't get all the coins from one batch
<< <i>may be true, may be not true.
they make hundreds of thousands of silver proof sets a year. maybe the quantities make them rush the handling of them, too.
I do wish they'd pull the ones with imperfections visible to the naked eye before they hit the market.
Although, while I'm at the mint sales counter, I see almost all those buying without looking at what they are handed. >>
No doubt, handling and packaging are MAJOR problems with the US Mint.
BTW, since this thread is regarding quality and high grade coins, one of the coins pictured above is a PR70DCAM in a major holder.
The point being, PR70DCAM is an attainable opinion.
The name is LEE!
If someone wants to speculate in items issued by the mint or any other place, that is fine. But, they have to accept the risks when they lose. Until the mint tightened its return policy, a small number of speculators were happy to abuse the return privilege. However, doing so simply increases the cost for of doing business for the mint and thus increases prices (or diminishes service quality) for everyone else. (If the mint business model is like most, it costs more to process a return than to process the original order.)
An irritating part of the OP’s screed is broadly labeling “2010 proof eagles are junk” with nothing more than his very tiny experience as an example. No production process is perfect, and dealing with the very delicate mirror surfaces of “proof” coins is especially daunting. Errors can occur at every point of production and packaging, which is why there is a return option.
The seven day return period is reasonable for collectors. But, if it catches speculators with their pants down, too bad: they have to accept the consequences of their actions.
Personally, it is very important that real coin collectors and numismatists, and the casual collecting public, get the quality and value they expect.
(PS: I have two proofs of each year - a set for each of my kids.)
<< <i>pitboss... I'm not worried about these coins or the complaints. I'm just boosting the thread to keep them alive. If they're accepted into IRAs, they're "investment" quality coins. No complaints... just sell 'em "As is". >>
I have many proof coins and none of them look like what they are offering this year.
You try to sell them "as is", you will not even get what you paid for them until silver reaches $50 which will probably be soon.
<< <i>You guys just miss the point. If I put out inferior quality products, do you thing my company would survive long or would people just say,ok I
will accept that as the best he can do. >>
I don't think most of us do miss the point.....
I think what is missing is what YOU declare the bar is for an acceptable vs unacceptable product. From your posts, it sounds like only perfect (PF70) coins under a 10x loupe would be considered acceptable.
It is also most likely that you plan to slab/sell all (or the vast majority) of a large purchase of these. Thus, you aren't looking at it from a collector's viewpoint, as some are in response to your posts, but from a flipper's viewpoint. For B&M dealers, I don't think they are as concerned as you are since they sell to the general public, of which, very few likely scrutinize coins like these that intensely.
So, it would be nice to know exactly what your bar is, and why you think that bar is acceptable to have, particularly in volume, given what the stated purposes of these are (ie...collector coins in proof......I have never seen the USMint guarantee a grade on their items)
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>You try to sell them "as is", you will not even get what you paid for them until silver reaches $50 which will probably be soon. >>
With silver up over $1.00 today... "As is" might be a great deal
<< <i>
<< <i>You guys just miss the point. If I put out inferior quality products, do you thing my company would survive long or would people just say,ok I
will accept that as the best he can do. >>
I don't think most of us do miss the point.....
I think what is missing is what YOU declare the bar is for an acceptable vs unacceptable product. From your posts, it sounds like only perfect (PF70) coins under a 10x loupe would be considered acceptable.
It is also most likely that you plan to slab/sell all (or the vast majority) of a large purchase of these. Thus, you aren't looking at it from a collector's viewpoint, as some are in response to your posts, but from a flipper's viewpoint. For B&M dealers, I don't think they are as concerned as you are since they sell to the general public, of which, very few likely scrutinize coins like these that intensely.
So, it would be nice to know exactly what your bar is, and why you think that bar is acceptable to have, particularly in volume, given what the stated purposes of these are (ie...collector coins in proof......I have never seen the USMint guarantee a grade on their items) >>
These are visable with the naked eye. I just used the scope to find out how bad they were!!!
If these coins are acceptable to you then buy them, they are not acceptable to me and if they give me more crap it will go right back to them.
What my bar is has nothing to do with what the mint is trying to give to us as acceptable coins.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
Let's remember that at the heart of this operation, we're dealing with metal dies striking metal disks...with all the resulting friction and heat involved in such a process. Therefore, there is bound to be some chipping, flaking and abrasions inparted on the resulting coins...and this is why 70 coins should (and do) cost a premium and not be expected as the end result 100% (or even 50%) of the time. Instead, a perfect coin should actually be considered a gift from the Coin Gods and not be expected as par for the course, with the vast majority of the remaining coins falling into the "acceptable" bin.
That having been said, yes, any truly gross clashes or dings on a proof coin that can be seen with the naked eye should be deemed unacceptable. But under serious magnification...with a 70 or bust attitude...that's another thing entirely. The Mint will never achieve utter perfection in all its products, for the simple reason that complete perfection is an impossibility.
And for those who want to hark back to the "good old days" of Mint quality...wasn't there a little green or pink slip included in proof sets back in the 1960s that basically said, "Here are your coins...thanks for buying...and if you see anything you don't like, too bad for you! Have a nice day."
I'll get down from my soapbox now.
<< <i>
<< <i>pitboss... I'm not worried about these coins or the complaints. I'm just boosting the thread to keep them alive. If they're accepted into IRAs, they're "investment" quality coins. No complaints... just sell 'em "As is". >>
I have many proof coins and none of them look like what they are offering this year.
