"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and would blow your head clean off, you better ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?" One should note that even in the 1970s, the .44 Remington Magnum cartridge had been eclipsed in size and power by the .454 Casull round, however, the first widely available commercially sold revolver chambered for the 454 Casull would not come for another ten years, so his statement for the time frame is accurate. >>
I must have missed the original reference for this post, but....
of course the .500 S&W Mag. has - by a substantial margin - unseated the .454 as the most powerful production handgun round....back to the pucks.
Specification Changes for America the Beautiful Silver Bullion Coins Finally, the last change enacted by the new law modifies the specifications for America the Beautiful Silver Bullion Coins. Instead of requiring the massive five ounce .999 fine silver strikes to be "exact duplicates" of the Mint's America the Beautiful Quarters® like the initial authorizing law demanded, the ATB silver bullion coins can now be struck with a "likenesses" of the quarters instead. Associated changes also modify the required diameter of the bullion coins to be in the 2.5 inch to 3.0 inch range instead of exactly 3.0 inches. Also, the edge inscribed weight and fineness requirement present on the initial law has also been removed.
This has nothing to do with the ATB's but is a BIG change for the Mint's silver coin production.
American Silver Eagle Guarantee The Coin Modernization Act also modifies current law for American Eagles, including the most popular Silver Eagles. Previous, the US Mint was required to strike the bullion versions to meet public demand. That requirement proved to be a burden on the Mint in the last few years and precipitated the cancellation of the uncirculated and proof 2009 Silver Eagles as well as the uncirculated 2010 Silver Eagle. Now the Treasury Secretary has the authority to determine the qualities and quantities of American Eagles that would best serve the public interest. This enables the US Mint to produce the proof and/or uncirculated eagles, including gold, even if they are not meeting bullion demand.
<< <i>No idea, but I would guess that current year premiums did go up, as some people just have to have current year. For the rest, a silver eagle is a silver eagle.
The idea that a AP should sell at a 10% premium to their dealers when they know the dealers are going to sell them at $1500 a set is absurd. The market was known by these AP's and their wholesalers. They knew these were going to be hot and profits were going to be made. To ask them to tell their wholesalers "no, I only want to make a couple of bucks, you go ahead and make hundreds" is absurd. Those on this board saying they wouldn't flip and only want to buy to hold and they are just bullion are nuts. If these go crazy, and they still believe they are just bullion, they will sell them into this frenzy and buy them back in a few months at spot. >>
While this has been beaten to death countless times on this thread, given that such comments continue to appear, time to beat a dead horse once again....
The issue with the APs is that the ONLY reason that they have exclusive marketing rights to sell these pucks is by virtue of the AP AGREEMENT THAT THEY SIGNED.
APMEX and others totally violated this agreement. This has been discussed in detail ad nauseam in prior posts. Certainly The Mint agreed with this as they quickly took corrective action as soon as the magnitude of the AP's abuse of their AP agreements was realized.
The APs have the AP agreement to SELL BULLION. The pucks - MUST - be treated like bullion by the APs per the agreement that they signed. Their bullion status is, by definition, why the APs are exclusively selling them.
Of course The Mint and the legislature screwed up by legislating that the pucks be sold only via the APs.
Of course, the intention was to have a large enough supply so that there was no rarity premium, much like the bullion ASEs. If these were produced in the hundred-thousands there would likely have been no problems at all.
The Mint was unable to do this, only a relatively few were struck and an inadvertent rarity was created.
NONETHELESS, the APs are REQUIRED to still honor the AP agreement. To defend their gouging is to say that the AP agreement exists not for it's stated purpose, but to give a very small, select group of dealers the exclusive right to market a very limited production product - for which they assumed NO development/production risk or expense - at a huge markup. This is clearly NOT what the APs are for.
This has been explained many, many times in earlier posts far more eloquently than I just did but the bottom line is the same.
<< <i>Let's look at the "manipulation" comments throughout this thread. When I think of "manipulation" I think of an effort to artificially control prices. Is APMEX guilty of that? No way. In fact, if anything I think the price APMEX rolled out with could untimately prove to be too low. I also do not believe they were in any way trying to manipulate the market but rather took their best shot at the value based on information available to them. I have no reason to defend them, I compete with them on some levels, and MCM chose not to pre-sell any, but right is right and I for one do not believe what APMEX did was wrong from a common sense and free market point of view. I can't speak for "contractually" as I am not an attorney.
Using the same common sense and free market logic, forcing the sale of these coins at what will almost definitely prove to be WAY too low could make a better case for "manipulation". Also, keep in mind, it's difficult to make a case for upward price manipulation when widespread buyers are lined up around the block to buy them at the "manipulated" price. There was no deception or misrepresentation on the part of APMEX. This was a case of LACK OF SUPPLY combined with BIG DEMAND.
I feel for the AP's that have no retail presence and now will attempt to "retail" (funny since they are basically going to sell $100 bills for $50) the coins because those are the new rules and they do not want to turn their heads on a nice profit. It took me and a very talented staff 2 to 3 years before we built a solid and reliable retail company that could properly handle and service the public in large volume. It is anything but easy, and is the inverse of a wholesale business.
In the end, hats off to everyone that buys these at the 10% markup (which by the way should be based on current spot NOT cost, that is simply absurd- this is not a fixed price product) it might be a very long time before another opportunity like this presents itself.
John >>
Gotta comment John.
Since it was published WHAT the US Mint charged APMEX for these coins
AND
the general Public COULD NOT purchase these from the US Mint at issue price
APMEX's initial markup was simply WRONG.
It defeated the purpose behind the bullion program established by the US in 1986 and placed an artificial price level on these (ahem) pieces. Now, everybody and his brother thinkd that these are worth at least that much when in reality, only a very few elite collectors will ever treat these as a doable collection and as a result, they will eventually sell for a bit over spot when folks come to their senses.
If APMEX wants to enter the government bullion selling business as a COIN DEALER then IMO, they should have worked out a deal with one of the AP's instead of trying to cut out the AP's altogether. Selling graded bullion as a dealer is one thing, selling raw bullion as received from the mint is something altogether different as the AP's "charter" is to make the bullion available at "reasonable prices". 90% over spot is not reasonable.
As for AP's leaving "profit on the table", I believe their profit comes from volume sales, not individual sales.
APMEX set the mark high whereas it was NOT their mark to set. It was the "Markets" mark to set. However, given that at the time astronomical mark coupled with the ridiculous ebay sales "based" on that mark, the price of these has artificially spiraled out of control.
Many, many folks are going to get burned with these.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Just look at the 2008 buffalo gold coins. >>
Those sell for a bit over spot.
2008-W on the other hand do not but were all available directly from the US Mint AT the US Mints standard markup. The US Mint did not adjust the price according to demand AND the prices achieved were all related to grade and/or slab label AND only hit their height AFTER the bullion was no longer available and folks could get an accounting for how many were sold. Then supply and demand could kick in but not a second sooner.
I truly believe that the insanity of greed by those that wish to buy these low and sell these at outrageous prices on the "hype wave" has tainted the reasoning of a good portion of the posters and they've crossbred the definition of an AP vs a Coin Dealer. The two cannot play in the same game otherwise the purpose behind the bullion program would get lost.
Hopefully, a precedent does not get set which will enable the AP's to sell common SAE's at $10 or $20 over spot simply because they "believe" they are leaving money on the table and in so doing, create an artifical hype wave just to bolster those profits.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
Yes, you can order one set from each participating AP. Unless the AP has decided on even stricter limits, such as Fidelitrade which apparently will only allow one coin per household, not one set per household.
I had a feeling about sleeping too long. Good thing I woke right back up and checked in on this discussion.I think I'll call them "AMPEX". I haven't seen that faux pas for a few pages.
