If I'd have ordered from APMEX and they tied my $$ up with no answers I'd be both pizzed and never ordering from them again. They should be answering questions, not hiding from them!
<< <i>In the event this list gets lost in this thread...
This is the current US AP list per the Mint.
A-Mark Precious Metals (Los Angeles) Gold, Silver, Platinum Coins 'N Things (Massachusetts) Gold, Silver, Platinum MTB (New York) Gold, Silver Platinum Scotia Mocatta (New York) Gold, Silver, Platinum American Precious Metals Exchange, Inc. (Oklahaoma) Silver Dillon Gage Incorporated of Dallas (Texas) Silver Prudential Securities Inc. (New York) Gold, Silver, Platinum The Gold Center (Illinois) Silver Jack Hunt Coin Broker (New York) Silver Commerzbank (New York) Gold, Silver Fidelitrade (Delaware) Silver >>
Mint New Blog has a slightly different list...
A-Mark Precious Metals (Los Angeles) Coins 'N Things Inc. (Massachusetts) MTB (New York) Scotia Mocatta (New York) American Precious Metals Exchange, Inc. (APMEX) (Oklahoma) Dillon Gage Incorporated of Dallas (Texas) Prudential Securities Inc. (New York) The Gold Center (Illinois) Commerzbank International (Luxembourg) Deutsche Bank A.G. (Germany) Tanaka Kikinzoku Kogyo K.K. (Japan)
My concern is; will they try to keep the current orders at the $1395 price, kind of like, just send them out and say those orders were before the new rules.
Seems they are keeping their customers in the dark. >>
I just don't see how they could do that. They have to agree to the "new" rules to receive them and they would get in BIG trouble it they didn't follow them.
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
My concern is; will they try to keep the current orders at the $1395 price, kind of like, just send them out and say those orders were before the new rules.
Seems they are keeping their customers in the dark. >>
I just don't see how they could do that. They have to agree to the "new" rules to receive them and they would get in BIG trouble it they didn't follow them. >>
Do they? They were following the rules at the time and then the mint changed the rules. For $400K they probably have the lawyers looking into it.
I recognize APMEX's right to cancel all existing orders, including mine, and start over, but think it would be poor business practice to do so. You have names and address already keypunched, so just give the original orderers the option of taking one set at the new price or receiving a full refund. TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I just don't see how they could do that. They have to agree to the "new" rules to receive them and they would get in BIG trouble it they didn't follow them. >>
Do they? They were following the rules at the time and then the mint changed the rules. For $400K they probably have the lawyers looking into it. >>
THIS IS EXACTLY THE MESS THAT HAS BEEN CREATED BY A COUPLE "NEW RULES"
Household limits, does the company lawyer want the Mint to have complete access to your books (what a nightmare)?
New precedent for future sales, is this battle worth fighting now or wait till later?
AP's can't even trade these items amongst each other, imagine them having to set up retail operations and all the expense, web site design, more lawyers and expenses, and for what?
etc., etc., and so on ad nauseum till 300k in profit gets sucked up by retainers while you are trying to pay your employees and taxes.
But its only a couple more rules--------------------------------------------------BigE
I recognize APMEX's right to cancel all existing orders, including mine, and start over, but think it would be poor business practice to do so. You have names and address already keypunched, so just give the original orderers the option of taking one set at the new price or receiving a full refund.
To me, this is the logical thing to do.
Positive transactions with Cladiator, Meltdown, ajbauman, LeeG, route66,DennisH,Hmann,FilamCoins,mgoodm3,terburn88,MrOrganic, weg,dcarr,guitarwes,Zubie,Barndog,wondercoin,braddick,etc...
I think I could work that in already, I just haven't!
anyway, fascism = far right, communism = far left, socialism just not as far left as communism.
Just to clarify, it depends on which train track you're on. On the Euro-rail, fascism is socialism on the right side but it's still socialism which is far left of what our country is (or use to be?) Our country was founded on individual Liberty and the left and right of that track is D and R. The combination or substitution of the two rails is where it gets dangerous.
APMEX will now have to make a change to their privacy clause that your info. will now be released to government entities at their request, sure you still want to order------------------BigE
I think I could work that in already, I just haven't!
anyway, fascism = far right, communism = far left, socialism just not as far left as communism.
