<< <i>[qEvery hot coin is hard to get so they put out a buy order to get what they can so they can sell the item we all did it i bought many sets off the BST and my 5 from the mint. They did not still them they bought them just like any other dealer like you and me if some one is selling them you can buy them that is BS there is no law that says you cant do this. But to out one guy is not right What if they put Wondercoin in the line of fire or P.C.G.S or E-Bay I think some one will be saying sorry in there next issue. >>
Wow.
Ends justify the means I guess. Your description of the BST buy offers from dealers is very different than I recall.
Question - does still = steal? Just wondering.... >>
fixed just got fired up it's not right. Ok we can all go out to play now.
Not only at the negative and unfair picture Mr Francis has painted, but at the fact that so many facts were omitted, we were singled out in what is and has been a common practice for over 5 years now among both dealers and collectors, and MOSTLY that CoinWorld would publish this garbage without even contacting us to verify information or to tell Mr Francis that he would need to re-write his commentary to be more broad based in fairness and so as not to slander my company. We will respond to the community, you can bet on it, and it won't be via CoinWorld! I am sickened by CoinWorld's irresponsible publishing of this piece of trash.
I still think the whole issue is manufactured...there is a simple fix, don't pre-announce mintages. Without the publicity I think the 25th set would have sold 25,000 sets...then you'd have some serious keys. Can one of you old-timers tell me if the US Mint pre-announced the mintages for the 1950-52 proof sets? Set an order period, allow orders, close the order period, then tell us how many you made, if I didn't order any it's my fault...no more controversies (yeah, right!!).
Not only at the negative and unfair picture Mr Francis has painted, but at the fact that so many facts were omitted, we were singled out in what is and has been a common practice for over 5 years now among both dealers and collectors, and MOSTLY that CoinWorld would publish this garbage without even contacting us to verify information or to tell Mr Francis that he would need to re-write his commentary to be more broad based in fairness and so as not to slander my company. We will respond to the community, you can bet on it, and it won't be via CoinWorld! I am sickened by CoinWorld's irresponsible publishing of this piece of trash.
John Maben CEO, ModernCoinMart >>
I would be very surprised if CW didn't publish your side of the story in the form of a rebutal commentary. CW wants to sell papers and controversy helps to sell papers.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>MCM didn't make those people buy those sets. MCM didn't send them money to make the purchases in order to circumvent anything. MCM offered a premium for those sets and created a market. That's what market makers do.
Now, some people used multiple addresses and multiple credit cards in order to buy extra sets in order to get around Mint policy. I'd say that those people showed disrespect for everyone else, and a bit of greed as well. MCM didn't do that (that I know of).
What I find ironic is that these people who took MCM's offer ended up selling for $60/set profit. If they'd sold them later, they'd have made at least $400/set. That's what I find somewhat amusing. The neophytes and non-collectors who may have thought they were making easy money actually shortchanged themselves! HaHa!
If you want to blame someone for anything, blame the Mint for their distribution policy and their mintage limits. All the Mint did was to draw people into another speculation over another of its product offerings. Standard practice, these days. Not very nice, but standard practice nontheless. >>
I don't think MCM "made the market", it was already there. By offering to pre-buy sets they are encouraging people to buy who wouldn't ordinarily buy them. I guess if I was a real collector, I wouldn't necessarily welcome the added competition, esp. if it ends up costing me more. Kinda like being a single guy and having to compete with other single guys AND married ones too for the available ladies.
If you agree to sell before you get them, a deal is a deal. I admit that I too had agreer's remorse after the prices shot up. I'm kicking myself in the ass for not realizing that these sets would be an uber winner.
I remember receiving an email from Bob Green of Park Avenue announcing they would pay a profit for anyone ordering these sets on their behalf. I took the tip, but bought sets for myself. I still have them. I could have made something like $300 from the transaction. I never responded to Bob or his company about the sets; I merely thought to myself, if a dealer is willing to do this, there must be something there. I took the risk and bought the sets.