I will always wonder what would have happened if the Mint had just issued the pucks as planned and NOT said anything about the mintage quantities....bullion would have been sold as bullion (maybe a tad higher because of their uniqueness) and most would have made their way to consumers. Not much hoopla....kinda cool pucks.
Eventually, after the fact, the word would have gotten out that there were no more to be had. This would have THEN started the speculation and the market would slowly evolve. This thread probably would have 75 posts at that point....instead of 2000 BEFORE they are available.
<< <i>Let's look at the "manipulation" comments throughout this thread. When I think of "manipulation" I think of an effort to artificially control prices. Is APMEX guilty of that? No way. In fact, if anything I think the price APMEX rolled out with could untimately prove to be too low. I also do not believe they were in any way trying to manipulate the market but rather took their best shot at the value based on information available to them. I have no reason to defend them, I compete with them on some levels, and MCM chose not to pre-sell any, but right is right and I for one do not believe what APMEX did was wrong from a common sense and free market point of view. I can't speak for "contractually" as I am not an attorney.
Using the same common sense and free market logic, forcing the sale of these coins at what will almost definitely prove to be WAY too low could make a better case for "manipulation". Also, keep in mind, it's difficult to make a case for upward price manipulation when widespread buyers are lined up around the block to buy them at the "manipulated" price. There was no deception or misrepresentation on the part of APMEX. This was a case of LACK OF SUPPLY combined with BIG DEMAND.
I feel for the AP's that have no retail presence and now will attempt to "retail" (funny since they are basically going to sell $100 bills for $50) the coins because those are the new rules and they do not want to turn their heads on a nice profit. It took me and a very talented staff 2 to 3 years before we built a solid and reliable retail company that could properly handle and service the public in large volume. It is anything but easy, and is the inverse of a wholesale business.
In the end, hats off to everyone that buys these at the 10% markup (which by the way should be based on current spot NOT cost, that is simply absurd- this is not a fixed price product) it might be a very long time before another opportunity like this presents itself.
John >>
Gotta comment John.
Since it was published WHAT the US Mint charged APMEX for these coins
AND
the general Public COULD NOT purchase these from the US Mint at issue price
APMEX's initial markup was simply WRONG.
It defeated the purpose behind the bullion program established by the US in 1986 and placed an artificial price level on these (ahem) pieces. Now, everybody and his brother thinkd that these are worth at least that much when in reality, only a very few elite collectors will ever treat these as a doable collection and as a result, they will eventually sell for a bit over spot when folks come to their senses.
If APMEX wants to enter the government bullion selling business as a COIN DEALER then IMO, they should have worked out a deal with one of the AP's instead of trying to cut out the AP's altogether. Selling graded bullion as a dealer is one thing, selling raw bullion as received from the mint is something altogether different as the AP's "charter" is to make the bullion available at "reasonable prices". 90% over spot is not reasonable.
As for AP's leaving "profit on the table", I believe their profit comes from volume sales, not individual sales.
APMEX set the mark high whereas it was NOT their mark to set. It was the "Markets" mark to set. However, given that at the time astronomical mark coupled with the ridiculous ebay sales "based" on that mark, the price of these has artificially spiraled out of control.
Many, many folks are going to get burned with these. >>
Well, not in any way back tracking, but I did say that my opinions were not taking into consideration the contractual end of this. I would not attempt to address that, I am not qualified. I do know that contracts can most definitely be challenged when unusual circumstances apply. I always look at things from what I perceive to be a common sense point of view. Giving indications of 100K mintage, then producing 33K or whatever, is a game changer from a marketplace perspective. Expecting anyone, including those that will be lucky enough to obtain a set at 10% over to then sell them for less than what the market will allow is unrealistic. As a side note here, to address another post, I have no alterior motive and was not "posturing" in any way with my previous post. There is no "grand scheme" or wealth of information being withheld by us or any of the AP's that I am aware of... we are all perplexed by the situation and very uncertain about how to proceed.
John Maben
Pegasus Coin and Jewelry (Brick and Mortar)
ANA LM, PNG, APMD, FUN, Etc
800-381-2646
<< <i>Let's look at the "manipulation" comments throughout this thread. When I think of "manipulation" I think of an effort to artificially control prices. Is APMEX guilty of that? No way. In fact, if anything I think the price APMEX rolled out with could untimately prove to be too low. I also do not believe they were in any way trying to manipulate the market but rather took their best shot at the value based on information available to them. I have no reason to defend them, I compete with them on some levels, and MCM chose not to pre-sell any, but right is right and I for one do not believe what APMEX did was wrong from a common sense and free market point of view. I can't speak for "contractually" as I am not an attorney.
Using the same common sense and free market logic, forcing the sale of these coins at what will almost definitely prove to be WAY too low could make a better case for "manipulation". Also, keep in mind, it's difficult to make a case for upward price manipulation when widespread buyers are lined up around the block to buy them at the "manipulated" price. There was no deception or misrepresentation on the part of APMEX. This was a case of LACK OF SUPPLY combined with BIG DEMAND.
I feel for the AP's that have no retail presence and now will attempt to "retail" (funny since they are basically going to sell $100 bills for $50) the coins because those are the new rules and they do not want to turn their heads on a nice profit. It took me and a very talented staff 2 to 3 years before we built a solid and reliable retail company that could properly handle and service the public in large volume. It is anything but easy, and is the inverse of a wholesale business.
In the end, hats off to everyone that buys these at the 10% markup (which by the way should be based on current spot NOT cost, that is simply absurd- this is not a fixed price product) it might be a very long time before another opportunity like this presents itself.
John >>
Gotta comment John.
Since it was published WHAT the US Mint charged APMEX for these coins
AND
the general Public COULD NOT purchase these from the US Mint at issue price
APMEX's initial markup was simply WRONG.
It defeated the purpose behind the bullion program established by the US in 1986 and placed an artificial price level on these (ahem) pieces. Now, everybody and his brother thinkd that these are worth at least that much when in reality, only a very few elite collectors will ever treat these as a doable collection and as a result, they will eventually sell for a bit over spot when folks come to their senses.
If APMEX wants to enter the government bullion selling business as a COIN DEALER then IMO, they should have worked out a deal with one of the AP's instead of trying to cut out the AP's altogether. Selling graded bullion as a dealer is one thing, selling raw bullion as received from the mint is something altogether different as the AP's "charter" is to make the bullion available at "reasonable prices". 90% over spot is not reasonable.
As for AP's leaving "profit on the table", I believe their profit comes from volume sales, not individual sales.
APMEX set the mark high whereas it was NOT their mark to set. It was the "Markets" mark to set. However, given that at the time astronomical mark coupled with the ridiculous ebay sales "based" on that mark, the price of these has artificially spiraled out of control.
Many, many folks are going to get burned with these. >>
Well, not in any way back tracking, but I did say that my opinions were not taking into consideration the contractual end of this. I would not attempt to address that, I am not qualified. I do know that contracts can most definitely be challenged when unusual circumstances apply. I always look at things from what I perceive to be a common sense point of view. Giving indications of 100K mintage, then producing 33K or whatever, is a game changer from a marketplace perspective. Expecting anyone, including those that will be lucky enough to obtain a set at 10% over to then sell them for less than what the market will allow is unrealistic. As a side note here, to address another post, I have no alterior motive and was not "posturing" in any way with my previous post. There is no "grand scheme" or wealth of information being withheld by us or any of the AP's that I am aware of... we are all perplexed by the situation and very uncertain about how to proceed. >>
In the case of these pucks the contract is THE issue. The ONLY reason that the APs are exclusively selling them is because of their contract. It is THE issue. What should change is that these should be sold directly by The Mint. Any attempt to change the AP contract to permit them to gouge totally defeats the point of having the AP program in the first place.