Just to clarify, it depends on which train track you're on. On the Euro-rail, fascism is socialism on the right side but it's still socialism which is far left of what our country is (or use to be?) Our country was founded on individual Liberty and the left and right of that track is D and R. The combination or substitution of the two rails is where it gets dangerous.
And now back to our never-ending puck-thread. >>
I think the American Liberty train got derailed.
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
Noticeably missing from the "Mint News Blog" list posted above as an "Update" was Fidelitrade who is taking names....
Actually the Mint News Blog list as of 12/14 is:
US Mint Authorized Purchaser List from Mint News Blog by Mint News Blog The US Mint has provided an updated list of authorized purchasers. There are some changes from a list provided by the Mint last week.
For current and future reference, listed below are the 11 primary distributors of United States Mint bullion products who are able to purchase directly from the Mint:
A-Mark Precious Metals (Los Angeles) Gold, Silver, Platinum Coins 'N Things (Massachusetts) Gold, Silver, Platinum MTB (New York) Gold, Silver Platinum Scotia Mocatta (New York) Gold, Silver, Platinum American Precious Metals Exchange, Inc. (Oklahaoma) Silver Dillon Gage Incorporated of Dallas (Texas) Silver Prudential Securities Inc. (New York) Gold, Silver, Platinum The Gold Center (Illinois) Silver Jack Hunt Coin Broker (New York) Silver Commerzbank (New York) Gold, Silver Fidelitrade (Delaware) Silver
There is also some new information on the distribution of the America the Beautiful Silver Bullion Coins. So far, the primary distributors have ordered only 75,000 of the total 165,000 coins available.
Each of the 11 primary distributors were provided with an allocation of 3,000 coins per design, or 15,000 coins total. It looks like only five of them have placed an order with the US Mint for their allocation, and the remaining six are opting out of the program or still evaluating their options. They will have until the end of the week to place their order, or the excess coins will be reallocated to the active dealers the following week
<< <i>APMEX will now have to make a change to their privacy clause that your info. will now be released to government entities at their request, sure you still want to order------------------BigE >>
Aren't the requirements the same no matter who you order from???
<< <i>APMEX will now have to make a change to their privacy clause that your info. will now be released to government entities at their request, sure you still want to order------------------BigE >>
New Mint uniforms?
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
<< <i>APMEX will now have to make a change to their privacy clause that your info. will now be released to government entities at their request, sure you still want to order------------------BigE >>
Aren't the requirements the same no matter who you order from???
People are getting all over the mint for this, and, while I agree they screwed up early on with this, I actually find that their actions are more inline with fairness and equity and that they should do this more often.
For the ones railing against these changes, is it because you may have lost flipping money? Is it because you just want to complain? Is it just people wanting attention and jumping on the dogpile on the mint?
I don't understand 90%+ of collectors having any issue with what the mint did about this......(the 10% or so are the ones who may legitimately wanted 2 or more...for gifts or whatnot...not for flippng).
And, I say the above, as a person who has trashed on many of the mint's decisions and think they should be doing a better job.....I am hoping this is a step in the right direction.
<< <i>I recognize APMEX's right to cancel all existing orders, including mine, and start over, but think it would be poor business practice to do so. You have names and address already keypunched, so just give the original orderers the option of taking one set at the new price or receiving a full refund. TD >>
Just curious. What are APMEX's rights to cancel?
IMHO, APMEX are the ones that made a binding contract. APMEX customers didn't deal with the mint, they dealt with APMEX. APMEX took your money (cashed your checks & credited your credit cards). If APMEX said you could buy as many sets as you wanted, I believe they pretty much will have to put up, if that's what the customer wants. Of course, the customer will have to pay the stated price.
<< <i>People are getting all over the mint for this, and, while I agree they screwed up early on with this, I actually find that their actions are more inline with fairness and equity and that they should do this more often.
For the ones railing against these changes, is it because you may have lost flipping money? Is it because you just want to complain? Is it just people wanting attention and jumping on the dogpile on the mint?
I don't understand 90%+ of collectors having any issue with what the mint did about this......(the 10% or so are the ones who may legitimately wanted 2 or more...for gifts or whatnot...not for flippng).
And, I say the above, as a person who has trashed on many of the mint's decisions and think they should be doing a better job.....I am hoping this is a step in the right direction. >>
My issue with the mint was in their deciding to let others (mostly wholesalers) sell this product, which was obviously low issue and not a "bullion" issue in the common sense of the word. They caused the problems from the get-go.