In reality, anyone, including dealers, offering to buy these at more than issue price was taking a risk; in this case they were able to profit if what they paid was less than what they sold the coins for. That's free market and the way things should be. The mint's handling of the sales has a lot of people upset. It took me multiple attempts on-line to try to buy them and it was late in the day when my order finally went in. If I had been shut out, it would have just been too bad. I've tried to buy concert tickets or pro sport tickets to playoffs and have been unsuccessful. That's life. It's not always "fair" whatever that gets defined as.
It bothers me not in the least that any collector or dealer might want to offer to buy as many of these sets, or any other coins, as they want. If the prices had tanked, then the buyers would lose money.
I understand the "right" of a publication like Coin World to print editorials and the most controversial do tend to gain the most interest and help sell copy, and generate interest; doing this has its risks, as we can see in John's Maben's response above. He has every right to defend himself and his business, and it could even mean that Coin World loses a big advertiser (that's up to John). That would be a shame, but I understand it completely. It is ironic that MCM has such a stellar reputation, vide supra, yet there are some regular Coin World advertisers that sell coins that I find to be overgraded, cleaned, and/or over priced; this opinion of mine is shared by others. Coin World stands to lose a great client and also keep other clients that are less than desirable, in my opinion. We will all watch and see what happens.
The other thing I would really like to know, is if the author got five sets and resold them.
He said in the editorial that he does not collect these and did not buy them.
I think most readers see through this, and I don't think MCM should overreact.
I completely agree. Any response by MCM would only bring up the issue for more discussion and scrutinization. I doubt that MCM has been harmed by this in any way.
It's another thing for a business to demand that once you agree, you absolutely, positively, step on a crack, break your mother's back HAVE to sell to them or else your name will be mud.
A lot of people were taken advantage of by this tactic, I think.
Geez. I have 2 basic questions:
1) Why did you buy the sets? Only to sell them? Your timing was off because of the dollar signs $$$$$$ when you committed to sell, and that's all there is to it.
2) What kinds of contracts do you think should not be binding? Should buyers be the only ones who have to execute on a promise, or are sellers equally obligated?
It's crazy that I'd even have to pose these questions.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
If you reread the Nov 14th article being quoted, you can see that the commentary author did not "single out" Modern Coin Mart. Coin World did.
I fully support the practices of MCM since what they do is what everybody else who wants to make a profit in the coin business does. Maximize your buying power. The practice has been occuring since the 1960's and is even supported by the US Mint with their Coin Dealers Program where established coin dealers can order bulk products at a certain percentage of discount. A percentage that simply is not availble to the onesey-twosey buyers.
I see nothing wrong with this practice as it is simple business.
Folks should really start paying attention and stop the whining when it doesn't work out the way they thought it should.
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 would be very surprised if CW didn't publish your side of the story in the form of a rebutal commentary. CW wants to sell papers and controversy helps to sell papers."
I've had differences in opinion on a few occasions with CW over the years and they always published the rebuttal. I'm not giving them the satisfaction of one this time because I do not want to help them sell papers and advertising at this point. Last year we spent $183,726.08 advertising in CW. For that I do not expect an exemption in standard tenants of journalism involving separation of editorials and advertising, but I do expect due diligence and fairness in protecting my company's reputation. That was completely omitted, and frankly, I am pissed. Allowing statements such as "I must question their moral compass" and describing our actions as "nothing short of greedy" in a targeted attack is reprehensible. Shame on you CoinWorld for giving credibility to a minority viewpoint that is targeted and damaging to one of your best customers.
As I said in the last post, we will respond, and it won't be in CW, but the community will see it.
Shame on you CoinWorld for giving credibility to a minority viewpoint that is targeted and damaging to one of your best customers.
I would not be so sure that this is a minority viewpoint. There have been scores of letters to the editor on the side of Mr. Francis.
IMO, allowing the argument to continue hurts MCM more than letting it drop. When you are on top of the heap, you are going to take some shots. It goes with the territory, or as PerryHall likes to say, "It's the cost of doing business."
"IMO, allowing the argument to continue hurts MCM more than letting it drop".
I agree with you ... a long, long time ago, I was involved with a slander/libel case. Someone was very upset about comments directed at their business. They wanted huge damages as a result. The only problem was I believe they essentially needed to prove their business went "down the tubes" after the alleged slander/libel. In fact, business had never been better. Does a company ever want to try to publicly prove their business is going down the tubes (especially one in the coin biz where folks are shipping you coins before you even pay for them), if the company wants to remain a "going concern" and ty to grow its business?