If these were sold via the usual Mint channel, i.e. directly to the public, everyone would have a fair shot at them at a reasonable issue price and there would be no issue even if there was an immedite, big secondary markup as with the 20th anniv. AGE set, etc
<<Yes, you can order one set from each participating AP. Unless the AP has decided on even stricter limits, such as Fidelitrade which apparently will only allow one coin per household, not one set per household. >>
The Mint probably still has a few tricks up its sleeve. My guess is that all the APs are required to sell at the same time so that once all sales occur, the Mint can gather all names into a database for cross-referencing before any coins ship. And they'll toss any orders from the same household across all APs. If true, that means that Fidelitrade threw a wrench into things by restricting sales to one coin per hh. If a person signed up for 1 coin from Fidelitrade and then orders a set from another AP in order to get the other coins in the set, they'll get the boot.
organizing a db between AP's and training before release....
good luck, but i think your dreaming.
To state my earlier point,
with all the enhanced rules and 33,000 sets being available, the USM could have easily pulled the plug on AP's releasing these for 2010 and returned to AP's for 2011.............
too few sets......make them available on the USM website, 1 per hh, tracking and cross referencing issues go away.
<< <i>Well, not in any way back tracking, but I did say that my opinions were not taking into consideration the contractual end of this. I would not attempt to address that, I am not qualified. I do know that contracts can most definitely be challenged when unusual circumstances apply. I always look at things from what I perceive to be a common sense point of view. Giving indications of 100K mintage, then producing 33K or whatever, is a game changer from a marketplace perspective. Expecting anyone, including those that will be lucky enough to obtain a set at 10% over to then sell them for less than what the market will allow is unrealistic. As a side note here, to address another post, I have no alterior motive and was not "posturing" in any way with my previous post. There is no "grand scheme" or wealth of information being withheld by us or any of the AP's that I am aware of... we are all perplexed by the situation and very uncertain about how to proceed. >>
It doesn't take any special qualification to realize that when a party has a "special arrangement" to purchase the items from the USM directly at a very small margin (as bullion) and others don't have the same benefit, then marking them up (as numisimatic), is not what was intended in their agreement.
These are bullion coins, and should be priced as such.
KUDO's to the USM. They did the right thing.
Any post on here that thinks otherwise (how many have complained about their orders at APMEX possibly not being filled....have nothing to worry about, i'm sure APMEX will fill their order at a lower price for 1 set (therein lies the individual's problem if they ordered more than one set.....sorry, you only get ONE, get over it)
I believe the USM is giving the AP's a gift of 10% gross profit, and there still seems to be issues with that.....
Like I said earlier - offer direct - or, even better, I think there are alot of retailers with websites that would be willing to accept the 10% profit. BTW, they sold 1986 SOL commems in KMART - if we all have short memories.
<< <i>The Mint probably still has a few tricks up its sleeve. My guess is that all the APs are required to sell at the same time so that once all sales occur, the Mint can gather all names into a database for cross-referencing before any coins ship. And they'll toss any orders from the same household across all APs. If true, that means that Fidelitrade threw a wrench into things by restricting sales to one coin per hh. If a person signed up for 1 coin from Fidelitrade and then orders a set from another AP in order to get the other coins in the set, they'll get the boot. >>
Absolutely dreaming. As a previous poster just reminded us, how many times do we have to beat this dead horse? The horse is DEAD!!! Read the mint rules - they are in plain English. Each AP must ensure that only one set is sold per household, per AP. There is no requirement for cross-referencing. There is so much room for error in building a cross reference system across all the APs, it's almost comical to think of it. Do you think all of the APs run the same accounting system/software? Not very likely. Do you think their systems have the same file layouts or database configurations? Again, you're dreaming. I'm not saying that what you are proposing is impossible, but it's highly improbable. We're talking about a one-time deal/snafu with the pucks - the mint is not going to invest in a system to use once. As usual, JMHO.
P.S. - how about we let the horse RIP. He's dead, there is no bringing him back. Beating him upside the head with a 2x4 won't change anything. He's dead - done, finished, over.
<< <i>too few sets......make them available on the USM website, 1 per hh, tracking and cross referencing issues go away. >>
you then contradict yourself in the next post. If these are bullion, then they cannot be sold by the US Mint. So once that is off the table, the issue becomes who is going to profit on the sale of these - the AP's, or the people watching the websites for the 'Add to Cart' button to become active.
if you havent already realized, or havent had much experience with the USM over the years,
the USM can change any terms they like, at any time, to ensure the broadest and fairest distribution occurs,
did you ever ask yourself "how would they distribute these if NONE of the AP's elected to sell them??" or, "if none of the AP's agreed to the change in the rules?"
then it would have to be DIRECT - correct? or, even by RETAILERS......they did this before as well, with the 1986 SOL commems.
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.
What was the last year that the United States did not make a silver coin?
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.
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.
<< Let's look at the "manipulation" comments throughout this thread. When I think of "manipulation" I think of an effort to artificially control prices. Is APMEX guilty of that? No way. In fact, if anything I think the price APMEX rolled out with could untimately prove to be too low. I also do not believe they were in any way trying to manipulate the market but rather took their best shot at the value based on information available to them. I have no reason to defend them, I compete with them on some levels, and MCM chose not to pre-sell any, but right is right and I for one do not believe what APMEX did was wrong from a common sense and free market point of view. I can't speak for "contractually" as I am not an attorney.
Using the same common sense and free market logic, forcing the sale of these coins at what will almost definitely prove to be WAY too low could make a better case for "manipulation". Also, keep in mind, it's difficult to make a case for upward price manipulation when widespread buyers are lined up around the block to buy them at the "manipulated" price. There was no deception or misrepresentation on the part of APMEX. This was a case of LACK OF SUPPLY combined with BIG DEMAND.
I feel for the AP's that have no retail presence and now will attempt to "retail" (funny since they are basically going to sell $100 bills for $50) the coins because those are the new rules and they do not want to turn their heads on a nice profit. It took me and a very talented staff 2 to 3 years before we built a solid and reliable retail company that could properly handle and service the public in large volume. It is anything but easy, and is the inverse of a wholesale business.
In the end, hats off to everyone that buys these at the 10% markup (which by the way should be based on current spot NOT cost, that is simply absurd- this is not a fixed price product) it might be a very long time before another opportunity like this presents itself.
John >>
Gotta comment John.
Since it was published WHAT the US Mint charged APMEX for these coins
AND
the general Public COULD NOT purchase these from the US Mint at issue price
APMEX's initial markup was simply WRONG.
It defeated the purpose behind the bullion program established by the US in 1986 and placed an artificial price level on these (ahem) pieces. Now, everybody and his brother thinkd that these are worth at least that much when in reality, only a very few elite collectors will ever treat these as a doable collection and as a result, they will eventually sell for a bit over spot when folks come to their senses.
If APMEX wants to enter the government bullion selling business as a COIN DEALER then IMO, they should have worked out a deal with one of the AP's instead of trying to cut out the AP's altogether. Selling graded bullion as a dealer is one thing, selling raw bullion as received from the mint is something altogether different as the AP's "charter" is to make the bullion available at "reasonable prices". 90% over spot is not reasonable.
As for AP's leaving "profit on the table", I believe their profit comes from volume sales, not individual sales.
APMEX set the mark high whereas it was NOT their mark to set. It was the "Markets" mark to set. However, given that at the time astronomical mark coupled with the ridiculous ebay sales "based" on that mark, the price of these has artificially spiraled out of control.