For the ones railing against these changes, is it because you may have lost flipping money? Is it because you just want to complain? Is it just people wanting attention and jumping on the dogpile on the mint?
I don't think it is because of lost flipping money. The flip margins got bigger with the changes.
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
<< <i>I recognize APMEX's right to cancel all existing orders, including mine, and start over, but think it would be poor business practice to do so. You have names and address already keypunched, so just give the original orderers the option of taking one set at the new price or receiving a full refund. TD >>
Just curious. What are APMEX's rights to cancel?
IMHO, APMEX are the ones that made a binding contract. APMEX customers didn't deal with the mint, they dealt with APMEX. APMEX took your money (cashed your checks & credited your credit cards). If APMEX said you could buy as many sets as you wanted, I believe they pretty much will have to put up, if that's what the customer wants. Of course, the customer will have to pay the stated price. >>
I have a business degree, and am a big boy. It is a fact that the Mint completely changed its prior arrangment with the AP's. In my opinion, this gives APMEX the right to completely change all of the sales it made in good faith under the old Mint arrangements. If they announced that they did not want the hassle of government audits and were deciding to opt out of the program, I would not demand that they deliver me a set and refund the difference. I would just take the refund check and deposit it in my bank.
That said, if they are going to sell the sets under the Mint's new requirements, I think it would be a nice gesture on their part to honor the sale of one set per household to the previous orders.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
To enforce the household limit, the Mint can come and audit your information to make sure you only bought one, you agree to this at time of sale
You may not sell this coin to a "dealer" ever, you must sell it to a "public" entity
Would this be OK?
Edited to add: not directed at anyone in particular, as a general question for all who care! >>
But I do not have a contract with the Mint for any products as the AP's do....So the Mint CAN make the rules...or the AP's can decide not to carry the product (which some did)
<< <i>People are getting all over the mint for this, and, while I agree they screwed up early on with this, I actually find that their actions are more inline with fairness and equity and that they should do this more often.
For the ones railing against these changes, is it because you may have lost flipping money? Is it because you just want to complain? Is it just people wanting attention and jumping on the dogpile on the mint?
I don't understand 90%+ of collectors having any issue with what the mint did about this......(the 10% or so are the ones who may legitimately wanted 2 or more...for gifts or whatnot...not for flippng).
And, I say the above, as a person who has trashed on many of the mint's decisions and think they should be doing a better job.....I am hoping this is a step in the right direction. >>
My issue with the mint was in their deciding to let others (mostly wholesalers) sell this product, which was obviously low issue and not a "bullion" issue in the common sense of the word. They caused the problems from the get-go. >>
I believe that this was in the legislation and not The Min't (very, very poor) decision.
<< <i>I recognize APMEX's right to cancel all existing orders, including mine, and start over, but think it would be poor business practice to do so. You have names and address already keypunched, so just give the original orderers the option of taking one set at the new price or receiving a full refund. TD >>
Just curious. What are APMEX's rights to cancel?
IMHO, APMEX are the ones that made a binding contract. APMEX customers didn't deal with the mint, they dealt with APMEX. APMEX took your money (cashed your checks & credited your credit cards). If APMEX said you could buy as many sets as you wanted, I believe they pretty much will have to put up, if that's what the customer wants. Of course, the customer will have to pay the stated price. >>
I have a business degree, and am a big boy. It is a fact that the Mint completely changed its prior arrangment with the AP's. In my opinion, this gives APMEX the right to completely change all of the sales it made in good faith under the old Mint arrangements. If they announced that they did not want the hassle of government audits and were deciding to opt out of the program, I would not demand that they deliver me a set and refund the difference. I would just take the refund check and deposit it in my bank.
That said, if they are going to sell the sets under the Mint's new requirements, I think it would be a nice gesture on their part to honor the sale of one set per household to the previous orders.
TD >>
I think the Law Degrees are going to win out in this particular case!
To enforce the household limit, the Mint can come and audit your information to make sure you only bought one, you agree to this at time of sale
You may not sell this coin to a "dealer" ever, you must sell it to a "public" entity
Would this be OK?