Just my 2 cents and everyone should consult their own attorney to learn about slander/libel cases. Maybe they are easier to win in the 21st century now.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>...........and describing our actions as "nothing short of greedy" .......... >>
The term "greedy" gets bandied about quite frequently but I do not think that the historic definition of greed is applicable in this case. (i.e. wanting more than you need)
Every business today MUST show a profit or else they simply will not survive. To have folks interpret this as "greed" is simply wrong.
I can understand journalistic freedom but I cannot understand not recognizing the fact that a very large customer was going to be raked over the coals with the commentary and at the very minimum, allowing that customer the opportunity to respond.
What I do expect though, is that a good portion of their business just went somewhere else.
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>"IMO, allowing the argument to continue hurts MCM more than letting it drop".
I agree with you ... a long, long time ago, I was involved with a slander/libel case. Someone was very upset about comments directed at their business. They wanted huge damages as a result. The only problem was I believe they essentially needed to prove their business went "down the tubes" after the alleged slander/libel. In fact, business had never been better. Does a company ever want to try to publicly prove their business is going down the tubes (especially one in the coin biz where folks are shipping you coins before you even pay for them), if the company wants to remain a "going concern" and ty to grow its business?
Just my 2 cents and everyone should consult their own attorney to learn about slander/libel cases. Maybe they are easier to win in the 21st century now.
Wondercoin >>
Who was the guy who said that there is no such thing as "bad" publicity?
<< <i>"IMO, allowing the argument to continue hurts MCM more than letting it drop".
I agree with you ... a long, long time ago, I was involved with a slander/libel case. Someone was very upset about comments directed at their business. They wanted huge damages as a result. The only problem was I believe they essentially needed to prove their business went "down the tubes" after the alleged slander/libel. In fact, business had never been better. Does a company ever want to try to publicly prove their business is going down the tubes (especially one in the coin biz where folks are shipping you coins before you even pay for them), if the company wants to remain a "going concern" and ty to grow its business?
Just my 2 cents and everyone should consult their own attorney to learn about slander/libel cases. Maybe they are easier to win in the 21st century now.
Wondercoin >>
Who was the guy who said that there is no such thing as "bad" publicity? >>
You mean "the only thing worse than bad publicity is no publicity"?
<< <i>"IMO, allowing the argument to continue hurts MCM more than letting it drop".
I agree with you ... a long, long time ago, I was involved with a slander/libel case. Someone was very upset about comments directed at their business. They wanted huge damages as a result. The only problem was I believe they essentially needed to prove their business went "down the tubes" after the alleged slander/libel. In fact, business had never been better. Does a company ever want to try to publicly prove their business is going down the tubes (especially one in the coin biz where folks are shipping you coins before you even pay for them), if the company wants to remain a "going concern" and ty to grow its business?
Just my 2 cents and everyone should consult their own attorney to learn about slander/libel cases. Maybe they are easier to win in the 21st century now.
Wondercoin >>
Who was the guy who said that there is no such thing as "bad" publicity? >>
You mean "the only thing worse than bad publicity is no publicity"? >>
"IMO, allowing the argument to continue hurts MCM more than letting it drop".
There is no argument yet, only one viewpoint in the CW editorial. This was an attack against my company. Read it again. It was not general, it was very specific. However, it indirectly lumps all who had customers resell A25 sets to them prior to having them in hand in the same ugly category described by Richard Francis. No, I am not going to let the sleeping dog lie, I am going to present the other side of the coin. Calling my company greedy and lacking a moral compass also places scores of others ranging from the largest coin dealer in the world, to Mitch, to the corner coin shop in Mr Francis'same category as they among hundreds of others including many non-dealing collectors did not feel that they were doing anything wrong in pre-buying sets. If YOU were specifically named in this YOU might feel the same way I do. So while I truly appreciate both support and any opposing comments, I am not going to stand here take a punch in the face without hitting back.
