We are trying to convince the Mint to audit the APs.
but audits cost money.
What can you say to convince the Mint to spend the money? >>
From the Numismatic news it looks like the FTC needs to be contacted they shut down the american precious metals in florida for underhanded dealings much worse than these ap`s but might be interesting to see how they felt about the matter
It's easy for us to target them, but that is a good question. We know an AP or APs violated the agreement, but do not know for sure which.
Auditing all of them would certainly add to the cost. Although we have some main suspects, it wouldn't be unheard of to go to the main suspects first.
And, well, it must be something compelling to get them to lay down the cash.
I do like the direction of ethics. It was rumored here that tGC charged $1500 for the sets they allegedly sold under the table. That's fleecing of America and abusing the government and government agreements should be taken seriously.
Still, I can't help but think if the term "cost effective" will be brought up in the Mint HQ discussions.
<< <i>Still, I can't help but think if the term "cost effective" will be brought up in the Mint HQ discussions. >>
On May 18 I talked to the mint extensively and was told that audits of the APs was discussed and any audit action was declined by the mint legal cousul.
Latest issue of Coin News published a "No Audit" article for the APs and the 2010 pucks, referencing this forum / thread, the Mint spokesman and quotes from JHBC and Apmex.
The message is - There will not be any audits of the APs for 2010 pucks activity. None. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. Goose egg.
Are you suggesting that the 2010 pucks and the business practices of the APs will be discussed in upcoming "Mint HQ discussions" regarding auditing the APs?
Please elaborate. The Coin News article puts the mint on record - No audit. I very highly doubt that the mint is doing a 180 and will now hold any discussions at "Mint HQ" about auditing the APs.
My feelings are that if someone had turned over some hard evidence rather than the accusations and rambling that have taken place on this forum, an investigation would already be under way.
<< <i>My feelings are that if someone had turned over some hard evidence rather than the accusations and rambling that have taken place on this forum, an investigation would already be under way. >>
This is what I think - we won the price gouging battle and lost the "making new markets" war with the APs + the mint. "Making new markets" is an Apmex phrase in your letter in the box and also a phrase used by the mint in the SilverAPreqts.pdf page.
The original Godzilla is showing on TCM right now, strangely appropriate while I type. Y'know the story, Godzilla emerges from the sea and wreaks havoc, stomping on stuff and being a general nuisance to the Japanese population. That's us, this thread.
Eventually, Godzilla goes down as F-86 fighter jets swarm him, the monster from the sea. With Godzillas' demise, all is well. The end.
Sorry to spoil the ending.
This has gotta be the Godzilla monster of threads.
Can you believe I'm still waiting for my Prudential set shipping order form? Order placed 4/13.
Once the form arrives, I have to wait again for mailing payment, check clearing, yadda. It'll be another month!
I called Diamond State yesterday -- could not talk to anyone or even leave a voicemail with their customer service. Got an email response this morning:
"Prudential sent over instructions for your order to us on 5/25/11, at which time a letter was sent out to you on the same day. You should be receiving it shortly. Thank you."
Can anyone tell me if sending a USPS MO for shipping will expedite the wait?
Refs: MCM,Fivecents,Julio,Robman,Endzone,Coiny,Agentjim007,Musky1011,holeinone1972,Tdec1000,Type2,bumanchu, Metalsman,Wondercoin,Pitboss,Tomohawk,carew4me,segoja,thebigeng,jlc_coin,mbogoman,sportsmod,dragon,tychojoe,Schmitz7,claychaser,and many OTHERS
<< <i>Still, I can't help but think if the term "cost effective" will be brought up in the Mint HQ discussions. >>
On May 18 I talked to the mint extensively and was told that audits of the APs was discussed and any audit action was declined by the mint legal cousul.
Latest issue of Coin News published a "No Audit" article for the APs and the 2010 pucks, referencing this forum / thread, the Mint spokesman and quotes from JHBC and Apmex.
The message is - There will not be any audits of the APs for 2010 pucks activity. None. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. Goose egg.
Are you suggesting that the 2010 pucks and the business practices of the APs will be discussed in upcoming "Mint HQ discussions" regarding auditing the APs?
Please elaborate. The Coin News article puts the mint on record - No audit. I very highly doubt that the mint is doing a 180 and will now hold any discussions at "Mint HQ" about auditing the APs. >>
From what I've heard, the article on deals with the "cherry picking" allegations.
I specifically noted that the article did not mention HSN saying on air and on video that they purchased from an AP.
I pointed this out to Coin World, who in turn contacted the Mint again. I am waiting on word back from CW.
Of course the legal counsel had this info before this press. So, what part of "no audit" do I not understand??
The part that says "try changing their mind."
I'm still trying.
I think I got CW's attention with that HSN video and the fact they admit on air they bought them from an AP.
But, I also think this may come down to a money issue internally for the Mint. To them, the 2010 issues are history. Why expend the effort??
I'm trying to convince them there is still a black mark on that history that needs to be cleared up.
<< <i>Still, I can't help but think if the term "cost effective" will be brought up in the Mint HQ discussions. >>
On May 18 I talked to the mint extensively and was told that audits of the APs was discussed and any audit action was declined by the mint legal cousul.
Latest issue of Coin News published a "No Audit" article for the APs and the 2010 pucks, referencing this forum / thread, the Mint spokesman and quotes from JHBC and Apmex.
The message is - There will not be any audits of the APs for 2010 pucks activity. None. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. Goose egg.
Are you suggesting that the 2010 pucks and the business practices of the APs will be discussed in upcoming "Mint HQ discussions" regarding auditing the APs?
Please elaborate. The Coin News article puts the mint on record - No audit. I very highly doubt that the mint is doing a 180 and will now hold any discussions at "Mint HQ" about auditing the APs. >>
If they didn't see a reason to audit with these.....what will it take for an audit to happen? As far as I'm concerned, the Mint has expressed that it has no backbone, that it is not representing the best interests of the American taxpayers it should be serving, and that...suck it up to those APs who followed the rules.
Well, I won't forget these games. Some APs are permanently on my "do not deal with" list. Not to mention I'm also looking into where the secondary purchasers are buying their ATBs before doing business with them.
Successful transactions with keepdachange, tizofthe, adriana, wondercoin
Some of the AP's can easily market upwards of a billion dollars of bullion per year. Relationships have been established. This has never been about right or wrong. It's been about keeping the bullion flowing from the Mint to the investment community. Don't underestimate who it is you're really dealing with here.
"The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary."
I think I got CW's attention with that HSN video and the fact they admit on air they bought them from an AP.
But, I also think this may come down to a money issue internally for the Mint. To them, the 2010 issues are history. Why expend the effort??
I'm trying to convince them there is still a black mark on that history that needs to be cleared up.
Any input is appreciated. >>
The only thing the mint understands are mandates by congress. Unless some congressfolks press them, they won't do it. Election year is coming up again (they are always coming up ), so write your congressman if you want any chance....
<< <i>Can you believe I'm still waiting for my Prudential set shipping order form? Order placed 4/13.
Once the form arrives, I have to wait again for mailing payment, check clearing, yadda. It'll be another month!
I called Diamond State yesterday -- could not talk to anyone or even leave a voicemail with their customer service. Got an email response this morning:
"Prudential sent over instructions for your order to us on 5/25/11, at which time a letter was sent out to you on the same day. You should be receiving it shortly. Thank you."
Can anyone tell me if sending a USPS MO for shipping will expedite the wait? >>
Don't hold your breath even after you get the DSD form and send in your check. I returned the form and check 2 weeks ago and it hasn't even been cashed yet.....
<< <i>Don't hold your breath even after you get the DSD form and send in your check. I returned the form and check 2 weeks ago and it hasn't even been cashed yet.....
>>
My check was cashed yesterday so the event actually does occur
I think I got CW's attention with that HSN video and the fact they admit on air they bought them from an AP.