Edited to add: not directed at anyone in particular, as a general question for all who care! >>
But I do not have a contract with the Mint for any products as the AP's do....So the Mint CAN make the rules...or the AP's can decide not to carry the product (which some did) >>
Well, the AP's had a contract with the Mint too, and the Mint decided to change it and force them to accept or opt out. Would it be OK for the Mint to add these laws to us? or is it only ok for them to do it to authorized purchasers?
<< <i>APMEX will now have to make a change to their privacy clause that your info. will now be released to government entities at their request, sure you still want to order------------------BigE >>
<< <i>People are getting all over the mint for this, and, while I agree they screwed up early on with this, I actually find that their actions are more inline with fairness and equity and that they should do this more often.
For the ones railing against these changes, is it because you may have lost flipping money? Is it because you just want to complain? Is it just people wanting attention and jumping on the dogpile on the mint?
I don't understand 90%+ of collectors having any issue with what the mint did about this......(the 10% or so are the ones who may legitimately wanted 2 or more...for gifts or whatnot...not for flippng).
And, I say the above, as a person who has trashed on many of the mint's decisions and think they should be doing a better job.....I am hoping this is a step in the right direction. >>
some of the problem is that there are those that view it as heavy handed.
others seem to not like government intervention at all. which is odd to me since we do have laws. Do we just throw out all laws now and go totally free?
I think the liberty train go derailed a long time ago when people realized you can't shout theater in a crowded firehouse and call it "performance art protected by free speech in the constitution."
back before the dot.com bubble burst I knew a co-founder and ceo of a dot.com who didn't like the fact his shares held, and thus some level of his net worth, was made public. It was required. Why do we have that law? More government control? Yes. Back in the day, the insiders of companies would print shares out of thin air and sell them. They polluted the market with dilutive and unauthorized shares. They killed it for everyone.
We'd have a lot less government if we could have a free market. Too bad there are so many cheaters, scammers and lowlifes ruining it for everyone.
<< <i>Well, the AP's had a contract with the Mint too, and the Mint decided to change it and force them to accept or opt out. Would it be OK for the Mint to add these laws to us? or is it only ok for them to do it to authorized purchasers? >>
I think there is a slight difference in a contract between parties and Federal Law.....
<< <i>Well, the AP's had a contract with the Mint too, and the Mint decided to change it and force them to accept or opt out. Would it be OK for the Mint to add these laws to us? or is it only ok for them to do it to authorized purchasers? >>
I think there is a slight difference in a contract between parties and Federal Law..... >>
You bet there is, thats why lawyers will jump all over this----------------------BigE
"Coin World" mentions on their online edition five of the authorized purchasers that have ordered the coins. Six other ap's have not. Old news? If so, my apologies.
<< <i>IMHO, APMEX are the ones that made a binding contract. APMEX customers didn't deal with the mint, they dealt with APMEX. APMEX took your money (cashed your checks & credited your credit cards). If APMEX said you could buy as many sets as you wanted, I believe they pretty much will have to put up, if that's what the customer wants. Of course, the customer will have to pay the stated price. >>
The contract is legal and binding, and worst-case, a consumer could sue for performance and probably win. But would it be worth it?
<< <i>"Coin World" mentions on their online edition five of the authorized purchasers that have ordered the coins. Six other ap's have not. Old news? If so, my apologies. >>
<< <i>CPTHENWAY or BOCHIMAN get ready, it's coming up. >>
"WE GONNA PARTY.......LIKE IT'S 1700 AGAIN!!!"
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
I went to the website for Coins-n-things, and this leads me to somewhere in Canada. My understanding was that Coins-n-things is located in Bridgewater, MA. What gives?
<< <i>The contract is legal and binding, and worst-case, a consumer could sue for performance and probably win. But would it be worth it? >>
Apmex has disclaimers all over the place that basically say "no matter what kind of $h1t hits the fan...we won't lose money nor be held responsible and we can make changes at any time"
Great BST experiences: abitofthisabitofthat, silvercoinsdude, gerard, coinfame, mikescoins, wondercoin
<< <i>I went to the website for Coins-n-things, and this leads me to somewhere in Canada. My understanding was that Coins-n-things is located in Bridgewater, MA. What gives? >>
: They need a place to flee in case they sell more than one to somebody or accidentally to a dealer?-------------------------------------BigE
Comments
but,
perhaps that guess is wrong. we'll see.