Many, many folks are going to get burned with these. >>
Well, not in any way back tracking, but I did say that my opinions were not taking into consideration the contractual end of this. I would not attempt to address that, I am not qualified. I do know that contracts can most definitely be challenged when unusual circumstances apply. I always look at things from what I perceive to be a common sense point of view. Giving indications of 100K mintage, then producing 33K or whatever, is a game changer from a marketplace perspective. Expecting anyone, including those that will be lucky enough to obtain a set at 10% over to then sell them for less than what the market will allow is unrealistic. As a side note here, to address another post, I have no alterior motive and was not "posturing" in any way with my previous post. There is no "grand scheme" or wealth of information being withheld by us or any of the AP's that I am aware of... we are all perplexed by the situation and very uncertain about how to proceed.
-------------------------
If the distributors don't like the 10% directive, they can opt out. I'm not sure what "selling them for less than what the market will allow being unrealistic" means. The market is the market and it allows people to buy & sell at whatever price they find mutually acceptable. This isn't a market until it gets into the public's hands, and that includes MCM since they are not a Mint distributor.
Nothing unrealistic about forcing a distributor to follow the distribution agreement that got them special status in the first place.
The only motive MCM should have is to make money and to serve their customers. I see posturing when someone tries to justify a high price in advance. I continue to see the potential for trouble when I read that "we are all perplexed".
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Yes, of course. That's because it conforms with my position that the prices will level out and the excitement will slowly dwindle. Thus reducing the amount of posts per day to the thread. I appreciate your observance.
So...cutting to the heart of this matter, based on what we now know, are the 5 ouncers going on sale this week (week of 12/20); next week (week of 12/27); or the first week of January 2011?
<< <i>Well, not in any way back tracking, but I did say that my opinions were not taking into consideration the contractual end of this. I would not attempt to address that, I am not qualified. I do know that contracts can most definitely be challenged when unusual circumstances apply. I always look at things from what I perceive to be a common sense point of view. Giving indications of 100K mintage, then producing 33K or whatever, is a game changer from a marketplace perspective. Expecting anyone, including those that will be lucky enough to obtain a set at 10% over to then sell them for less than what the market will allow is unrealistic. As a side note here, to address another post, I have no alterior motive and was not "posturing" in any way with my previous post. There is no "grand scheme" or wealth of information being withheld by us or any of the AP's that I am aware of... we are all perplexed by the situation and very uncertain about how to proceed. >>
It doesn't take any special qualification to realize that when a party has a "special arrangement" to purchase the items from the USM directly at a very small margin (as bullion) and others don't have the same benefit, then marking them up (as numisimatic), is not what was intended in their agreement.
These are bullion coins, and should be priced as such.
KUDO's to the USM. They did the right thing.
Any post on here that thinks otherwise (how many have complained about their orders at APMEX possibly not being filled....have nothing to worry about, i'm sure APMEX will fill their order at a lower price for 1 set (therein lies the individual's problem if they ordered more than one set.....sorry, you only get ONE, get over it)
I believe the USM is giving the AP's a gift of 10% gross profit, and there still seems to be issues with that.....
Like I said earlier - offer direct - or, even better, I think there are alot of retailers with websites that would be willing to accept the 10% profit. BTW, they sold 1986 SOL commems in KMART - if we all have short memories. >>
<< <i>So...cutting to the heart of this matter, based on what we now know, are the 5 ouncers going on sale this week (week of 12/20); next week (week of 12/27); or the first week of January 2011? >>
Probably.
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.
if you havent already realized, or havent had much experience with the USM over the years,
the USM can change any terms they like, at any time, to ensure the broadest and fairest distribution occurs,
did you ever ask yourself "how would they distribute these if NONE of the AP's elected to sell them??" or, "if none of the AP's agreed to the change in the rules?"
then it would have to be DIRECT - correct? or, even by RETAILERS......they did this before as well, with the 1986 SOL commems.
or to the MELTING POT they go?? >>
Being that the APs must sell the 2010 per the auth. legislation, if the APs can't get this done, then it would be best to hold off until 2011 and get a legislative fix so that The Mint can sell them direct. This would be easy.
The ONLY purpose for the AP program - which has worked well for 20 yrs. - is to provide The Mint with a means to sell bullion en mass to the APs at a small markup and to then have the AP sell to the public via a high volume, low mark up model. This makes the AP's role beneficial to all.
In this instance, the APs have tried to subvert the process and to break the terms of their contract such that they wish to act as useless middle-men who's only purpose is to score a huge profit by abusing their position as sole distributors of a limited mintage product. In this role they serve no one but themselves.
If none of them like the current terms, great. Let The Mint sell direct.
I do think that in the future, with a much higher mintage, both the pucks and the APs will serve their purpose well. The former as a way to buy silver with a bit less markup over spot than is the case with one ouncers and the APs to distribute this bullion as intended.
One other thing that is abundantly clear...the numismatic versions will be perhaps the biggest no-brainer to attempt to acquire of any modern offering, even counting the 20th anniv. AGE sets.
I can't imaging the frenzy when they go on sale.
What do you all think that they'll bring on the secondary market after their immediate sell-out??
<< <i>So...cutting to the heart of this matter, based on what we now know, are the 5 ouncers going on sale this week (week of 12/20); next week (week of 12/27); or the first week of January 2011? >>
Like I said earlier - offer direct - or, even better, I think there are alot of retailers with websites that would be willing to accept the 10% profit. BTW, they sold 1986 SOL commems in KMART - if we all have short memories. >>
Yes, that's the ticket. I think they should make Home Shopping Network the sole provider of these. Maybe they can also offer them gold and platinum plated or colorized with Barack Obama or Elvis or maybe even your favorite beverage logo. Can't wait.
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
Can't wait to see the three-inch Elvis sticker on the Tennessee ATB.........
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>One other thing that is abundantly clear...the numismatic versions will be perhaps the biggest no-brainer to attempt to acquire of any modern offering, even counting the 20th anniv. AGE sets.
I can't imaging the frenzy when they go on sale.
What do you all think that they'll bring on the secondary market after their immediate sell-out?? >>
Hopefully the Mint will realize what a winner they have an price them accordingly. If the bullion versions are selling for $2000/set, then the Mint should set their price at $2200, assuming a 10% premium for the numismatic value/smaller mintage. There is no reason for the Mint to let the lucky few who were able to buy directly from the Mint to make all the money.
<< <i>One other thing that is abundantly clear...the numismatic versions will be perhaps the biggest no-brainer to attempt to acquire of any modern offering, even counting the 20th anniv. AGE sets.
I can't imaging the frenzy when they go on sale.
What do you all think that they'll bring on the secondary market after their immediate sell-out?? >>
Hopefully the Mint will realize what a winner they have an price them accordingly. If the bullion versions are selling for $2000/set, then the Mint should set their price at $2200, assuming a 10% premium for the numismatic value/smaller mintage. There is no reason for the Mint to let the lucky few who were able to buy directly from the Mint to make all the money. >>
I want to see the hockey pucks sold in vending machines at the Mint....
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.
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.
Comments
<< <i>Dirty Harry?
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and would blow your head clean off, you better ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?" One should note that even in the 1970s, the .44 Remington Magnum cartridge had been eclipsed in size and power by the .454 Casull round, however, the first widely available commercially sold revolver chambered for the 454 Casull would not come for another ten years, so his statement for the time frame is accurate. >>
I must have missed the original reference for this post, but....
of course the .500 S&W Mag. has - by a substantial margin - unseated the .454 as the most powerful production handgun round....back to the pucks.