But, I also think this may come down to a money issue internally for the Mint. To them, the 2010 issues are history. Why expend the effort??
I'm trying to convince them there is still a black mark on that history that needs to be cleared up.
Any input is appreciated. >>
The only thing the mint understands are mandates by congress. Unless some congressfolks press them, they won't do it. Election year is coming up again (they are always coming up ), so write your congressman if you want any chance.... >>
I live in NY... do you think for one single moment my representatives ACTUALLY represent me or give a rats a** what I think? The past several years have proven without a doubt that they do not.
Successful BSTs with adriana, barrytrot, Bochiman, Dabigkahuna, Modern Coin Mart, oilstates2003, terburn88, THEGENERAL
<< <i>Don't hold your breath even after you get the DSD form and send in your check. I returned the form and check 2 weeks ago and it hasn't even been cashed yet.....
>>
My check was cashed yesterday so the event actually does occur >>
I sent them a postal money order 2 weeks ago and have not heard anything from them. I am not in a gig hurry for them anyway but this is why they still have these coins for sale.
The question that stays with me and hasn't been answered as far as I know is:
Why did some APs go to the effort and supposedly added expense of having the 2010 ATB bullion graded prior to distribution per Mint guidelines? PR? Did the grading services give them a deal? Assuming no cherry picking occurred there was no increased profit motive involved so why the extra (unnecessary) step?
The question that stays with me and hasn't been answered as far as I know is:
Why did some APs go to the effort and supposedly added expense of having the 2010 ATB bullion graded prior to distribution per Mint guidelines? PR? Did the grading services give them a deal? Assuming no cherry picking occurred there was no increased profit motive involved so why the extra (unnecessary) step? >>
And why was the Mint okay with them doing that? I mean I was born at night but I wasn't born last night!
The US Mint was ok with them getting the coins graded because is isn't something that is forbidden in their agreement. The APs can even make sure their best customers got the best coins and still be in compliance with the agreement with the US Mint.
<< <i>The US Mint was ok with them getting the coins graded because is isn't something that is forbidden in their agreement. The APs can even make sure their best customers got the best coins and still be in compliance with the agreement with the US Mint. >>
Understood. To me though, it's an easy fix. Spell it out in the agreement or contract. As a side note, there are many things we do in life that are not forbidden per say, yet we can choose to do the right thing.
<< <i>The US Mint was ok with them getting the coins graded because is isn't something that is forbidden in their agreement. The APs can even make sure their best customers got the best coins and still be in compliance with the agreement with the US Mint. >>
I understand slabbing was ok by Mint guidelines. No problem there.
But as far as I know A Mark slabs were all Choice BU across the board so no benefit to select customers there. And as far as I know no one complained about MTB and FT sending raw coins (as long as the packing was adequate). The first Apmex sets sent out in Dec 2010 were raw in hard plastic air tites and mine graded fine. So, Apmex slabbing the remainder perplexes me. The only logical reason is PR.
Some simple math: 3700 (max allotment to each dealer) - 350 (1st Apmex distribution in Dec 2010) = 3350 sets. Say PCGS gave them a break in grading at $10/coin. That's $33,500 worth of PR on Apmex's part. Hmmm.
Why Apmex and JHBC graded the remainder? I already told ya. They are "making new markets".
The APs would love for the bullion coin market to evolve into acceptance of what I call "bullion numismatic value".
The ten year puck program with it's potentially high quality DM bullion enables this type market assuming the mintage stays as it is for 2011.
"Ya want a bullion puck for a small premium over spot? Here ya go, here's a piece of junk that's heavily scratched and worth melt."
"Oh, you hope to get a DM69 @ a small premium over spot? Sorry, all the pucks are graded, DM69 pucks are spot + a $600 premium."
Now that the mint restrictions are off, don't be surprised if the APs try to establish a high grade slabbed bullion puck market. I know I won't be.
The 2010 bullion puck market set a strong precedence for the APs; instead of the buyer submitting and benefiting, the APs will submit and benefit instead.
<< <i>Why Apmex and JHBC graded the remainder? I already told ya. They are "making new markets".
The APs would love for the bullion coin market to evolve into acceptance of what I call "bullion numismatic value".
The ten year puck program with it's potentially high quality DM bullion enables this type market assuming the mintage stays as it is for 2011.
"Ya want a bullion puck for a small premium over spot? Here ya go, here's a piece of junk that's heavily scratched and worth melt."
"Oh, you hope to get a DM69 @ a small premium over spot? Sorry, all the pucks are graded, DM69 pucks are spot + a $600 premium."
Now that the mint restrictions are off, don't be surprised if the APs try to establish a high grade slabbed bullion puck market. I know I won't be.
The 2010 bullion puck market set a strong precedence for the APs; instead of the buyer submitting and benefiting, the APs will submit and benefit instead. >>
They very well may. And they could do it without violating their agreement.
However, if they sufficiently pick over their coins and sell the good ones at a premium, they will quickly kill collecting those high end sets. It will become cost prohibitive for many.
So, I view cornering the market on high end graded coins as shooting themselves in the foot.
<< <i>Why Apmex and JHBC graded the remainder? I already told ya. They are "making new markets".
The APs would love for the bullion coin market to evolve into acceptance of what I call "bullion numismatic value".
The ten year puck program with it's potentially high quality DM bullion enables this type market assuming the mintage stays as it is for 2011.
"Ya want a bullion puck for a small premium over spot? Here ya go, here's a piece of junk that's heavily scratched and worth melt."
"Oh, you hope to get a DM69 @ a small premium over spot? Sorry, all the pucks are graded, DM69 pucks are spot + a $600 premium."
Now that the mint restrictions are off, don't be surprised if the APs try to establish a high grade slabbed bullion puck market. I know I won't be.
The 2010 bullion puck market set a strong precedence for the APs; instead of the buyer submitting and benefiting, the APs will submit and benefit instead. >>
This is exactly what I have been saying. if allowed to grade any or all of there bullion products that they get from the mint, the average joe is gonna pay more for the better piece. The magazine article and the mints response shows me they have no idea where this is heading. And No clue as to the power of the grading.There will be a 70 but it will come from one of the ap's. Again good luck to those of you who continue to collect these I am done for without them changing that this series will die enjoy. I vote the Mint Tells ALL AP"s NO NUMERICAL GRADING ..............thats a dream..........................
<< <i>Why Apmex and JHBC graded the remainder? I already told ya. They are "making new markets".
The APs would love for the bullion coin market to evolve into acceptance of what I call "bullion numismatic value".
The ten year puck program with it's potentially high quality DM bullion enables this type market assuming the mintage stays as it is for 2011.
"Ya want a bullion puck for a small premium over spot? Here ya go, here's a piece of junk that's heavily scratched and worth melt."
"Oh, you hope to get a DM69 @ a small premium over spot? Sorry, all the pucks are graded, DM69 pucks are spot + a $600 premium."
Now that the mint restrictions are off, don't be surprised if the APs try to establish a high grade slabbed bullion puck market. I know I won't be.
The 2010 bullion puck market set a strong precedence for the APs; instead of the buyer submitting and benefiting, the APs will submit and benefit instead. >>
How does A Mark figure in with all their slabs being Choice BU?
Below is my followup email to the Coin World Editor following the published investigation, if you can call it that. Coin World Editor Deisher Thank you for assigning a reporter to cover this story. I read the story in the online version of Coin World, Wednesday 6/1. Please bear with me and read the rest of this email. If at the end you think nothing smells, the AP's in question are as pure as the driven snow and would never lie or stretch the truth even a little for immense profits, then please just reply saying so and you will never hear from me again on this issue. If at the end you think there is some smoke indicating a fire somewhere, and it stinks a little, then let me know that too. I don't think I'm crazy or seeing conspiracy behind every bush. It's just the circumstantial evidence looks so obvious. I, and the other members of the Collectors Universe forum, don't believe the AP's claim of innocence.