<< <i>I'm just not naive enough to think that a totally free market can take care of everything, including human greed. I'm more of a realist. >>
Absent fraud and monopolies/collusion, it is naive to believe that the laws of supply and demand, the core of a free market, will not always win.
<< <i>In the event this list gets lost in this thread...
This is the current US AP list per the Mint.
A-Mark Precious Metals (Los Angeles) Gold, Silver, Platinum
Coins 'N Things (Massachusetts) Gold, Silver, Platinum
MTB (New York) Gold, Silver Platinum
Scotia Mocatta (New York) Gold, Silver, Platinum
American Precious Metals Exchange, Inc. (Oklahaoma) Silver
Dillon Gage Incorporated of Dallas (Texas) Silver
Prudential Securities Inc. (New York) Gold, Silver, Platinum
The Gold Center (Illinois) Silver
Jack Hunt Coin Broker (New York) Silver
Commerzbank (New York) Gold, Silver
Fidelitrade (Delaware) Silver >>
Mint New Blog has a slightly different list...
A-Mark Precious Metals (Los Angeles)
Coins 'N Things Inc. (Massachusetts)
MTB (New York)
Scotia Mocatta (New York)
American Precious Metals Exchange, Inc. (APMEX) (Oklahoma)
Dillon Gage Incorporated of Dallas (Texas)
Prudential Securities Inc. (New York)
The Gold Center (Illinois)
Commerzbank International (Luxembourg)
Deutsche Bank A.G. (Germany)
Tanaka Kikinzoku Kogyo K.K. (Japan)
<< <i>ot the run around.
My concern is; will they try to keep the current orders at the $1395 price, kind of like, just send them out and say those orders were before the new rules.
Seems they are keeping their customers in the dark. >>
I just don't see how they could do that. They have to agree to the "new" rules to receive them and they would get in BIG trouble it they didn't follow them.
<< <i>
<< <i>ot the run around.
My concern is; will they try to keep the current orders at the $1395 price, kind of like, just send them out and say those orders were before the new rules.
Seems they are keeping their customers in the dark. >>
I just don't see how they could do that. They have to agree to the "new" rules to receive them and they would get in BIG trouble it they didn't follow them. >>
Do they? They were following the rules at the time and then the mint changed the rules. For $400K they probably have the lawyers looking into it.
You have names and address already keypunched, so just give the original orderers the option of taking one set at the new price or receiving a full refund.
TD
I just don't see how they could do that. They have to agree to the "new" rules to receive them and they would get in BIG trouble it they didn't follow them. >>
Do they? They were following the rules at the time and then the mint changed the rules. For $400K they probably have the lawyers looking into it. >>
THIS IS EXACTLY THE MESS THAT HAS BEEN CREATED BY A COUPLE "NEW RULES"
Household limits, does the company lawyer want the Mint to have complete access to your books (what a nightmare)?
New precedent for future sales, is this battle worth fighting now or wait till later?
AP's can't even trade these items amongst each other, imagine them having to set up retail operations and all the expense, web site design, more lawyers and expenses, and for what?
etc., etc., and so on ad nauseum till 300k in profit gets sucked up by retainers while you are trying to pay your employees and taxes.
But its only a couple more rules--------------------------------------------------BigE
To me, this is the logical thing to do.
I was told by a APMEX rep that the standing orders will get first priority.
I was also told by another rep. that any new pricing will be honored.
<< <i>For what it's worth....
I was told by a APMEX rep that the standing orders will get first priority.
I was also told by another rep. that any new pricing will be honored. >>
When did you speak with them?
<< <i>
<< <i>We are on the cusp of Godwin's Law... >>
I think I could work that in already, I just haven't!
anyway, fascism = far right, communism = far left, socialism just not as far left as communism.
Just to clarify, it depends on which train track you're on. On the Euro-rail, fascism is socialism on the right side but it's still socialism which is far left of what our country is (or use to be?) Our country was founded on individual Liberty and the left and right of that track is D and R. The combination or substitution of the two rails is where it gets dangerous.
And now back to our never-ending puck-thread.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>We are on the cusp of Godwin's Law... >>
I think I could work that in already, I just haven't!
anyway, fascism = far right, communism = far left, socialism just not as far left as communism.