You try to sell them "as is", you will not even get what you paid for them until silver reaches $50 which will probably be soon. >>
We need a "Speculators Forum".
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Just to play Devil's Advocate here...but if the Mint actually attempted to achieve a 70 (or even a 69) for every coin, how many blanks would they end up striking and then discarding...maybe 3 or 5 times the actual finished mintage.
Would that be cost effective...and what would the initial price of the actual coin have to be to absorb all that extra time and labor?
Let's remember that at the heart of this operation, we're dealing with metal dies striking metal disks...with all the resulting friction and heat involved in such a process. Therefore, there is bound to be some chipping, flaking and abrasions inparted on the resulting coins...and this is why 70 coins should cost a premium and not be expected as the end result 100% of the time.
And I'll get down from my soapbox now. >>
Excellent point. However, we are not talking about mass mechanical production of bullion coins. Proof coins undergo a more detailed and time consuming production process. The mint goes to greater expense (i.e. hand fed blanks, more visual inspection) to produce a higher quality collecor coin in a process that removes, as much as possible, the opportunity for mechancial damage. Because of the special proof process (and the custom box/coa), the mint charges the customer more for these coins. Based on this the customer is not out of line to expect a top quality coin.
My cutoff for quality on mint proof products is PR/PF69. Anything less is unacceptable mint damage.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
Of course, if everyone had perfect coins delivered from the Mint, there wouldn't be any market premium possible on the secondary market. And how much fun would that be to people like us?
Kinda like in school...where many of the dumb kids (and yes, I went to school with kids that made bricks look bright) are now given credit for managing not to drool...how fair is that to the truly exceptional kids in the class? Like kids, coins and statistics...there are the few exceptional...the mostly average...and the few damaged. I think the bell graph goes something like 10-80-10.
<< <i>Excellent point. However, we are not talking about mass mechanical production of bullion coins. Proof coins undergo a more detailed and time consuming production process. The mint goes to greater expense (i.e. hand fed blanks, more visual inspection) to produce a higher quality collecor coin in a process that removes, as much as possible, the opportunity for mechancial damage. Because of the special proof process (and the custom box/coa), the mint charges the customer more for these coins. Based on this the customer is not out of line to expect a top quality coin.
My cutoff for quality on mint proof products is PR/PF69. Anything less is unacceptable mint damage. >>
For the record, I do not believe for one second that the mint "hand feeds" these coins into the press. The feeding mechanism is definitely different than production business strikes but there's no way these are actually hand fed. These coins are "mass" produced and not allowed to come in contact with each other "after" the planchet polishing phase but they are not individually handled.
I don;t think the packaging is even done on a coin by coin basis. It's simply too labor intensive and expensive.
The name is LEE!
19 coins are Fine one had a little brush against the breast , gotta tilt the coin to see it.
So 19 out of 20 Thumbs ups
1 minor blemish.
Guess the mint likes me ...
Not even gonna check the other 80 my sample doesn't warrant it.
Not one milk spot woo hoo
<< <i>Just to play Devil's Advocate here...if the Mint actually attempted to achieve a 70 (or even a 69) for every coin, how many blanks would they end up striking and then discarding...maybe 3 or 5 or 10 times the actual finished mintage. Would that be cost effective...and what would the initial price of the actual coin have to be to absorb all that extra time and labor? >>
Frankly, I don't think that 98+% conversion is unrealistic at all. Considering the extra care that goes into these, it takes as much to make a chitty one as it does a nice one. Perhaps they should sell the crappy ones as seconds or blemished goods.
<< <i>I did a random search of five SAE's from my four shipments,
19 coins are Fine one had a little brush against the breast , gotta tilt the coin to see it.
So 19 out of 20 Thumbs ups
1 minor blemish.
Guess the mint likes me ...
Not even gonna check the other 80 my sample doesn't warrant it.
Not one milk spot woo hoo >>
I wouldn't assume the other 80 were produced at the same time or from the same dies as the first 20.
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
It is not for me to knock or embellish. It doesn't need to be a Proof 69 or a Proof 70. It is what it is. The 2010 American Silver Eagle Proof coin in deep cameo with frosted devices.
I received an order of 5 yesterday and just checked them....they ALL have gouges (3-4 all in one place) on the "Unum" side of the banner near the eagle's neck.
As I stated in a previous post this is where I found the most consistent issues....I cannot image them 'cuz I sent them back for replacement
Way back in the day, I worked in the giftware department of B. Altman's Department Store...where they sold the Waterford glass sets. Now, back in the 1980s, these glasses cost about $40 each, and that was big money when you were buying a set of nearly 100 pieces. And, of course, each glass was supposed to have been triple checked at the factory in Ireland and was supposed to be perfect.
Well, I can tell you that at least half (or more) of them had small bubbles, ripples or other "imperfections" in the glass.
So my point is this, there are far more pricier things also being produced by private entities in much smaller quantities that are supposed to be spot on perfect, but aren't.
That doesn't mean we have to accept them just because people are careless.
No PR70 DCAM's but a helluva a lot better than 2009!
The name is LEE!
<< <i>A proof *anything* should have a nice enough appearance that it is suitable to be given as a gift. >>
I could almost guarantee that these are.
The folks that are whining are those that won't be able to "resell" them for more than $50.
What else could you possibly have in mind by ordering 100?
The name is LEE!
if the mint wants to stop flipping by a naiveté such as myself. they shouldn't have set the limit so high at 100. i think it will take a new policy to stop this, but i don't know what it would be.