Specification Changes for America the Beautiful Silver Bullion Coins
Finally, the last change enacted by the new law modifies the specifications for America the Beautiful Silver Bullion Coins. Instead of requiring the massive five ounce .999 fine silver strikes to be "exact duplicates" of the Mint's America the Beautiful Quarters® like the initial authorizing law demanded, the ATB silver bullion coins can now be struck with a "likenesses" of the quarters instead. Associated changes also modify the required diameter of the bullion coins to be in the 2.5 inch to 3.0 inch range instead of exactly 3.0 inches. Also, the edge inscribed weight and fineness requirement present on the initial law has also been removed.
http://www.silvercoinstoday.com/coin-modernization-law-changes-silver-eagles-and-atb-bullion-coins/103521/
American Silver Eagle Guarantee
The Coin Modernization Act also modifies current law for American Eagles, including the most popular Silver Eagles. Previous, the US Mint was required to strike the bullion versions to meet public demand. That requirement proved to be a burden on the Mint in the last few years and precipitated the cancellation of the uncirculated and proof 2009 Silver Eagles as well as the uncirculated 2010 Silver Eagle. Now the Treasury Secretary has the authority to determine the qualities and quantities of American Eagles that would best serve the public interest. This enables the US Mint to produce the proof and/or uncirculated eagles, including gold, even if they are not meeting bullion demand.
http://www.silvercoinstoday.com/coin-modernization-law-changes-silver-eagles-and-atb-bullion-coins/103521/
<< <i>No idea, but I would guess that current year premiums did go up, as some people just have to have current year. For the rest, a silver eagle is a silver eagle.
The idea that a AP should sell at a 10% premium to their dealers when they know the dealers are going to sell them at $1500 a set is absurd. The market was known by these AP's and their wholesalers. They knew these were going to be hot and profits were going to be made. To ask them to tell their wholesalers "no, I only want to make a couple of bucks, you go ahead and make hundreds" is absurd. Those on this board saying they wouldn't flip and only want to buy to hold and they are just bullion are nuts. If these go crazy, and they still believe they are just bullion, they will sell them into this frenzy and buy them back in a few months at spot. >>
While this has been beaten to death countless times on this thread, given that such comments continue to appear, time to beat a dead horse once again....
The issue with the APs is that the ONLY reason that they have exclusive marketing rights to sell these pucks is by virtue of the AP AGREEMENT THAT THEY SIGNED.
APMEX and others totally violated this agreement. This has been discussed in detail ad nauseam in prior posts. Certainly The Mint agreed with this as they quickly took corrective action as soon as the magnitude of the AP's abuse of their AP agreements was realized.
The APs have the AP agreement to SELL BULLION. The pucks - MUST - be treated like bullion by the APs per the agreement that they signed. Their bullion status is, by definition, why the APs are exclusively selling them.
Of course The Mint and the legislature screwed up by legislating that the pucks be sold only via the APs.
Of course, the intention was to have a large enough supply so that there was no rarity premium, much like the bullion ASEs. If these were produced in the hundred-thousands there would likely have been no problems at all.
The Mint was unable to do this, only a relatively few were struck and an inadvertent rarity was created.
NONETHELESS, the APs are REQUIRED to still honor the AP agreement. To defend their gouging is to say that the AP agreement exists not for it's stated purpose, but to give a very small, select group of dealers the exclusive right to market a very limited production product - for which they assumed NO development/production risk or expense - at a huge markup. This is clearly NOT what the APs are for.
This has been explained many, many times in earlier posts far more eloquently than I just did but the bottom line is the same.
How can anyone not get this??
I agree with every thing you said.
But in 2011 the mint does not have to meet the demand for ASE's.
If they cut back on ASE's what other coins will they cut back?
<< <i>The Mint was unable to do this, only a relatively few were struck and an inadvertent rarity was created. >>
A rarity that people are willing to pay significantly above bullion value for is by definition not a bullion item.
How can anyone not get this?
<< <i>Let's look at the "manipulation" comments throughout this thread. When I think of "manipulation" I think of an effort to artificially control prices. Is APMEX guilty of that? No way. In fact, if anything I think the price APMEX rolled out with could untimately prove to be too low. I also do not believe they were in any way trying to manipulate the market but rather took their best shot at the value based on information available to them. I have no reason to defend them, I compete with them on some levels, and MCM chose not to pre-sell any, but right is right and I for one do not believe what APMEX did was wrong from a common sense and free market point of view. I can't speak for "contractually" as I am not an attorney.
Using the same common sense and free market logic, forcing the sale of these coins at what will almost definitely prove to be WAY too low could make a better case for "manipulation". Also, keep in mind, it's difficult to make a case for upward price manipulation when widespread buyers are lined up around the block to buy them at the "manipulated" price. There was no deception or misrepresentation on the part of APMEX. This was a case of LACK OF SUPPLY combined with BIG DEMAND.
I feel for the AP's that have no retail presence and now will attempt to "retail" (funny since they are basically going to sell $100 bills for $50) the coins because those are the new rules and they do not want to turn their heads on a nice profit. It took me and a very talented staff 2 to 3 years before we built a solid and reliable retail company that could properly handle and service the public in large volume. It is anything but easy, and is the inverse of a wholesale business.
In the end, hats off to everyone that buys these at the 10% markup (which by the way should be based on current spot NOT cost, that is simply absurd- this is not a fixed price product) it might be a very long time before another opportunity like this presents itself.
John >>
Gotta comment John.
Since it was published WHAT the US Mint charged APMEX for these coins
AND
the general Public COULD NOT purchase these from the US Mint at issue price
APMEX's initial markup was simply WRONG.
It defeated the purpose behind the bullion program established by the US in 1986 and placed an artificial price level on these (ahem) pieces. Now, everybody and his brother thinkd that these are worth at least that much when in reality, only a very few elite collectors will ever treat these as a doable collection and as a result, they will eventually sell for a bit over spot when folks come to their senses.
If APMEX wants to enter the government bullion selling business as a COIN DEALER then IMO, they should have worked out a deal with one of the AP's instead of trying to cut out the AP's altogether. Selling graded bullion as a dealer is one thing, selling raw bullion as received from the mint is something altogether different as the AP's "charter" is to make the bullion available at "reasonable prices". 90% over spot is not reasonable.
As for AP's leaving "profit on the table", I believe their profit comes from volume sales, not individual sales.
APMEX set the mark high whereas it was NOT their mark to set. It was the "Markets" mark to set. However, given that at the time astronomical mark coupled with the ridiculous ebay sales "based" on that mark, the price of these has artificially spiraled out of control.
Many, many folks are going to get burned with these.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Just look at the 2008 buffalo gold coins. >>
Those sell for a bit over spot.
2008-W on the other hand do not but were all available directly from the US Mint AT the US Mints standard markup. The US Mint did not adjust the price according to demand AND the prices achieved were all related to grade and/or slab label AND only hit their height AFTER the bullion was no longer available and folks could get an accounting for how many were sold.
Then supply and demand could kick in but not a second sooner.
I truly believe that the insanity of greed by those that wish to buy these low and sell these at outrageous prices on the "hype wave" has tainted the reasoning of a good portion of the posters and they've crossbred the definition of an AP vs a Coin Dealer. The two cannot play in the same game otherwise the purpose behind the bullion program would get lost.
Hopefully, a precedent does not get set which will enable the AP's to sell common SAE's at $10 or $20 over spot simply because they "believe" they are leaving money on the table and in so doing, create an artifical hype wave just to bolster those profits.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>So we could order 1 set from each AP? >>
Yes, you can order one set from each participating AP. Unless the AP has decided on even stricter limits, such as Fidelitrade which apparently will only allow one coin per household, not one set per household.
Eventually, after the fact, the word would have gotten out that there were no more to be had. This would have THEN started the speculation and the market would slowly evolve. This thread probably would have 75 posts at that point....instead of 2000 BEFORE they are available.