Just to clarify, it depends on which train track you're on. On the Euro-rail, fascism is socialism on the right side but it's still socialism which is far left of what our country is (or use to be?) Our country was founded on individual Liberty and the left and right of that track is D and R. The combination or substitution of the two rails is where it gets dangerous.
And now back to our never-ending puck-thread. >>
I think the American Liberty train got derailed.
Actually the Mint News Blog list as of 12/14 is:
US Mint Authorized Purchaser List
from Mint News Blog by Mint News Blog
The US Mint has provided an updated list of authorized purchasers. There are some changes from a list provided by the Mint last week.
For current and future reference, listed below are the 11 primary distributors of United States Mint bullion products who are able to purchase directly from the Mint:
A-Mark Precious Metals (Los Angeles) Gold, Silver, Platinum
Coins 'N Things (Massachusetts) Gold, Silver, Platinum
MTB (New York) Gold, Silver Platinum
Scotia Mocatta (New York) Gold, Silver, Platinum
American Precious Metals Exchange, Inc. (Oklahaoma) Silver
Dillon Gage Incorporated of Dallas (Texas) Silver
Prudential Securities Inc. (New York) Gold, Silver, Platinum
The Gold Center (Illinois) Silver
Jack Hunt Coin Broker (New York) Silver
Commerzbank (New York) Gold, Silver
Fidelitrade (Delaware) Silver
There is also some new information on the distribution of the America the Beautiful Silver Bullion Coins. So far, the primary distributors have ordered only 75,000 of the total 165,000 coins available.
Each of the 11 primary distributors were provided with an allocation of 3,000 coins per design, or 15,000 coins total. It looks like only five of them have placed an order with the US Mint for their allocation, and the remaining six are opting out of the program or still evaluating their options. They will have until the end of the week to place their order, or the excess coins will be reallocated to the active dealers the following week
<< <i>APMEX will now have to make a change to their privacy clause that your info. will now be released to government entities at their request, sure you still want to order
Aren't the requirements the same no matter who you order from???
Maybe I'm missing the point......
<< <i>APMEX will now have to make a change to their privacy clause that your info. will now be released to government entities at their request, sure you still want to order
New Mint uniforms?
<< <i>
<< <i>APMEX will now have to make a change to their privacy clause that your info. will now be released to government entities at their request, sure you still want to order
Aren't the requirements the same no matter who you order from???
Maybe I'm missing the point...... >>
Ask your lawyer-----------------------BigE
For the ones railing against these changes, is it because you may have lost flipping money? Is it because you just want to complain? Is it just people wanting attention and jumping on the dogpile on the mint?
I don't understand 90%+ of collectors having any issue with what the mint did about this......(the 10% or so are the ones who may legitimately wanted 2 or more...for gifts or whatnot...not for flippng).
And, I say the above, as a person who has trashed on many of the mint's decisions and think they should be doing a better job.....I am hoping this is a step in the right direction.
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
To enforce the household limit, the Mint can come and audit your information to make sure you only bought one, you agree to this at time of sale
You may not sell this coin to a "dealer" ever, you must sell it to a "public" entity
Would this be OK?
Edited to add: not directed at anyone in particular, as a general question for all who care!
<< <i>I recognize APMEX's right to cancel all existing orders, including mine, and start over, but think it would be poor business practice to do so.
You have names and address already keypunched, so just give the original orderers the option of taking one set at the new price or receiving a full refund.
TD >>
Just curious. What are APMEX's rights to cancel?
IMHO,
APMEX are the ones that made a binding contract. APMEX customers didn't deal with the mint, they dealt with APMEX. APMEX took your money (cashed your checks & credited your credit cards). If APMEX said you could buy as many sets as you wanted, I believe they pretty much will have to put up, if that's what the customer wants. Of course, the customer will have to pay the stated price.
<< <i>People are getting all over the mint for this, and, while I agree they screwed up early on with this, I actually find that their actions are more inline with fairness and equity and that they should do this more often.
For the ones railing against these changes, is it because you may have lost flipping money? Is it because you just want to complain? Is it just people wanting attention and jumping on the dogpile on the mint?
I don't understand 90%+ of collectors having any issue with what the mint did about this......(the 10% or so are the ones who may legitimately wanted 2 or more...for gifts or whatnot...not for flippng).