If someone receives an advantage that I perceived as unfair and unavailable to me -- and that person played by the established rules -- my beef is with those who make the rules, not those who use the rules to their benefit.
I will repeat my personal previous comment on the subject here:
"The "spirit of the household limit" is that a household should not get more than 5 sets max... right? The US Mint came up with the number of sets available for the household limit after careful research and consideration and, if they came up with a number that was (hypothetically) upwards of 5x more than it should have been for most collectors out there, then where does the problem truly lie with folks taking advantage of that household limit to essentially end up with their set for free (or even 2+ sets free) by selling off the other 3 or 4 sets to whomever they chose to? So, that writer acknowledges that nothing illegal had taken place. But, also, if the US Mint did not want collectors to buy more sets than they truly wanted to keep for their collection (i.e. if that was indeed the "spirit" of this offering), then couldn't the Mint have just simply stated that? Just like the Mint clearly set up rules for collectors to only buy as many Pres $1's as they intended to spend in commerce and not to bring to the bank to capture some quick credit card points."
I do believe there are some open questions that remain for those who "made up all the rules".
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
OK, I stand corrected.... the second largest Mitch.
I've said more than enough now. I will come back (in a day or two) to post a link to my response which will be on a news site that is TRULY one of the best if not the best out there. CW could take a few lessons from them. I will also be sending an email to our 20,000 active customers in the next couple of days.
Margaret Thatcher, in a TV interview for Thames TV This Week [[1]]on Feb. 5, 1976, Prime Minister Thatcher said, "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
I prefer free enterprise. Carry on boys
Currently working with nurmaler. Older transactions....circa 2011 BST transactions Gecko109, Segoja, lpinion, Agblox, oldgumballmachineswanted,pragmaticgoat, CharlieC, onlyroosies, timrutnat, ShinyThingsInPM under login lightcycler
<< <i>Margaret Thatcher, in a TV interview for Thames TV This Week [[1]]on Feb. 5, 1976, Prime Minister Thatcher said, "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
I prefer free enterprise. Carry on boys >>
But how free is the free enterprise when government entities create an unlevel playing field by showing favoritism and special treatment to a few well-connected people and corporations, effectively choosing the winners and losers? In a true free market, the government would be neither favoring nor discriminating against any participating entity.
<< <i>"I would be very surprised if CW didn't publish your side of the story in the form of a rebutal commentary. CW wants to sell papers and controversy helps to sell papers."
I've had differences in opinion on a few occasions with CW over the years and they always published the rebottle. I'm not giving them the satisfaction of one this time because I do not want to help them sell papers and advertising at this point. Last year we spent $183,726.08 advertising in CW. For that I do not expect an exemption in standard tenants of journalism involving separation of editorials and advertising, but I do expect due diligence and fairness in protecting my company's reputation. That was completely omitted, and frankly, I am pissed. Allowing statements such as "I must question their moral compass" and describing our actions as "nothing short of greedy" in a targeted attack is reprehensible. Shame on you CoinWorld for giving credibility to a minority viewpoint that is targeted and damaging to one of your best customers.
As I said in the last post, we will respond, and it won't be in CW, but the community will see it.
<< <i> Side note... if you think these 25th Anniv. sets were hard to come by ... did any try to get (great) Springsteen tickets this month? I need to sell a heck of a lot of 25th Anniv sets I am buying on the open market to raise the money needed to take the family to the Springsteen show!
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin >>
OMG the Springsteen sale was another blatant example of just how crooked the ticketing agencies are and I wish someone with Springsteens clout and wealth would have taken issue with it.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
<< <i>Why single out MCM??.........why not list every single person who offered to buy then and now??......where is the end?...........just because SOME could not get what many did is no reason to bash those that got.........just another part of being politically correct and trying to give those that don't have or didn't get..............sour grapes have no business in business..........would all those that didn't get be happy if they received 1 free set from the mint for the fiasco......probably not they would want to 2 .......as always IMO (edited) >>
I would assume whomever singled out MCM had some axe to grind with MCM.