An analogy: The police investigate a crime. The suspect is asked if he did it. He says no. OK then, you can go. The police release him with no further questions. This is how it looks like the reporter and the AP's acted. What would you expect a suspected party to say if they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar? Yes, I did it, I'm guilty? Maybe I'm more skeptical than the reporter.
A-Mark did it right. They had the ATB's slabbed, all graded BU, no numerical grades. We can only speculate why the did this, but we were charged for the slabbing in the shipping and handling fee. Bravo to A-Mark.
APMEX handled it another way. They first sent out the coins in Air-Tites. Then switched to slabbed. The odd thing that got the hackles up in the forum was a mysterious letter on the bottom of the inner box. The request was made and reports came listing the letter and a rundown of the grades received. If the claim by APMEX that no sorting was done and the letters were merely a shipping indicator then the statistical distribution of grades based on the published PCGS population report would be random and match the population report. Each box, regardless of letter, would have a random mix from MS62 to MS69DMPL. But this is not the case. True, the forum sample is statistically smaller than the total number of sets graded. However, randomness would dictate that at least a few of the boxes would show the totally random mixture of grades. They did not. Here is a section of my original email to illustrate this point: "A forum member collated the grades being received by box letter. Here is what he reported: OK, it appears that the A box contains either all BU or BU with some MS68/68PL mixed in. So a max of 68PL. B box includes all 68PL and/or 68DMPL. C box has minimun of 68DMPL with some 69PLs mixed in. D box is 69PL/69DMPL. I wonder if there is a golden box E with all 69DMPL." Notice the distribution becomes better and better with no straight BU coins above "A" boxes. Odd how "D" boxes have nothing less than 69. So it appears that APMEX flat out lied to your reporter. Box "D" should have contained at least one BU coin between all the reported boxes and box "A" should have had at least one 69 between all those reported boxes. But they didn't. If you believe the dozens of forum members reports of all sets received from APMEX, it appears that APMEX is fudging. APMEX did distribute a total mix of grades in keeping with the population report of PCGS. Good for them on this count. They have not held back the top grades for sale at a premium of around $600 over what lower grades are going for. Have you heard the saying "The cover up is worse than the crime" ? If APMEX just owned up to sorting the grades, which they obviously did, and rewarding their better customers with better grades, who could complain? It's their right to to as they please as long as the abide by the letter of the agreement with the mint. Even the appearance of lying make your whole operation suspect. You can not be trusted if you misrepresent what you did. "Man Up APMEX" Shame on you for covering up with an obvious lie. You've lost customers because of your actions.
Jack Hunt is another circumstantial case. Coincidence #1- It would be expected to receive the same totally random mix as noted above. But not one single MS69DMPL has been reported coming from Jack Hunt. Not one. APMEX at least sent out MS69DMPL's as the population report distribution would dictate. Coincidence #2 - By looking at groups of 100 serial numbers and comparing serial numbers received by members from Jack Hunt it appears that groups of coins submitted by Jack Hunt can be identified. Circumstantial yes but very suggestive. Not absolute proof unless PCGS releases who submitted those coins. MS69DMPL's falling right in with the groups of serial numbers of reported coins received, have been offered for sale by Jack Hunt on E-Bay. He can say he bought them in the after market but he can say the moon is made of cheese. Saying it doesn't make it true. It doesn't mean a reporter should report as truth that the moon's composition can now be established as aged Cheddar. You wouldn't let that "fact" go by a copy editor would you? If he did buy them, ask him to show the receipts of those purchases. In other words, prove it. Independent verification by at lease two sources. Isn't that an assumed newspaper rule? Coincidence #3 - A coin shop just down the road from Jack Hunt has plenty of MS69DMPL's for sale. Hmmmmm. Coincidence #4 - HSN admitted, on air, buying hundreds of coins from an AP. Clearly against the rules set by the mint. Ask HSN to prove where they got the coin from. I believe you were sent the You Tube link by a forum member to the video which you can watch and see for yourself the admission. Again, the serial number sequence suggests that they were submitted by Jack Hunt for grading.
Finally, ask yourself why an AP would get numerical graded slabs if not to cherry pick? At 3,300 coins allotted, lets say a special discounted grading rate of $10 each, that's a $33,000 expense. For what reason? Charity? A-Mark didn't get numerical grades. All BU's. APMEX distributed the highest grades but lied about sorting. Why? Jack Hunt circumstantially looks guilty as sin. Why just believe what he says and not push for proof?
Something just doesn't sit right. It has a peculiar aroma of deceit. Profit is the motive. After all, the AP's wanted to reap a windfall profit at first. That's why the mint stepped in. Reason enough to be angry at loosing that windfall and recouping some of that lost free money by numerical grading and cherry picking the top grades for sale under the table or through unauthorized channels.
Thank you for your time. This isn't the biggest scandal by any means. But to let some AP's get away with what looks like unethical cheating with out any consequences is so disheartening. If the mint won't audit, then these AP's need to be exposed for their manipulations. A public spanking and shaming at least.
Attached is all communications from my initial email through your reporters response and my reply's to him. This is so you can follow exactly what has transpired, what was said by whom, the facts as we assume them to be and as presented.
<< <i>How does A Mark figure in with all their slabs being Choice BU? >>
I can see where this is a legitimate move. AMark essentially outsourced the preparation for shipping of the pucks to PCGS, saving Amark the time and hassle of opening all of the tubes, putting them into flips or capsules, and then preparing them for shipping. That is a lot of labor and for the $10-20 they probably paid PCGS, it was probably better than doing it themselves and it lead to happier customers.
<< <i>Below is my followup email to the Coin World Editor following the published investigation, if you can call it that. Coin World Editor Deisher Thank you for assigning a reporter to cover this story. I read the story in the online version of Coin World, Wednesday 6/1. Please bear with me and read the rest of this email. If at the end you think nothing smells, the AP's in question are as pure as the driven snow and would never lie or stretch the truth even a little for immense profits, then please just reply saying so and you will never hear from me again on this issue. If at the end you think there is some smoke indicating a fire somewhere, and it stinks a little, then let me know that too. I don't think I'm crazy or seeing conspiracy behind every bush. It's just the circumstantial evidence looks so obvious. I, and the other members of the Collectors Universe forum, don't believe the AP's claim of innocence.
An analogy: The police investigate a crime. The suspect is asked if he did it. He says no. OK then, you can go. The police release him with no further questions. This is how it looks like the reporter and the AP's acted. What would you expect a suspected party to say if they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar? Yes, I did it, I'm guilty? Maybe I'm more skeptical than the reporter.
A-Mark did it right. They had the ATB's slabbed, all graded BU, no numerical grades. We can only speculate why the did this, but we were charged for the slabbing in the shipping and handling fee. Bravo to A-Mark.