And, I say the above, as a person who has trashed on many of the mint's decisions and think they should be doing a better job.....I am hoping this is a step in the right direction. >>
My issue with the mint was in their deciding to let others (mostly wholesalers) sell this product, which was obviously low issue and not a "bullion" issue in the common sense of the word. They caused the problems from the get-go.
<< <i>
<< <i>For what it's worth....
I was told by a APMEX rep that the standing orders will get first priority.
I was also told by another rep. that any new pricing will be honored. >>
When did you speak with them? >>
I spoke with them on Monday.
I don't think it is because of lost flipping money. The flip margins got bigger with the changes.
<< <i>
<< <i>I recognize APMEX's right to cancel all existing orders, including mine, and start over, but think it would be poor business practice to do so.
You have names and address already keypunched, so just give the original orderers the option of taking one set at the new price or receiving a full refund.
TD >>
Just curious. What are APMEX's rights to cancel?
IMHO,
APMEX are the ones that made a binding contract. APMEX customers didn't deal with the mint, they dealt with APMEX. APMEX took your money (cashed your checks & credited your credit cards). If APMEX said you could buy as many sets as you wanted, I believe they pretty much will have to put up, if that's what the customer wants. Of course, the customer will have to pay the stated price. >>
I have a business degree, and am a big boy. It is a fact that the Mint completely changed its prior arrangment with the AP's. In my opinion, this gives APMEX the right to completely change all of the sales it made in good faith under the old Mint arrangements. If they announced that they did not want the hassle of government audits and were deciding to opt out of the program, I would not demand that they deliver me a set and refund the difference. I would just take the refund check and deposit it in my bank.
That said, if they are going to sell the sets under the Mint's new requirements, I think it would be a nice gesture on their part to honor the sale of one set per household to the previous orders.
TD
<< <i>What if the Mint told you, as a purchaser?
To enforce the household limit, the Mint can come and audit your information to make sure you only bought one, you agree to this at time of sale
You may not sell this coin to a "dealer" ever, you must sell it to a "public" entity
Would this be OK?
Edited to add: not directed at anyone in particular, as a general question for all who care!
But I do not have a contract with the Mint for any products as the AP's do....So the Mint CAN make the rules...or the AP's can decide not to carry the product (which some did)
<< <i>
<< <i>People are getting all over the mint for this, and, while I agree they screwed up early on with this, I actually find that their actions are more inline with fairness and equity and that they should do this more often.
For the ones railing against these changes, is it because you may have lost flipping money? Is it because you just want to complain? Is it just people wanting attention and jumping on the dogpile on the mint?
I don't understand 90%+ of collectors having any issue with what the mint did about this......(the 10% or so are the ones who may legitimately wanted 2 or more...for gifts or whatnot...not for flippng).
And, I say the above, as a person who has trashed on many of the mint's decisions and think they should be doing a better job.....I am hoping this is a step in the right direction. >>
My issue with the mint was in their deciding to let others (mostly wholesalers) sell this product, which was obviously low issue and not a "bullion" issue in the common sense of the word. They caused the problems from the get-go. >>
I believe that this was in the legislation and not The Min't (very, very poor) decision.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I recognize APMEX's right to cancel all existing orders, including mine, and start over, but think it would be poor business practice to do so.
You have names and address already keypunched, so just give the original orderers the option of taking one set at the new price or receiving a full refund.
TD >>
Just curious. What are APMEX's rights to cancel?
IMHO,
APMEX are the ones that made a binding contract. APMEX customers didn't deal with the mint, they dealt with APMEX. APMEX took your money (cashed your checks & credited your credit cards). If APMEX said you could buy as many sets as you wanted, I believe they pretty much will have to put up, if that's what the customer wants. Of course, the customer will have to pay the stated price. >>
I have a business degree, and am a big boy. It is a fact that the Mint completely changed its prior arrangment with the AP's. In my opinion, this gives APMEX the right to completely change all of the sales it made in good faith under the old Mint arrangements. If they announced that they did not want the hassle of government audits and were deciding to opt out of the program, I would not demand that they deliver me a set and refund the difference. I would just take the refund check and deposit it in my bank.
That said, if they are going to sell the sets under the Mint's new requirements, I think it would be a nice gesture on their part to honor the sale of one set per household to the previous orders.
TD >>
I think the Law Degrees are going to win out in this particular case!
<< <i>
<< <i>What if the Mint told you, as a purchaser?