Successful coin BST transactions with Gerard and segoja.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
<< <i>Why single out MCM??.........why not list every single person who offered to buy then and now??......where is the end?...........just because SOME could not get what many did is no reason to bash those that got.........just another part of being politically correct and trying to give those that don't have or didn't get..............sour grapes have no business in business..........would all those that didn't get be happy if they received 1 free set from the mint for the fiasco......probably not they would want to 2 .......as always IMO (edited) >>
I would assume whomever singled out MCM had some axe to grind with MCM. >>
I would assume that MCM was singled out because they were the biggest name that was openly soliciting sets on the internet and by email. They were the only firm that emailed me that they were buying sets. If I did not visit this forum, I would have assumed that they were the largest (if not only) pre-market buyers of these sets. In fact, for all I know to this day, they may have been the largest buyers.
This goes back to what I said in another post. If you are the biggest (or perceived to be the biggest), you are going to take some shots. "It's the cost of doing business."
If the PowerBall jackpot gets up to $800 million does anyone think that a rich corporation like say Exxon should just be able to walk into lottery headquarters with a check for $175,223,510 and buy one of each possible combination and guarantee themselves a win even if they are willing to risk that there might be other winners? Should millionaires not be allowed to play because they supposedly don't need the money?
Should all mint products be sold without restriction as to who can buy what and how many?
Is it ok for the mint to place purchase limits on small volume product runs to give everyone a fair shake?
Part of the problem is that by enticing others to buy for them, the big players have fostered an atmosphere where nearly every purchaser is either a flipper, an opportunist or a hoarder all looking to make megabucks. With every new issue it gets worse and worse as more and more flippers join the parade. Even the collectors will have to have 50 friends ordering for them in the hopes that they will end up with just one.
As more and more buyers wise up there will likely be fewer and fewer sets available to the big players; providing the mint continues to offer such opportunities. They will then have to go out into the open market and purchase them at prevailing prices.
<< <i>Margaret Thatcher, in a TV interview for Thames TV This Week [[1]]on Feb. 5, 1976, Prime Minister Thatcher said, "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
I prefer free enterprise. Carry on boys >>
But how free is the free enterprise when government entities create an unlevel playing field by showing favoritism and special treatment to a few well-connected people and corporations, effectively choosing the winners and losers? In a true free market, the government would be neither favoring nor discriminating against any participating entity. >>
Are you implying that the "Approved Purchasers" need to be disbanded thereby enabling the US Citizens to purchase "bullion" Silver/Gold/Platinum Eagles directly from the US Mint?
If so, I'm all for it!
That process was implemented way before the Internet reached the level its at today and IMO, is way outdated. I'd sure like to be able to buy a 500 coin box ast a discount to resell.
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 would assume that MCM was singled out because they were the biggest name that was openly soliciting sets on the internet and by email."
Sorry guys, I promised to shut up for now, but had to correct this statement.
We were not the biggest name offering to buy by email. I will not say who was, but others on here know. Further, I personally received about 5 or 6 emails to my personal email addresses from other companies doing exactly the same thing, and there were a dozen others on FACTS/CCE. I won't name any of them either but it's a fact. I do understand that we are high profile in moderns and that in itself makes a target and yes I have considered that as well as the fact that as you grow professional jealousy and individuals with an axe to grind do abound by default.
It would be correct to say we were one of the first to start pre-buying years ago during the 20th anniversary sales.
I have much more to say, but will save it for the fine folks at CoinWeek to post.
John
John Maben
Pegasus Coin and Jewelry (Brick and Mortar)
ANA LM, PNG, APMD, FUN, Etc
800-381-2646
<< <i>Margaret Thatcher, in a TV interview for Thames TV This Week [[1]]on Feb. 5, 1976, Prime Minister Thatcher said, "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
I prefer free enterprise. Carry on boys >>
But how free is the free enterprise when government entities create an unlevel playing field by showing favoritism and special treatment to a few well-connected people and corporations, effectively choosing the winners and losers? In a true free market, the government would be neither favoring nor discriminating against any participating entity. >>
Are you implying that the "Approved Purchasers" need to be disbanded thereby enabling the US Citizens to purchase "bullion" Silver/Gold/Platinum Eagles directly from the US Mint?
If so, I'm all for it!