APMEX handled it another way. They first sent out the coins in Air-Tites. Then switched to slabbed. The odd thing that got the hackles up in the forum was a mysterious letter on the bottom of the inner box. The request was made and reports came listing the letter and a rundown of the grades received. If the claim by APMEX that no sorting was done and the letters were merely a shipping indicator then the statistical distribution of grades based on the published PCGS population report would be random and match the population report. Each box, regardless of letter, would have a random mix from MS62 to MS69DMPL. But this is not the case. True, the forum sample is statistically smaller than the total number of sets graded. However, randomness would dictate that at least a few of the boxes would show the totally random mixture of grades. They did not. Here is a section of my original email to illustrate this point: "A forum member collated the grades being received by box letter. Here is what he reported: OK, it appears that the A box contains either all BU or BU with some MS68/68PL mixed in. So a max of 68PL. B box includes all 68PL and/or 68DMPL. C box has minimun of 68DMPL with some 69PLs mixed in. D box is 69PL/69DMPL. I wonder if there is a golden box E with all 69DMPL." Notice the distribution becomes better and better with no straight BU coins above "A" boxes. Odd how "D" boxes have nothing less than 69. So it appears that APMEX flat out lied to your reporter. Box "D" should have contained at least one BU coin between all the reported boxes and box "A" should have had at least one 69 between all those reported boxes. But they didn't. If you believe the dozens of forum members reports of all sets received from APMEX, it appears that APMEX is fudging. APMEX did distribute a total mix of grades in keeping with the population report of PCGS. Good for them on this count. They have not held back the top grades for sale at a premium of around $600 over what lower grades are going for. Have you heard the saying "The cover up is worse than the crime" ? If APMEX just owned up to sorting the grades, which they obviously did, and rewarding their better customers with better grades, who could complain? It's their right to to as they please as long as the abide by the letter of the agreement with the mint. Even the appearance of lying make your whole operation suspect. You can not be trusted if you misrepresent what you did. "Man Up APMEX" Shame on you for covering up with an obvious lie. You've lost customers because of your actions.
Jack Hunt is another circumstantial case. Coincidence #1- It would be expected to receive the same totally random mix as noted above. But not one single MS69DMPL has been reported coming from Jack Hunt. Not one. APMEX at least sent out MS69DMPL's as the population report distribution would dictate. Coincidence #2 - By looking at groups of 100 serial numbers and comparing serial numbers received by members from Jack Hunt it appears that groups of coins submitted by Jack Hunt can be identified. Circumstantial yes but very suggestive. Not absolute proof unless PCGS releases who submitted those coins. MS69DMPL's falling right in with the groups of serial numbers of reported coins received, have been offered for sale by Jack Hunt on E-Bay. He can say he bought them in the after market but he can say the moon is made of cheese. Saying it doesn't make it true. It doesn't mean a reporter should report as truth that the moon's composition can now be established as aged Cheddar. You wouldn't let that "fact" go by a copy editor would you? If he did buy them, ask him to show the receipts of those purchases. In other words, prove it. Independent verification by at lease two sources. Isn't that an assumed newspaper rule? Coincidence #3 - A coin shop just down the road from Jack Hunt has plenty of MS69DMPL's for sale. Hmmmmm. Coincidence #4 - HSN admitted, on air, buying hundreds of coins from an AP. Clearly against the rules set by the mint. Ask HSN to prove where they got the coin from. I believe you were sent the You Tube link by a forum member to the video which you can watch and see for yourself the admission. Again, the serial number sequence suggests that they were submitted by Jack Hunt for grading.
Finally, ask yourself why an AP would get numerical graded slabs if not to cherry pick? At 3,300 coins allotted, lets say a special discounted grading rate of $10 each, that's a $33,000 expense. For what reason? Charity? A-Mark didn't get numerical grades. All BU's. APMEX distributed the highest grades but lied about sorting. Why? Jack Hunt circumstantially looks guilty as sin. Why just believe what he says and not push for proof?
Something just doesn't sit right. It has a peculiar aroma of deceit. Profit is the motive. After all, the AP's wanted to reap a windfall profit at first. That's why the mint stepped in. Reason enough to be angry at loosing that windfall and recouping some of that lost free money by numerical grading and cherry picking the top grades for sale under the table or through unauthorized channels.
Thank you for your time. This isn't the biggest scandal by any means. But to let some AP's get away with what looks like unethical cheating with out any consequences is so disheartening. If the mint won't audit, then these AP's need to be exposed for their manipulations. A public spanking and shaming at least.
Attached is all communications from my initial email through your reporters response and my reply's to him. This is so you can follow exactly what has transpired, what was said by whom, the facts as we assume them to be and as presented. >>
I am not a better customer and received a D box. I was a first time customer who cancelled the $1395 order. I have ordered nothing else ffrom them in the past.
So, I don't think the "better customers" got a D box.
Also, I still suspect the Mint just doesn't want to spend the money on audits.
Ms M, if I recall correctly, you sent an email to APMEX right around the time they began their "lottery" for Round 2. The following day you were able to order. Must have been quite an email to get you a D box.
"The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary."
<< <i>Also, I still suspect the Mint just doesn't want to spend the money on audits.
You're going to have to compel them to do it.
Find some compelling reasons. >>
The most compelling reason to audit an AP is the most fundamental of all - to assure compliance, that the requirements of the mints directive have been met, not just take the APs word for it.
Why does the mint have to be compelled to conduct an audit? It should be standard business practice. I guarantee 'regulation compliance auditing' is an accepted procedure in the finance, food, automotive and pharmaceutical businesses, to name just a few.
A requirement was issued by the mint for the sale of the 2010 pucks, it should be audited that it was met. No-brainer and pretty simple.
You believe the reason the mint won't audit the APs because the mint doesn't want to spend the money? Ironically, this is the least compelling reason I can think of for the mint not to audit an AP. I think the river runs a bit deeper than that.
<< <i>Ms M, if I recall correctly, you sent an email to APMEX right around the time they began their "lottery" for Round 2. The following day you were able to order. Must have been quite an email to get you a D box. >>
I did.
I posted the text of the e-mail.
I was just questioning why they hadn't gone on sale and they had little time left, and was trying to hint that they should "put up or shut up" about the "evaluating how to sell the rest" while wondering if they had sold them already.
Obviously, they hadn't sold them already.
But a lot of these complaints are suggesting APMEX gave the D boxes to their best customers. I'm no best customer. I'm the one that cancelled at $1395 and told them they were price gouging and then chided them for not selling the others. Wouldn't that make me an annoying customer?
I had a nice phone conversation with the Coin World editor. They do what they can but aren't law enforcement with subpena power. They can't compel any one to "prove it". The light of day is probably the best way to scatter the roaches. The AP's are aware we are watching. Will those that in any event will bend the rules, scheme and cheat to the limit change their ways? It's wired in to their thinking so probably not. But maybe the public will see and vote with their wallets. If you don't like how this all transpired, hold firm to your initial thought to not do business with the bad firms. Don't relent at the first opportunity they offer something you want. Try another company. You may discover the new company doesn't bend the rules and provides better service than the old sleazy firm you grew to dislike so much. See, sometimes a letter to the editor is actually read and listened to. A big "Attaboy" to Coin World.
<< <i>I had a nice phone conversation with the Coin World editor. They do what they can but aren't law enforcement with subpena power. They can't compel any one to "prove it". The light of day is probably the best way to scatter the roaches. The AP's are aware we are watching. Will those that in any event will bend the rules, scheme and cheat to the limit change their ways? It's wired in to their thinking so probably not. But maybe the public will see and vote with their wallets. If you don't like how this all transpired, hold firm to your initial thought to not do business with the bad firms. Don't relent at the first opportunity they offer something you want. Try another company. You may discover the new company doesn't bend the rules and provides better service than the old sleazy firm you grew to dislike so much. See, sometimes a letter to the editor is actually read and listened to. A big "Attaboy" to Coin World. >>
The only "Attaboy" coming from me and going to CW is when CW publishes the exposé revealing the sweetheart deal that exists between the mint and the silver spoon in the mouth APs.
But a lot of these complaints are suggesting APMEX gave the D boxes to their best customers. I'm no best customer. I'm the one that cancelled at $1395 and told them they were price gouging and then chided them for not selling the others. Wouldn't that make me an annoying customer? >>
That would be a good reason not to send you an "A" box as it would prove the point that they were purposely doing it. Has any regular APMEX customer on this board received an "A" box? I don't recall reading it. It seems like the majority who did get the "A" boxes were new customers. I will likely never deal with APMEX again. I look forward to the response they give me to the survey I filled out and will post it here. I'm bet they have been following this forum thread and are not to pleased about what has transpired after we noted the placement of the letters on the boxes.