To enforce the household limit, the Mint can come and audit your information to make sure you only bought one, you agree to this at time of sale
You may not sell this coin to a "dealer" ever, you must sell it to a "public" entity
Would this be OK?
Edited to add: not directed at anyone in particular, as a general question for all who care!
But I do not have a contract with the Mint for any products as the AP's do....So the Mint CAN make the rules...or the AP's can decide not to carry the product (which some did) >>
Well, the AP's had a contract with the Mint too, and the Mint decided to change it and force them to accept or opt out. Would it be OK for the Mint to add these laws to us? or is it only ok for them to do it to authorized purchasers?
<< <i>
<< <i>APMEX will now have to make a change to their privacy clause that your info. will now be released to government entities at their request, sure you still want to order
New Mint uniforms? >>
Have we just proven Godwin's Law with this post?
<< <i>People are getting all over the mint for this, and, while I agree they screwed up early on with this, I actually find that their actions are more inline with fairness and equity and that they should do this more often.
For the ones railing against these changes, is it because you may have lost flipping money? Is it because you just want to complain? Is it just people wanting attention and jumping on the dogpile on the mint?
I don't understand 90%+ of collectors having any issue with what the mint did about this......(the 10% or so are the ones who may legitimately wanted 2 or more...for gifts or whatnot...not for flippng).
And, I say the above, as a person who has trashed on many of the mint's decisions and think they should be doing a better job.....I am hoping this is a step in the right direction. >>
some of the problem is that there are those that view it as heavy handed.
others seem to not like government intervention at all. which is odd to me since we do have laws. Do we just throw out all laws now and go totally free?
I think the liberty train go derailed a long time ago when people realized you can't shout theater in a crowded firehouse and call it "performance art protected by free speech in the constitution."
back before the dot.com bubble burst I knew a co-founder and ceo of a dot.com who didn't like the fact his shares held, and thus some level of his net worth, was made public. It was required. Why do we have that law? More government control? Yes. Back in the day, the insiders of companies would print shares out of thin air and sell them. They polluted the market with dilutive and unauthorized shares. They killed it for everyone.
We'd have a lot less government if we could have a free market. Too bad there are so many cheaters, scammers and lowlifes ruining it for everyone.
<< <i>Well, the AP's had a contract with the Mint too, and the Mint decided to change it and force them to accept or opt out. Would it be OK for the Mint to add these laws to us? or is it only ok for them to do it to authorized purchasers? >>
I think there is a slight difference in a contract between parties and Federal Law.....
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, the AP's had a contract with the Mint too, and the Mint decided to change it and force them to accept or opt out. Would it be OK for the Mint to add these laws to us? or is it only ok for them to do it to authorized purchasers? >>
I think there is a slight difference in a contract between parties and Federal Law..... >>
You bet there is, thats why lawyers will jump all over this----------------------BigE
<< <i>IMHO,
APMEX are the ones that made a binding contract. APMEX customers didn't deal with the mint, they dealt with APMEX. APMEX took your money (cashed your checks & credited your credit cards). If APMEX said you could buy as many sets as you wanted, I believe they pretty much will have to put up, if that's what the customer wants. Of course, the customer will have to pay the stated price. >>
The contract is legal and binding, and worst-case, a consumer could sue for performance and probably win. But would it be worth it?
<< <i>"Coin World" mentions on their online edition five of the authorized purchasers that have ordered the coins. Six other ap's have not. Old news? If so, my apologies. >>
>>
list of five APs who ordered
<< <i>CPTHENWAY or BOCHIMAN get ready, it's coming up. >>
"WE GONNA PARTY.......LIKE IT'S 1700 AGAIN!!!"
<< <i>CAPTHENWAY or BOCHIMAN get ready, it's coming up. >>
1700!!!
Oops....premature...sorry
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>The contract is legal and binding, and worst-case, a consumer could sue for performance and probably win. But would it be worth it? >>
Apmex has disclaimers all over the place that basically say "no matter what kind of $h1t hits the fan...we won't lose money nor be held responsible and we can make changes at any time"
<< <i>I went to the website for Coins-n-things, and this leads me to somewhere in Canada. My understanding was that Coins-n-things is located in Bridgewater, MA. What gives? >>
:
They need a place to flee in case they sell more than one to somebody or accidentally to a dealer?
+1 I tried
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>Now, 1700! >>
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