<< <i>
<< <i>Let's look at the "manipulation" comments throughout this thread. When I think of "manipulation" I think of an effort to artificially control prices. Is APMEX guilty of that? No way. In fact, if anything I think the price APMEX rolled out with could untimately prove to be too low. I also do not believe they were in any way trying to manipulate the market but rather took their best shot at the value based on information available to them. I have no reason to defend them, I compete with them on some levels, and MCM chose not to pre-sell any, but right is right and I for one do not believe what APMEX did was wrong from a common sense and free market point of view. I can't speak for "contractually" as I am not an attorney.
Using the same common sense and free market logic, forcing the sale of these coins at what will almost definitely prove to be WAY too low could make a better case for "manipulation". Also, keep in mind, it's difficult to make a case for upward price manipulation when widespread buyers are lined up around the block to buy them at the "manipulated" price. There was no deception or misrepresentation on the part of APMEX. This was a case of LACK OF SUPPLY combined with BIG DEMAND.
I feel for the AP's that have no retail presence and now will attempt to "retail" (funny since they are basically going to sell $100 bills for $50) the coins because those are the new rules and they do not want to turn their heads on a nice profit. It took me and a very talented staff 2 to 3 years before we built a solid and reliable retail company that could properly handle and service the public in large volume. It is anything but easy, and is the inverse of a wholesale business.
In the end, hats off to everyone that buys these at the 10% markup (which by the way should be based on current spot NOT cost, that is simply absurd- this is not a fixed price product) it might be a very long time before another opportunity like this presents itself.
John >>
Gotta comment John.
Since it was published WHAT the US Mint charged APMEX for these coins
AND
the general Public COULD NOT purchase these from the US Mint at issue price
APMEX's initial markup was simply WRONG.
It defeated the purpose behind the bullion program established by the US in 1986 and placed an artificial price level on these (ahem) pieces. Now, everybody and his brother thinkd that these are worth at least that much when in reality, only a very few elite collectors will ever treat these as a doable collection and as a result, they will eventually sell for a bit over spot when folks come to their senses.
If APMEX wants to enter the government bullion selling business as a COIN DEALER then IMO, they should have worked out a deal with one of the AP's instead of trying to cut out the AP's altogether. Selling graded bullion as a dealer is one thing, selling raw bullion as received from the mint is something altogether different as the AP's "charter" is to make the bullion available at "reasonable prices". 90% over spot is not reasonable.
As for AP's leaving "profit on the table", I believe their profit comes from volume sales, not individual sales.
APMEX set the mark high whereas it was NOT their mark to set. It was the "Markets" mark to set. However, given that at the time astronomical mark coupled with the ridiculous ebay sales "based" on that mark, the price of these has artificially spiraled out of control.
Many, many folks are going to get burned with these. >>
Well, not in any way back tracking, but I did say that my opinions were not taking into consideration the contractual end of this. I would not attempt to address that, I am not qualified. I do know that contracts can most definitely be challenged when unusual circumstances apply. I always look at things from what I perceive to be a common sense point of view. Giving indications of 100K mintage, then producing 33K or whatever, is a game changer from a marketplace perspective. Expecting anyone, including those that will be lucky enough to obtain a set at 10% over to then sell them for less than what the market will allow is unrealistic. As a side note here, to address another post, I have no alterior motive and was not "posturing" in any way with my previous post. There is no "grand scheme" or wealth of information being withheld by us or any of the AP's that I am aware of... we are all perplexed by the situation and very uncertain about how to proceed.
John Maben
Pegasus Coin and Jewelry (Brick and Mortar)
ANA LM, PNG, APMD, FUN, Etc
800-381-2646
<< <i>Many, many folks are going to get burned with these. >>
Only time will tell if that turns out to be the case.
"Caveat emptor."
"You can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink."
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Let's look at the "manipulation" comments throughout this thread. When I think of "manipulation" I think of an effort to artificially control prices. Is APMEX guilty of that? No way. In fact, if anything I think the price APMEX rolled out with could untimately prove to be too low. I also do not believe they were in any way trying to manipulate the market but rather took their best shot at the value based on information available to them. I have no reason to defend them, I compete with them on some levels, and MCM chose not to pre-sell any, but right is right and I for one do not believe what APMEX did was wrong from a common sense and free market point of view. I can't speak for "contractually" as I am not an attorney.
Using the same common sense and free market logic, forcing the sale of these coins at what will almost definitely prove to be WAY too low could make a better case for "manipulation". Also, keep in mind, it's difficult to make a case for upward price manipulation when widespread buyers are lined up around the block to buy them at the "manipulated" price. There was no deception or misrepresentation on the part of APMEX. This was a case of LACK OF SUPPLY combined with BIG DEMAND.
I feel for the AP's that have no retail presence and now will attempt to "retail" (funny since they are basically going to sell $100 bills for $50) the coins because those are the new rules and they do not want to turn their heads on a nice profit. It took me and a very talented staff 2 to 3 years before we built a solid and reliable retail company that could properly handle and service the public in large volume. It is anything but easy, and is the inverse of a wholesale business.
In the end, hats off to everyone that buys these at the 10% markup (which by the way should be based on current spot NOT cost, that is simply absurd- this is not a fixed price product) it might be a very long time before another opportunity like this presents itself.
John >>
Gotta comment John.
Since it was published WHAT the US Mint charged APMEX for these coins
AND
the general Public COULD NOT purchase these from the US Mint at issue price
APMEX's initial markup was simply WRONG.
It defeated the purpose behind the bullion program established by the US in 1986 and placed an artificial price level on these (ahem) pieces. Now, everybody and his brother thinkd that these are worth at least that much when in reality, only a very few elite collectors will ever treat these as a doable collection and as a result, they will eventually sell for a bit over spot when folks come to their senses.
If APMEX wants to enter the government bullion selling business as a COIN DEALER then IMO, they should have worked out a deal with one of the AP's instead of trying to cut out the AP's altogether. Selling graded bullion as a dealer is one thing, selling raw bullion as received from the mint is something altogether different as the AP's "charter" is to make the bullion available at "reasonable prices". 90% over spot is not reasonable.
As for AP's leaving "profit on the table", I believe their profit comes from volume sales, not individual sales.
APMEX set the mark high whereas it was NOT their mark to set. It was the "Markets" mark to set. However, given that at the time astronomical mark coupled with the ridiculous ebay sales "based" on that mark, the price of these has artificially spiraled out of control.
Many, many folks are going to get burned with these. >>
Well, not in any way back tracking, but I did say that my opinions were not taking into consideration the contractual end of this. I would not attempt to address that, I am not qualified. I do know that contracts can most definitely be challenged when unusual circumstances apply. I always look at things from what I perceive to be a common sense point of view. Giving indications of 100K mintage, then producing 33K or whatever, is a game changer from a marketplace perspective. Expecting anyone, including those that will be lucky enough to obtain a set at 10% over to then sell them for less than what the market will allow is unrealistic. As a side note here, to address another post, I have no alterior motive and was not "posturing" in any way with my previous post. There is no "grand scheme" or wealth of information being withheld by us or any of the AP's that I am aware of... we are all perplexed by the situation and very uncertain about how to proceed. >>
In the case of these pucks the contract is THE issue. The ONLY reason that the APs are exclusively selling them is because of their contract. It is THE issue. What should change is that these should be sold directly by The Mint. Any attempt to change the AP contract to permit them to gouge totally defeats the point of having the AP program in the first place.
If these were sold via the usual Mint channel, i.e. directly to the public, everyone would have a fair shot at them at a reasonable issue price and there would be no issue even if there was an immedite, big secondary markup as with the 20th anniv. AGE set, etc
<< <i>
<< <i>The Mint was unable to do this, only a relatively few were struck and an inadvertent rarity was created. >>
A rarity that people are willing to pay significantly above bullion value for is by definition not a bullion item.
