<< <i>I'm wondering about how the Pan Pac sets were viewed by the collecting community back when they were issued. I've read commentary at times that suggests that these coins were regarded as overpriced and ugly. Is that a documented fact or is it speculation? Since the Gold Standard was the monetary system of the day, that amount of gold represented a fairly substantial investment. Were the sets sold at a premium?
The reason I am asking is simple. Modern Bullion and Modern Commems are routinely bashed on the forum because they are overpriced and ugly. The Mint often DOES make a mess in many of their offerings, and in many cases Congress puts the Mint into ridiculous situations that turn out badly. However - sometimes, the result is a great opportunity!
I'm not suggesting that every Modern Bullion or Commem is a great investment or a great coin. What I am suggesting is that people ought to see things for what they are and to keep an open mind about Moderns. >>
The sets were sold for $200, which was almost a 200% premium to gold, akin to buying a UHR For $3000, when they came out...and I thought the UHR premium was high as it was. No surprise, the set didn't sell very well from what I remember reading.
It's hard to compare moderns to these types of set. moderns are all pristine and will STAY that way now and even the "rare" ones like plats still have 6 or 7 times the mintage. But I think your right about overpriced and presumed ugly, these are the ones that have a chance, IF they don't sell well..Pucks were overpriced and UGLY imho, but they sold at a fevered pitch initially. What this does say to me, is that the moderns that will do the best over time are the overpriced issues that no one wants at the time and the main ones that "might" fit that bill would be certain issues of the much maligned spouse coins, imho and to a lesser extent maybe plats, which still have a very small collector base.
Comments
Cashback from Mr. Rebates
<< <i>I'm wondering about how the Pan Pac sets were viewed by the collecting community back when they were issued. I've read commentary at times that suggests that these coins were regarded as overpriced and ugly. Is that a documented fact or is it speculation? Since the Gold Standard was the monetary system of the day, that amount of gold represented a fairly substantial investment. Were the sets sold at a premium?
The reason I am asking is simple. Modern Bullion and Modern Commems are routinely bashed on the forum because they are overpriced and ugly. The Mint often DOES make a mess in many of their offerings, and in many cases Congress puts the Mint into ridiculous situations that turn out badly. However - sometimes, the result is a great opportunity!
I'm not suggesting that every Modern Bullion or Commem is a great investment or a great coin. What I am suggesting is that people ought to see things for what they are and to keep an open mind about Moderns. >>
The sets were sold for $200, which was almost a 200% premium to gold, akin to buying a UHR For $3000, when they came out...and I thought the UHR premium was high as it was. No surprise, the set didn't sell very well from what I remember reading.
It's hard to compare moderns to these types of set. moderns are all pristine and will STAY that way now and even the "rare" ones like plats still have 6 or 7 times the mintage. But I think your right about overpriced and presumed ugly, these are the ones that have a chance, IF they don't sell well..Pucks were overpriced and UGLY imho, but they sold at a fevered pitch initially. What this does say to me, is that the moderns that will do the best over time are the overpriced issues that no one wants at the time and the main ones that "might" fit that bill would be certain issues of the much maligned spouse coins, imho and to a lesser extent maybe plats, which still have a very small collector base.