<< <i>I declare that this thread has officially Jumped the Shark Down to page 7 and fading like interest in the pucks!! >>
Not much to say at this point on this thread. I know there are many predicting the pucks demise. We will see how that plays out. Time will spin that yarn.
Comments
<< <i>So.
We are trying to convince the Mint to audit the APs.
but audits cost money.
What can you say to convince the Mint to spend the money? >>
From the Numismatic news it looks like the FTC needs to be contacted they shut down the american precious metals in florida for underhanded dealings much worse than these ap`s but might be interesting to see how they felt about the matter
It's easy for us to target them, but that is a good question. We know an AP or APs violated the agreement, but do not know for sure which.
Auditing all of them would certainly add to the cost. Although we have some main suspects, it wouldn't be unheard of to go to the main suspects first.
And, well, it must be something compelling to get them to lay down the cash.
I do like the direction of ethics. It was rumored here that tGC charged $1500 for the sets they allegedly sold under the table. That's fleecing of America and abusing the government and government agreements should be taken seriously.
Still, I can't help but think if the term "cost effective" will be brought up in the Mint HQ discussions.
<< <i>Still, I can't help but think if the term "cost effective" will be brought up in the Mint HQ discussions. >>
On May 18 I talked to the mint extensively and was told that audits of the APs was discussed and any audit action was declined by the mint legal cousul.
Latest issue of Coin News published a "No Audit" article for the APs and the 2010 pucks, referencing this forum / thread, the Mint spokesman and quotes from JHBC and Apmex.
The message is - There will not be any audits of the APs for 2010 pucks activity. None. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. Goose egg.
Are you suggesting that the 2010 pucks and the business practices of the APs will be discussed in upcoming "Mint HQ discussions" regarding auditing the APs?
Please elaborate. The Coin News article puts the mint on record - No audit. I very highly doubt that the mint is doing a 180 and will now hold any discussions at "Mint HQ" about auditing the APs.
<< <i>My feelings are that if someone had turned over some hard evidence rather than the accusations and rambling that have taken place on this forum, an investigation would already be under way. >>
Hmmmmmmm Ok then.
The original Godzilla is showing on TCM right now, strangely appropriate while I type. Y'know the story, Godzilla emerges from the sea and wreaks havoc, stomping on stuff and being a general nuisance to the Japanese population. That's us, this thread.
Eventually, Godzilla goes down as F-86 fighter jets swarm him, the monster from the sea. With Godzillas' demise, all is well. The end.
Sorry to spoil the ending.
This has gotta be the Godzilla monster of threads.
Once the form arrives, I have to wait again for mailing payment, check clearing, yadda. It'll be another month!
I called Diamond State yesterday -- could not talk to anyone or even leave a voicemail with their customer service. Got an email response this morning:
"Prudential sent over instructions for your order to us on 5/25/11, at which time a letter was sent out to you on the same day. You should be receiving it shortly. Thank you."
Can anyone tell me if sending a USPS MO for shipping will expedite the wait?
PM me your e-mail address and I'll e-mail you the form and the address.
<< <i>MsMorrisine wrote:
<< <i>Still, I can't help but think if the term "cost effective" will be brought up in the Mint HQ discussions. >>
On May 18 I talked to the mint extensively and was told that audits of the APs was discussed and any audit action was declined by the mint legal cousul.
Latest issue of Coin News published a "No Audit" article for the APs and the 2010 pucks, referencing this forum / thread, the Mint spokesman and quotes from JHBC and Apmex.
The message is - There will not be any audits of the APs for 2010 pucks activity. None. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. Goose egg.
Are you suggesting that the 2010 pucks and the business practices of the APs will be discussed in upcoming "Mint HQ discussions" regarding auditing the APs?
Please elaborate. The Coin News article puts the mint on record - No audit. I very highly doubt that the mint is doing a 180 and will now hold any discussions at "Mint HQ" about auditing the APs. >>
From what I've heard, the article on deals with the "cherry picking" allegations.
I specifically noted that the article did not mention HSN saying on air and on video that they purchased from an AP.
I pointed this out to Coin World, who in turn contacted the Mint again. I am waiting on word back from CW.
Of course the legal counsel had this info before this press. So, what part of "no audit" do I not understand??
The part that says "try changing their mind."
I'm still trying.
I think I got CW's attention with that HSN video and the fact they admit on air they bought them from an AP.
But, I also think this may come down to a money issue internally for the Mint. To them, the 2010 issues are history. Why expend the effort??
I'm trying to convince them there is still a black mark on that history that needs to be cleared up.
Any input is appreciated.
<< <i>MsMorrisine wrote:
<< <i>Still, I can't help but think if the term "cost effective" will be brought up in the Mint HQ discussions. >>
On May 18 I talked to the mint extensively and was told that audits of the APs was discussed and any audit action was declined by the mint legal cousul.
Latest issue of Coin News published a "No Audit" article for the APs and the 2010 pucks, referencing this forum / thread, the Mint spokesman and quotes from JHBC and Apmex.
The message is - There will not be any audits of the APs for 2010 pucks activity. None. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. Goose egg.
Are you suggesting that the 2010 pucks and the business practices of the APs will be discussed in upcoming "Mint HQ discussions" regarding auditing the APs?
Please elaborate. The Coin News article puts the mint on record - No audit. I very highly doubt that the mint is doing a 180 and will now hold any discussions at "Mint HQ" about auditing the APs. >>
If they didn't see a reason to audit with these.....what will it take for an audit to happen? As far as I'm concerned, the Mint has expressed that it has no backbone, that it is not representing the best interests of the American taxpayers it should be serving, and that...suck it up to those APs who followed the rules.
Well, I won't forget these games. Some APs are permanently on my "do not deal with" list. Not to mention I'm also looking into where the secondary purchasers are buying their ATBs before doing business with them.
Some of the AP's can easily market upwards of a billion dollars of bullion per year. Relationships have been
established. This has never been about right or wrong. It's been about keeping the bullion flowing from the Mint
to the investment community. Don't underestimate who it is you're really dealing with here.
"The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary."
~ Vince Lombardi
------------------------------------
Same here. I received the confirmation letter from Prudential on May 12, since then, I have never heard from them.
I have no idea of how and when I will receive the coin.
<< <i>MsMorrisine wrote:
I think I got CW's attention with that HSN video and the fact they admit on air they bought them from an AP.
But, I also think this may come down to a money issue internally for the Mint. To them, the 2010 issues are history. Why expend the effort??
I'm trying to convince them there is still a black mark on that history that needs to be cleared up.
Any input is appreciated. >>
The only thing the mint understands are mandates by congress. Unless some congressfolks press them, they won't do it. Election year is coming up again (they are always coming up
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
This is NOT the first time HSN has had items that the public finds difficult to obtain.
<< <i>Can you believe I'm still waiting for my Prudential set shipping order form? Order placed 4/13.
Once the form arrives, I have to wait again for mailing payment, check clearing, yadda. It'll be another month!
I called Diamond State yesterday -- could not talk to anyone or even leave a voicemail with their customer service. Got an email response this morning:
"Prudential sent over instructions for your order to us on 5/25/11, at which time a letter was sent out to you on the same day. You should be receiving it shortly. Thank you."
Can anyone tell me if sending a USPS MO for shipping will expedite the wait? >>
Don't hold your breath even after you get the DSD form and send in your check. I returned the form and check 2 weeks ago and it hasn't even been cashed yet.....
<< <i>Don't hold your breath even after you get the DSD form and send in your check. I returned the form and check 2 weeks ago and it hasn't even been cashed yet.....
My check was cashed yesterday so the event actually does occur
<< <i>
<< <i>MsMorrisine wrote:
I think I got CW's attention with that HSN video and the fact they admit on air they bought them from an AP.
But, I also think this may come down to a money issue internally for the Mint. To them, the 2010 issues are history. Why expend the effort??