How can anyone not get this?
Which, of course, in no way whatsoever changes the APs contractual agreement, which is the whole point.
<< <i>Raufus,
I agree with every thing you said.
But in 2011 the mint does not have to meet the demand for ASE's.
If they cut back on ASE's what other coins will they cut back? >>
A very interesting question. I'm not sure that there is much collector interest in the regular, business strike ASEs.
<<Yes, you can order one set from each participating AP. Unless the AP has decided on even stricter limits, such as Fidelitrade which apparently will only allow one coin per household, not one set per household. >>
The Mint probably still has a few tricks up its sleeve. My guess is that all the APs are required to sell at the same time so that once all sales occur, the Mint can gather all names into a database for cross-referencing before any coins ship. And they'll toss any orders from the same household across all APs. If true, that means that Fidelitrade threw a wrench into things by restricting sales to one coin per hh. If a person signed up for 1 coin from Fidelitrade and then orders a set from another AP in order to get the other coins in the set, they'll get the boot.
good luck, but i think your dreaming.
To state my earlier point,
with all the enhanced rules and 33,000 sets being available, the USM could have easily pulled the plug on AP's releasing these for 2010 and returned to AP's for 2011.............
too few sets......make them available on the USM website, 1 per hh, tracking and cross referencing issues go away.
<< <i>Well, not in any way back tracking, but I did say that my opinions were not taking into consideration the contractual end of this. I would not attempt to address that, I am not qualified. I do know that contracts can most definitely be challenged when unusual circumstances apply. I always look at things from what I perceive to be a common sense point of view. Giving indications of 100K mintage, then producing 33K or whatever, is a game changer from a marketplace perspective. Expecting anyone, including those that will be lucky enough to obtain a set at 10% over to then sell them for less than what the market will allow is unrealistic. As a side note here, to address another post, I have no alterior motive and was not "posturing" in any way with my previous post. There is no "grand scheme" or wealth of information being withheld by us or any of the AP's that I am aware of... we are all perplexed by the situation and very uncertain about how to proceed. >>
It doesn't take any special qualification to realize that when a party has a "special arrangement" to purchase the items from the USM directly at a very small margin (as bullion) and others don't have the same benefit, then marking them up (as numisimatic), is not what was intended in their agreement.
These are bullion coins, and should be priced as such.
KUDO's to the USM. They did the right thing.
Any post on here that thinks otherwise (how many have complained about their orders at APMEX possibly not being filled....have nothing to worry about, i'm sure APMEX will fill their order at a lower price for 1 set (therein lies the individual's problem if they ordered more than one set.....sorry, you only get ONE, get over it)
I believe the USM is giving the AP's a gift of 10% gross profit, and there still seems to be issues with that.....
Like I said earlier - offer direct - or, even better, I think there are alot of retailers with websites that would be willing to accept the 10% profit. BTW, they sold 1986 SOL commems in KMART - if we all have short memories.
<< <i>The Mint probably still has a few tricks up its sleeve. My guess is that all the APs are required to sell at the same time so that once all sales occur, the Mint can gather all names into a database for cross-referencing before any coins ship. And they'll toss any orders from the same household across all APs. If true, that means that Fidelitrade threw a wrench into things by restricting sales to one coin per hh. If a person signed up for 1 coin from Fidelitrade and then orders a set from another AP in order to get the other coins in the set, they'll get the boot. >>
Absolutely dreaming. As a previous poster just reminded us, how many times do we have to beat this dead horse? The horse is DEAD!!! Read the mint rules - they are in plain English. Each AP must ensure that only one set is sold per household, per AP. There is no requirement for cross-referencing. There is so much room for error in building a cross reference system across all the APs, it's almost comical to think of it. Do you think all of the APs run the same accounting system/software? Not very likely. Do you think their systems have the same file layouts or database configurations? Again, you're dreaming. I'm not saying that what you are proposing is impossible, but it's highly improbable. We're talking about a one-time deal/snafu with the pucks - the mint is not going to invest in a system to use once. As usual, JMHO.
P.S. - how about we let the horse RIP. He's dead, there is no bringing him back. Beating him upside the head with a 2x4 won't change anything. He's dead - done, finished, over.
mbogoman
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/classic-issues-colonials-through-1964/zambezi-collection-trade-dollars/7345Asesabi Lutho
nada
not even maybe
all the maybe's have failed.....
<< <i>too few sets......make them available on the USM website, 1 per hh, tracking and cross referencing issues go away. >>
you then contradict yourself in the next post. If these are bullion, then they cannot be sold by the US Mint. So once that is off the table, the issue becomes who is going to profit on the sale of these - the AP's, or the people watching the websites for the 'Add to Cart' button to become active.
if you havent already realized, or havent had much experience with the USM over the years,
the USM can change any terms they like, at any time, to ensure the broadest and fairest distribution occurs,
did you ever ask yourself "how would they distribute these if NONE of the AP's elected to sell them??" or, "if none of the AP's agreed to the change in the rules?"
then it would have to be DIRECT - correct? or, even by RETAILERS......they did this before as well, with the 1986 SOL commems.
or to the MELTING POT they go??
<< <i>Which APS are selling these?..................................Just kidding
Wouldn't you think the AP's are doing some cherry-picking
to keep the best ones for friends and family, before selling
the duds to the public?
<< <i>
<< <i>Which APS are selling these?..................................Just kidding
Wouldn't you think the AP's are doing some cherry-picking
to keep the best ones for friends and family, before selling
the duds to the public? >>
Yes, probably, but I have a math question :
What is 1981 divided by 16 ?
and here is a hint :
Does anybody really care ?
<< <i>What is 1981 divided by 16 ? >>
You asked that question...on the 1981st post
<< Let's look at the "manipulation" comments throughout this thread. When I think of "manipulation" I think of an effort to artificially control prices. Is APMEX guilty of that? No way. In fact, if anything I think the price APMEX rolled out with could untimately prove to be too low. I also do not believe they were in any way trying to manipulate the market but rather took their best shot at the value based on information available to them. I have no reason to defend them, I compete with them on some levels, and MCM chose not to pre-sell any, but right is right and I for one do not believe what APMEX did was wrong from a common sense and free market point of view. I can't speak for "contractually" as I am not an attorney.
Using the same common sense and free market logic, forcing the sale of these coins at what will almost definitely prove to be WAY too low could make a better case for "manipulation". Also, keep in mind, it's difficult to make a case for upward price manipulation when widespread buyers are lined up around the block to buy them at the "manipulated" price. There was no deception or misrepresentation on the part of APMEX. This was a case of LACK OF SUPPLY combined with BIG DEMAND.
I feel for the AP's that have no retail presence and now will attempt to "retail" (funny since they are basically going to sell $100 bills for $50) the coins because those are the new rules and they do not want to turn their heads on a nice profit. It took me and a very talented staff 2 to 3 years before we built a solid and reliable retail company that could properly handle and service the public in large volume. It is anything but easy, and is the inverse of a wholesale business.
In the end, hats off to everyone that buys these at the 10% markup (which by the way should be based on current spot NOT cost, that is simply absurd- this is not a fixed price product) it might be a very long time before another opportunity like this presents itself.
John >>
Gotta comment John.
Since it was published WHAT the US Mint charged APMEX for these coins
AND
the general Public COULD NOT purchase these from the US Mint at issue price
APMEX's initial markup was simply WRONG.
It defeated the purpose behind the bullion program established by the US in 1986 and placed an artificial price level on these (ahem) pieces. Now, everybody and his brother thinkd that these are worth at least that much when in reality, only a very few elite collectors will ever treat these as a doable collection and as a result, they will eventually sell for a bit over spot when folks come to their senses.
If APMEX wants to enter the government bullion selling business as a COIN DEALER then IMO, they should have worked out a deal with one of the AP's instead of trying to cut out the AP's altogether. Selling graded bullion as a dealer is one thing, selling raw bullion as received from the mint is something altogether different as the AP's "charter" is to make the bullion available at "reasonable prices". 90% over spot is not reasonable.
As for AP's leaving "profit on the table", I believe their profit comes from volume sales, not individual sales.
APMEX set the mark high whereas it was NOT their mark to set. It was the "Markets" mark to set. However, given that at the time astronomical mark coupled with the ridiculous ebay sales "based" on that mark, the price of these has artificially spiraled out of control.
Many, many folks are going to get burned with these. >>
Well, not in any way back tracking, but I did say that my opinions were not taking into consideration the contractual end of this. I would not attempt to address that, I am not qualified. I do know that contracts can most definitely be challenged when unusual circumstances apply. I always look at things from what I perceive to be a common sense point of view. Giving indications of 100K mintage, then producing 33K or whatever, is a game changer from a marketplace perspective. Expecting anyone, including those that will be lucky enough to obtain a set at 10% over to then sell them for less than what the market will allow is unrealistic. As a side note here, to address another post, I have no alterior motive and was not "posturing" in any way with my previous post. There is no "grand scheme" or wealth of information being withheld by us or any of the AP's that I am aware of... we are all perplexed by the situation and very uncertain about how to proceed.
-------------------------
If the distributors don't like the 10% directive, they can opt out. I'm not sure what "selling them for less than what the market will allow being unrealistic" means. The market is the market and it allows people to buy & sell at whatever price they find mutually acceptable. This isn't a market until it gets into the public's hands, and that includes MCM since they are not a Mint distributor.
Nothing unrealistic about forcing a distributor to follow the distribution agreement that got them special status in the first place.
The only motive MCM should have is to make money and to serve their customers. I see posturing when someone tries to justify a high price in advance. I continue to see the potential for trouble when I read that "we are all perplexed".
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>What is 1981 divided by 16 ? >>
You asked that question...on the 1981st post >>
Yes, of course. That's because it conforms with my position that the prices will level out and the excitement will slowly dwindle. Thus reducing the amount of posts per day to the thread. I appreciate your observance.
Supply and Demand.
Let's supply the demand already.
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, not in any way back tracking, but I did say that my opinions were not taking into consideration the contractual end of this. I would not attempt to address that, I am not qualified. I do know that contracts can most definitely be challenged when unusual circumstances apply. I always look at things from what I perceive to be a common sense point of view. Giving indications of 100K mintage, then producing 33K or whatever, is a game changer from a marketplace perspective. Expecting anyone, including those that will be lucky enough to obtain a set at 10% over to then sell them for less than what the market will allow is unrealistic. As a side note here, to address another post, I have no alterior motive and was not "posturing" in any way with my previous post. There is no "grand scheme" or wealth of information being withheld by us or any of the AP's that I am aware of... we are all perplexed by the situation and very uncertain about how to proceed. >>
It doesn't take any special qualification to realize that when a party has a "special arrangement" to purchase the items from the USM directly at a very small margin (as bullion) and others don't have the same benefit, then marking them up (as numisimatic), is not what was intended in their agreement.
These are bullion coins, and should be priced as such.
KUDO's to the USM. They did the right thing.
Any post on here that thinks otherwise (how many have complained about their orders at APMEX possibly not being filled....have nothing to worry about, i'm sure APMEX will fill their order at a lower price for 1 set (therein lies the individual's problem if they ordered more than one set.....sorry, you only get ONE, get over it)
I believe the USM is giving the AP's a gift of 10% gross profit, and there still seems to be issues with that.....
Like I said earlier - offer direct - or, even better, I think there are alot of retailers with websites that would be willing to accept the 10% profit. BTW, they sold 1986 SOL commems in KMART - if we all have short memories. >>
Very well stated!!!
<< <i>So...cutting to the heart of this matter, based on what we now know, are the 5 ouncers going on sale this week (week of 12/20); next week (week of 12/27); or the first week of January 2011? >>
Probably.
<< <i>just an alternative taxmad......
if you havent already realized, or havent had much experience with the USM over the years,
the USM can change any terms they like, at any time, to ensure the broadest and fairest distribution occurs,
did you ever ask yourself "how would they distribute these if NONE of the AP's elected to sell them??" or, "if none of the AP's agreed to the change in the rules?"
then it would have to be DIRECT - correct? or, even by RETAILERS......they did this before as well, with the 1986 SOL commems.
or to the MELTING POT they go?? >>
Being that the APs must sell the 2010 per the auth. legislation, if the APs can't get this done, then it would be best to hold off until 2011 and get a legislative fix so that The Mint can sell them direct. This would be easy.
The ONLY purpose for the AP program - which has worked well for 20 yrs. - is to provide The Mint with a means to sell bullion en mass to the APs at a small markup and to then have the AP sell to the public via a high volume, low mark up model. This makes the AP's role beneficial to all.
In this instance, the APs have tried to subvert the process and to break the terms of their contract such that they wish to act as useless middle-men who's only purpose is to score a huge profit by abusing their position as sole distributors of a limited mintage product. In this role they serve no one but themselves.
If none of them like the current terms, great. Let The Mint sell direct.
I do think that in the future, with a much higher mintage, both the pucks and the APs will serve their purpose well. The former as a way to buy silver with a bit less markup over spot than is the case with one ouncers and the APs to distribute this bullion as intended.
One other thing that is abundantly clear...the numismatic versions will be perhaps the biggest no-brainer to attempt to acquire of any modern offering, even counting the 20th anniv. AGE sets.
I can't imaging the frenzy when they go on sale.
What do you all think that they'll bring on the secondary market after their immediate sell-out??
<< <i>So...cutting to the heart of this matter, based on what we now know, are the 5 ouncers going on sale this week (week of 12/20); next week (week of 12/27); or the first week of January 2011? >>
Maybe....
Yes, that's the ticket. I think they should make Home Shopping Network the sole provider of these. Maybe they can also offer them gold and platinum plated or colorized with Barack Obama or Elvis or maybe even your favorite beverage logo. Can't wait.
<< <i>One other thing that is abundantly clear...the numismatic versions will be perhaps the biggest no-brainer to attempt to acquire of any modern offering, even counting the 20th anniv. AGE sets.
I can't imaging the frenzy when they go on sale.
What do you all think that they'll bring on the secondary market after their immediate sell-out?? >>
Hopefully the Mint will realize what a winner they have an price them accordingly. If the bullion versions are selling for $2000/set, then the Mint should set their price at $2200, assuming a 10% premium for the numismatic value/smaller mintage. There is no reason for the Mint to let the lucky few who were able to buy directly from the Mint to make all the money.
just to prove a point - they did do some weird arrangements before - with the SOL commems at KMART!!!!! I think a few other retailers too!!
<< <i>
<< <i>One other thing that is abundantly clear...the numismatic versions will be perhaps the biggest no-brainer to attempt to acquire of any modern offering, even counting the 20th anniv. AGE sets.
I can't imaging the frenzy when they go on sale.
What do you all think that they'll bring on the secondary market after their immediate sell-out?? >>
Hopefully the Mint will realize what a winner they have an price them accordingly. If the bullion versions are selling for $2000/set, then the Mint should set their price at $2200, assuming a 10% premium for the numismatic value/smaller mintage. There is no reason for the Mint to let the lucky few who were able to buy directly from the Mint to make all the money. >>