I'm trying to convince them there is still a black mark on that history that needs to be cleared up.
Any input is appreciated. >>
The only thing the mint understands are mandates by congress. Unless some congressfolks press them, they won't do it. Election year is coming up again (they are always coming up
I live in NY... do you think for one single moment my representatives ACTUALLY represent me or give a rats a** what I think? The past several years have proven without a doubt that they do not.
<< <i>
<< <i>Don't hold your breath even after you get the DSD form and send in your check. I returned the form and check 2 weeks ago and it hasn't even been cashed yet.....
My check was cashed yesterday so the event actually does occur
I sent them a postal money order 2 weeks ago and have not heard anything from them. I am not in a gig hurry for them anyway but this is why they still have these coins for sale.
The question that stays with me and hasn't been answered as far as I know is:
Why did some APs go to the effort and supposedly added expense of having the 2010 ATB bullion graded prior to distribution per Mint guidelines? PR? Did the grading services give them a deal? Assuming no cherry picking occurred there was no increased profit motive involved so why the extra (unnecessary) step?
<< <i>http://www.coinworld.com/articles/mint-officials-plan-no-audit-in-atb-bullion-s/
The question that stays with me and hasn't been answered as far as I know is:
Why did some APs go to the effort and supposedly added expense of having the 2010 ATB bullion graded prior to distribution per Mint guidelines? PR? Did the grading services give them a deal? Assuming no cherry picking occurred there was no increased profit motive involved so why the extra (unnecessary) step? >>
And why was the Mint okay with them doing that? I mean I was born at night but I wasn't born last night!
<< <i>The US Mint was ok with them getting the coins graded because is isn't something that is forbidden in their agreement. The APs can even make sure their best customers got the best coins and still be in compliance with the agreement with the US Mint. >>
Understood. To me though, it's an easy fix. Spell it out in the agreement or contract. As a side note, there are many things we do in life that are not forbidden per say, yet we can choose to do the right thing.
<< <i>The US Mint was ok with them getting the coins graded because is isn't something that is forbidden in their agreement. The APs can even make sure their best customers got the best coins and still be in compliance with the agreement with the US Mint. >>
I understand slabbing was ok by Mint guidelines. No problem there.
But as far as I know A Mark slabs were all Choice BU across the board so no benefit to select customers there. And as far as I know no one complained about MTB and FT sending raw coins (as long as the packing was adequate). The first Apmex sets sent out in Dec 2010 were raw in hard plastic air tites and mine graded fine. So, Apmex slabbing the remainder perplexes me. The only logical reason is PR.
Some simple math: 3700 (max allotment to each dealer) - 350 (1st Apmex distribution in Dec 2010) = 3350 sets. Say PCGS gave them a break in grading at $10/coin. That's $33,500 worth of PR on Apmex's part. Hmmm.
The APs would love for the bullion coin market to evolve into acceptance of what I call "bullion numismatic value".
The ten year puck program with it's potentially high quality DM bullion enables this type market assuming the mintage stays as it is for 2011.
"Ya want a bullion puck for a small premium over spot? Here ya go, here's a piece of junk that's heavily scratched and worth melt."
"Oh, you hope to get a DM69 @ a small premium over spot? Sorry, all the pucks are graded, DM69 pucks are spot + a $600 premium."
Now that the mint restrictions are off, don't be surprised if the APs try to establish a high grade slabbed bullion puck market. I know I won't be.
The 2010 bullion puck market set a strong precedence for the APs; instead of the buyer submitting and benefiting, the APs will submit and benefit instead.
We will see at least a few MS70, MS70PL or maybe even a few MS70DMPL bullion coins graded within a year from now.
<< <i>Why Apmex and JHBC graded the remainder? I already told ya. They are "making new markets".
The APs would love for the bullion coin market to evolve into acceptance of what I call "bullion numismatic value".
The ten year puck program with it's potentially high quality DM bullion enables this type market assuming the mintage stays as it is for 2011.
"Ya want a bullion puck for a small premium over spot? Here ya go, here's a piece of junk that's heavily scratched and worth melt."
"Oh, you hope to get a DM69 @ a small premium over spot? Sorry, all the pucks are graded, DM69 pucks are spot + a $600 premium."
Now that the mint restrictions are off, don't be surprised if the APs try to establish a high grade slabbed bullion puck market. I know I won't be.
The 2010 bullion puck market set a strong precedence for the APs; instead of the buyer submitting and benefiting, the APs will submit and benefit instead. >>
They very well may. And they could do it without violating their agreement.
However, if they sufficiently pick over their coins and sell the good ones at a premium, they will quickly kill collecting those high end sets. It will become cost prohibitive for many.
So, I view cornering the market on high end graded coins as shooting themselves in the foot.
<< <i>Why Apmex and JHBC graded the remainder? I already told ya. They are "making new markets".
The APs would love for the bullion coin market to evolve into acceptance of what I call "bullion numismatic value".
The ten year puck program with it's potentially high quality DM bullion enables this type market assuming the mintage stays as it is for 2011.
"Ya want a bullion puck for a small premium over spot? Here ya go, here's a piece of junk that's heavily scratched and worth melt."
"Oh, you hope to get a DM69 @ a small premium over spot? Sorry, all the pucks are graded, DM69 pucks are spot + a $600 premium."
Now that the mint restrictions are off, don't be surprised if the APs try to establish a high grade slabbed bullion puck market. I know I won't be.
The 2010 bullion puck market set a strong precedence for the APs; instead of the buyer submitting and benefiting, the APs will submit and benefit instead. >>
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.
<< <i>Why Apmex and JHBC graded the remainder? I already told ya. They are "making new markets".
The APs would love for the bullion coin market to evolve into acceptance of what I call "bullion numismatic value".
The ten year puck program with it's potentially high quality DM bullion enables this type market assuming the mintage stays as it is for 2011.
"Ya want a bullion puck for a small premium over spot? Here ya go, here's a piece of junk that's heavily scratched and worth melt."
"Oh, you hope to get a DM69 @ a small premium over spot? Sorry, all the pucks are graded, DM69 pucks are spot + a $600 premium."
Now that the mint restrictions are off, don't be surprised if the APs try to establish a high grade slabbed bullion puck market. I know I won't be.
The 2010 bullion puck market set a strong precedence for the APs; instead of the buyer submitting and benefiting, the APs will submit and benefit instead. >>
How does A Mark figure in with all their slabs being Choice BU?
Coin World Editor Deisher
Thank you for assigning a reporter to cover this story. I read the story in the online version of Coin World, Wednesday 6/1.
Please bear with me and read the rest of this email. If at the end you think nothing smells, the AP's in question are as pure as the driven snow and would never lie or stretch the truth even a little for immense profits, then please just reply saying so and you will never hear from me again on this issue. If at the end you think there is some smoke indicating a fire somewhere, and it stinks a little, then let me know that too. I don't think I'm crazy or seeing conspiracy behind every bush. It's just the circumstantial evidence looks so obvious. I, and the other members of the Collectors Universe forum, don't believe the AP's claim of innocence.
You might want to see how the forum is reacting to the article. Here's the link:
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=797035&STARTPAGE=747
An analogy: The police investigate a crime. The suspect is asked if he did it. He says no. OK then, you can go. The police release him with no further questions. This is how it looks like the reporter and the AP's acted. What would you expect a suspected party to say if they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar? Yes, I did it, I'm guilty? Maybe I'm more skeptical than the reporter.
A-Mark did it right. They had the ATB's slabbed, all graded BU, no numerical grades. We can only speculate why the did this, but we were charged for the slabbing in the shipping and handling fee. Bravo to A-Mark.
APMEX handled it another way. They first sent out the coins in Air-Tites. Then switched to slabbed. The odd thing that got the hackles up in the forum was a mysterious letter on the bottom of the inner box. The request was made and reports came listing the letter and a rundown of the grades received. If the claim by APMEX that no sorting was done and the letters were merely a shipping indicator then the statistical distribution of grades based on the published PCGS population report would be random and match the population report. Each box, regardless of letter, would have a random mix from MS62 to MS69DMPL. But this is not the case. True, the forum sample is statistically smaller than the total number of sets graded. However, randomness would dictate that at least a few of the boxes would show the totally random mixture of grades. They did not. Here is a section of my original email to illustrate this point:
"A forum member collated the grades being received by box letter. Here is what he reported:
OK, it appears that the A box contains either all BU or BU with some MS68/68PL mixed in. So a max of 68PL.
B box includes all 68PL and/or 68DMPL.
C box has minimun of 68DMPL with some 69PLs mixed in.
D box is 69PL/69DMPL.
I wonder if there is a golden box E with all 69DMPL."
Notice the distribution becomes better and better with no straight BU coins above "A" boxes. Odd how "D" boxes have nothing less than 69. So it appears that APMEX flat out lied to your reporter. Box "D" should have contained at least one BU coin between all the reported boxes and box "A" should have had at least one 69 between all those reported boxes. But they didn't. If you believe the dozens of forum members reports of all sets received from APMEX, it appears that APMEX is fudging.
APMEX did distribute a total mix of grades in keeping with the population report of PCGS. Good for them on this count. They have not held back the top grades for sale at a premium of around $600 over what lower grades are going for. Have you heard the saying "The cover up is worse than the crime" ? If APMEX just owned up to sorting the grades, which they obviously did, and rewarding their better customers with better grades, who could complain? It's their right to to as they please as long as the abide by the letter of the agreement with the mint. Even the appearance of lying make your whole operation suspect. You can not be trusted if you misrepresent what you did. "Man Up APMEX" Shame on you for covering up with an obvious lie. You've lost customers because of your actions.
Jack Hunt is another circumstantial case.
Coincidence #1- It would be expected to receive the same totally random mix as noted above. But not one single MS69DMPL has been reported coming from Jack Hunt. Not one. APMEX at least sent out MS69DMPL's as the population report distribution would dictate.
Coincidence #2 - By looking at groups of 100 serial numbers and comparing serial numbers received by members from Jack Hunt it appears that groups of coins submitted by Jack Hunt can be identified. Circumstantial yes but very suggestive. Not absolute proof unless PCGS releases who submitted those coins. MS69DMPL's falling right in with the groups of serial numbers of reported coins received, have been offered for sale by Jack Hunt on E-Bay. He can say he bought them in the after market but he can say the moon is made of cheese. Saying it doesn't make it true. It doesn't mean a reporter should report as truth that the moon's composition can now be established as aged Cheddar. You wouldn't let that "fact" go by a copy editor would you? If he did buy them, ask him to show the receipts of those purchases. In other words, prove it. Independent verification by at lease two sources. Isn't that an assumed newspaper rule?
Coincidence #3 - A coin shop just down the road from Jack Hunt has plenty of MS69DMPL's for sale. Hmmmmm.
Coincidence #4 - HSN admitted, on air, buying hundreds of coins from an AP. Clearly against the rules set by the mint. Ask HSN to prove where they got the coin from. I believe you were sent the You Tube link by a forum member to the video which you can watch and see for yourself the admission. Again, the serial number sequence suggests that they were submitted by Jack Hunt for grading.
Finally, ask yourself why an AP would get numerical graded slabs if not to cherry pick? At 3,300 coins allotted, lets say a special discounted grading rate of $10 each, that's a $33,000 expense. For what reason? Charity? A-Mark didn't get numerical grades. All BU's. APMEX distributed the highest grades but lied about sorting. Why? Jack Hunt circumstantially looks guilty as sin. Why just believe what he says and not push for proof?
Something just doesn't sit right. It has a peculiar aroma of deceit. Profit is the motive. After all, the AP's wanted to reap a windfall profit at first. That's why the mint stepped in. Reason enough to be angry at loosing that windfall and recouping some of that lost free money by numerical grading and cherry picking the top grades for sale under the table or through unauthorized channels.
Thank you for your time. This isn't the biggest scandal by any means. But to let some AP's get away with what looks like unethical cheating with out any consequences is so disheartening. If the mint won't audit, then these AP's need to be exposed for their manipulations. A public spanking and shaming at least.
Attached is all communications from my initial email through your reporters response and my reply's to him. This is so you can follow exactly what has transpired, what was said by whom, the facts as we assume them to be and as presented.
<< <i>How does A Mark figure in with all their slabs being Choice BU? >>
I can see where this is a legitimate move. AMark essentially outsourced the preparation for shipping of the pucks to PCGS, saving Amark the time and hassle of opening all of the tubes, putting them into flips or capsules, and then preparing them for shipping. That is a lot of labor and for the $10-20 they probably paid PCGS, it was probably better than doing it themselves and it lead to happier customers.
<< <i>Below is my followup email to the Coin World Editor following the published investigation, if you can call it that.
Coin World Editor Deisher
Thank you for assigning a reporter to cover this story. I read the story in the online version of Coin World, Wednesday 6/1.
Please bear with me and read the rest of this email. If at the end you think nothing smells, the AP's in question are as pure as the driven snow and would never lie or stretch the truth even a little for immense profits, then please just reply saying so and you will never hear from me again on this issue. If at the end you think there is some smoke indicating a fire somewhere, and it stinks a little, then let me know that too. I don't think I'm crazy or seeing conspiracy behind every bush. It's just the circumstantial evidence looks so obvious. I, and the other members of the Collectors Universe forum, don't believe the AP's claim of innocence.
You might want to see how the forum is reacting to the article. Here's the link:
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=797035&STARTPAGE=747
An analogy: The police investigate a crime. The suspect is asked if he did it. He says no. OK then, you can go. The police release him with no further questions. This is how it looks like the reporter and the AP's acted. What would you expect a suspected party to say if they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar? Yes, I did it, I'm guilty? Maybe I'm more skeptical than the reporter.
A-Mark did it right. They had the ATB's slabbed, all graded BU, no numerical grades. We can only speculate why the did this, but we were charged for the slabbing in the shipping and handling fee. Bravo to A-Mark.
APMEX handled it another way. They first sent out the coins in Air-Tites. Then switched to slabbed. The odd thing that got the hackles up in the forum was a mysterious letter on the bottom of the inner box. The request was made and reports came listing the letter and a rundown of the grades received. If the claim by APMEX that no sorting was done and the letters were merely a shipping indicator then the statistical distribution of grades based on the published PCGS population report would be random and match the population report. Each box, regardless of letter, would have a random mix from MS62 to MS69DMPL. But this is not the case. True, the forum sample is statistically smaller than the total number of sets graded. However, randomness would dictate that at least a few of the boxes would show the totally random mixture of grades. They did not. Here is a section of my original email to illustrate this point:
"A forum member collated the grades being received by box letter. Here is what he reported:
OK, it appears that the A box contains either all BU or BU with some MS68/68PL mixed in. So a max of 68PL.
B box includes all 68PL and/or 68DMPL.
C box has minimun of 68DMPL with some 69PLs mixed in.
D box is 69PL/69DMPL.
I wonder if there is a golden box E with all 69DMPL."
Notice the distribution becomes better and better with no straight BU coins above "A" boxes. Odd how "D" boxes have nothing less than 69. So it appears that APMEX flat out lied to your reporter. Box "D" should have contained at least one BU coin between all the reported boxes and box "A" should have had at least one 69 between all those reported boxes. But they didn't. If you believe the dozens of forum members reports of all sets received from APMEX, it appears that APMEX is fudging.
APMEX did distribute a total mix of grades in keeping with the population report of PCGS. Good for them on this count. They have not held back the top grades for sale at a premium of around $600 over what lower grades are going for. Have you heard the saying "The cover up is worse than the crime" ? If APMEX just owned up to sorting the grades, which they obviously did, and rewarding their better customers with better grades, who could complain? It's their right to to as they please as long as the abide by the letter of the agreement with the mint. Even the appearance of lying make your whole operation suspect. You can not be trusted if you misrepresent what you did. "Man Up APMEX" Shame on you for covering up with an obvious lie. You've lost customers because of your actions.
Jack Hunt is another circumstantial case.
Coincidence #1- It would be expected to receive the same totally random mix as noted above. But not one single MS69DMPL has been reported coming from Jack Hunt. Not one. APMEX at least sent out MS69DMPL's as the population report distribution would dictate.
Coincidence #2 - By looking at groups of 100 serial numbers and comparing serial numbers received by members from Jack Hunt it appears that groups of coins submitted by Jack Hunt can be identified. Circumstantial yes but very suggestive. Not absolute proof unless PCGS releases who submitted those coins. MS69DMPL's falling right in with the groups of serial numbers of reported coins received, have been offered for sale by Jack Hunt on E-Bay. He can say he bought them in the after market but he can say the moon is made of cheese. Saying it doesn't make it true. It doesn't mean a reporter should report as truth that the moon's composition can now be established as aged Cheddar. You wouldn't let that "fact" go by a copy editor would you? If he did buy them, ask him to show the receipts of those purchases. In other words, prove it. Independent verification by at lease two sources. Isn't that an assumed newspaper rule?
Coincidence #3 - A coin shop just down the road from Jack Hunt has plenty of MS69DMPL's for sale. Hmmmmm.
Coincidence #4 - HSN admitted, on air, buying hundreds of coins from an AP. Clearly against the rules set by the mint. Ask HSN to prove where they got the coin from. I believe you were sent the You Tube link by a forum member to the video which you can watch and see for yourself the admission. Again, the serial number sequence suggests that they were submitted by Jack Hunt for grading.
Finally, ask yourself why an AP would get numerical graded slabs if not to cherry pick? At 3,300 coins allotted, lets say a special discounted grading rate of $10 each, that's a $33,000 expense. For what reason? Charity? A-Mark didn't get numerical grades. All BU's. APMEX distributed the highest grades but lied about sorting. Why? Jack Hunt circumstantially looks guilty as sin. Why just believe what he says and not push for proof?
Something just doesn't sit right. It has a peculiar aroma of deceit. Profit is the motive. After all, the AP's wanted to reap a windfall profit at first. That's why the mint stepped in. Reason enough to be angry at loosing that windfall and recouping some of that lost free money by numerical grading and cherry picking the top grades for sale under the table or through unauthorized channels.
Thank you for your time. This isn't the biggest scandal by any means. But to let some AP's get away with what looks like unethical cheating with out any consequences is so disheartening. If the mint won't audit, then these AP's need to be exposed for their manipulations. A public spanking and shaming at least.
Attached is all communications from my initial email through your reporters response and my reply's to him. This is so you can follow exactly what has transpired, what was said by whom, the facts as we assume them to be and as presented. >>
<< <i>And my other "making new markets" prediction is -
We will see at least a few MS70, MS70PL or maybe even a few MS70DMPL bullion coins graded within a year from now. >>
Of course.....and the first one to give out those appropriate grades will get the nod when it comes to submissions....
It's just not right for the 70's of 2010, 2011 that will forever be 69's
<< <i>
<< <i>....
It's just not right for the 70's of 2010, 2011 that will forever be 69's >>
Not necessarily. "If the grades don't fit you must re-submit".
"The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary."
~ Vince Lombardi
So, I don't think the "better customers" got a D box.
Also, I still suspect the Mint just doesn't want to spend the money on audits.
You're going to have to compel them to do it.
Find some compelling reasons.
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.
Ms M, if I recall correctly, you sent an email to APMEX right around the time they began their "lottery" for Round 2. The following day you were able to order. Must have been quite an email to get you a D box.
"The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary."
~ Vince Lombardi
<< <i>Also, I still suspect the Mint just doesn't want to spend the money on audits.
You're going to have to compel them to do it.
Find some compelling reasons. >>
The most compelling reason to audit an AP is the most fundamental of all - to assure compliance, that the requirements of the mints directive have been met, not just take the APs word for it.
Why does the mint have to be compelled to conduct an audit? It should be standard business practice. I guarantee 'regulation compliance auditing' is an accepted procedure in the finance, food, automotive and pharmaceutical businesses, to name just a few.
A requirement was issued by the mint for the sale of the 2010 pucks, it should be audited that it was met. No-brainer and pretty simple.
You believe the reason the mint won't audit the APs because the mint doesn't want to spend the money? Ironically, this is the least compelling reason I can think of for the mint not to audit an AP. I think the river runs a bit deeper than that.
JMHO
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>....
It's just not right for the 70's of 2010, 2011 that will forever be 69's >>
Not necessarily. "If the grades don't fit you must re-submit".
...and pay more for the slim chance to to get the proper grade???? I think once was plenty...
<< <i>Ms M, if I recall correctly, you sent an email to APMEX right around the time they began their "lottery" for Round 2. The following day you were able to order. Must have been quite an email to get you a D box.
I did.
I posted the text of the e-mail.
I was just questioning why they hadn't gone on sale and they had little time left, and was trying to hint that they should "put up or shut up" about the "evaluating how to sell the rest" while wondering if they had sold them already.
Obviously, they hadn't sold them already.
But a lot of these complaints are suggesting APMEX gave the D boxes to their best customers. I'm no best customer. I'm the one that cancelled at $1395 and told them they were price gouging and then chided them for not selling the others. Wouldn't that make me an annoying customer?
See, sometimes a letter to the editor is actually read and listened to. A big "Attaboy" to Coin World.
<< <i>I had a nice phone conversation with the Coin World editor. They do what they can but aren't law enforcement with subpena power. They can't compel any one to "prove it". The light of day is probably the best way to scatter the roaches. The AP's are aware we are watching. Will those that in any event will bend the rules, scheme and cheat to the limit change their ways? It's wired in to their thinking so probably not. But maybe the public will see and vote with their wallets. If you don't like how this all transpired, hold firm to your initial thought to not do business with the bad firms. Don't relent at the first opportunity they offer something you want. Try another company. You may discover the new company doesn't bend the rules and provides better service than the old sleazy firm you grew to dislike so much.
See, sometimes a letter to the editor is actually read and listened to. A big "Attaboy" to Coin World. >>
The only "Attaboy" coming from me and going to CW is when CW publishes the exposé revealing the sweetheart deal that exists between the mint and the silver spoon in the mouth APs.
CW is just a mouth piece for the mint and APs.
<< <i>
But a lot of these complaints are suggesting APMEX gave the D boxes to their best customers. I'm no best customer. I'm the one that cancelled at $1395 and told them they were price gouging and then chided them for not selling the others. Wouldn't that make me an annoying customer? >>
That would be a good reason not to send you an "A" box as it would prove the point that they were purposely doing it. Has any regular APMEX customer on this board received an "A" box? I don't recall reading it. It seems like the majority who did get the "A" boxes were new customers. I will likely never deal with APMEX again. I look forward to the response they give me to the survey I filled out and will post it here. I'm bet they have been following this forum thread and are not to pleased about what has transpired after we noted the placement of the letters on the boxes.
Maine_Jim
<< <i>I ordered 2010 bullion sets from most AP's mentioned here. I got what I ordered at the price quoted. My thanks to the AP's. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>I ordered 2010 bullion sets from most AP's mentioned here. I got what I ordered at the price quoted. My thanks to the AP's. >>
If I worked for or was associated with an AP, that's exactly what i would post.
<< <i>I declare that this thread has officially Jumped the Shark
Not much to say at this point on this thread. I know there are many predicting the pucks demise. We will see how that plays out. Time will spin that yarn.