That process was implemented way before the Internet reached the level its at today and IMO, is way outdated. I'd sure like to be able to buy a 500 coin box ast a discount to resell. >>
I have no issue with distributorship arrangements when it makes sense to have them. When it is limited mintage with a higher price, then IMO it makes sense to sell direct to the public and avoid any semblance of favoritism or monopolization. When they mint 10 million 2012 ASEs then it makes little sense to sell to the public one coin at a time. Then again, I'd have no problems if they'd sell monster boxes direct, but it usually isn't good business policy to compete with your distributors.
<< <i>It's another thing for a business to demand that once you agree, you absolutely, positively, step on a crack, break your mother's back HAVE to sell to them or else your name will be mud.
A lot of people were taken advantage of by this tactic, I think.
2) What kinds of contracts do you think should not be binding? Should buyers be the only ones who have to execute on a promise, or are sellers equally obligated?
It's crazy that I'd even have to pose these questions. >>
Nobody forced anyone to accept those deals. A lot of folks [probly except for the big boys] apparently misjudged how fast and how much those sets appreciated in price. It's probly a good idea to honor those deals one makes in a public venue as your name can be just as easily smeared in that same venue if you end up being a welcher. I'd bet that there were a lot of sets purchased from friends and neighbors for a lot less than was offered here.
<< <i>"I would assume that MCM was singled out because they were the biggest name that was openly soliciting sets on the internet and by email."
Sorry guys, I promised to shut up for now, but had to correct this statement.
We were not the biggest name offering to buy by email. I will not say who was, but others on here know. Further, I personally received about 5 or 6 emails to my personal email addresses from other companies doing exactly the same thing, and there were a dozen others on FACTS/CCE. I won't name any of them either but it's a fact. I do understand that we are high profile in moderns and that in itself makes a target and yes I have considered that as well as the fact that as you grow professional jealousy and individuals with an axe to grind do abound by default.
It would be correct to say we were one of the first to start pre-buying years ago during the 20th anniversary sales.
I have much more to say, but will save it for the fine folks at CoinWeek to post.
John >>
People have short memories on both sides of the fence.
"I would assume that MCM was singled out because they were the biggest name that was openly soliciting sets on the internet and by email."
As far as I know, that may or may not be true ... I am just not sure the other larger companies were soliciting on BOTH the internet and by email. If the comment would have had an "or" instead of an 'and" it certainly would not have been true.
Regarding the personal "axe to grind" ... I too wonder why the commentator unfairly singled out MCM. Maybe someone should ask him?
Regarding what my wife had to say on the subject .... assuming two or three companies could email 20,000-25,000 or more customers on an US Mint offering that only has 20,000-30,000 likely possible orders allowable in total, is it OK (hypothetically) for a couple of the biggest players to essentially control nearly an entire US mint offering? The more and more I think about this, doesn't this fall directly back on the US Mint to set appropriate rules and limits for an offering (knowing full well the realities of the market and the mass marketing abilities of a number of coin companies) and once they do ... anyone who has a beef should take it up with the US Mint? The Mint has had at least one or more miscues in the past 12-18 months in my opinion with situations like this ... isn't it time for the Mint to come up with workable product limts and mintages and take full responsibility for the situations they put into play? As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
The mint did set the rules and the limits. What more are they supposed to do? Make 20 million of everything? Discriminate about who is and who is not allowed to order? If their ordering system had been capable of processing 25,000 orders per minute would that have helped or hurt the collector or the flipper? What people do with the stuff AFTER they buy it from the mint is not the mint's problem or concern. One can keep it or sell it. In retrospect, they probably should have had a higher mintage or they could have charged more, a lot more. In the end the mint was the one leaving a chitload of money on the table.
I have another very workable solution...just outlaw the resale of all US Mint products...let's just use them all for the purpose originally intended...WHO IS WITH ME??? (Where is the cricket chirping emoticon?)
Boy this one could get ugly fast . I'll wait for John's rebuttal. I for one am happy MCM exists and does a fantastic job of providing a quality service. Mitch you too .
Currently working with nurmaler. Older transactions....circa 2011 BST transactions Gecko109, Segoja, lpinion, Agblox, oldgumballmachineswanted,pragmaticgoat, CharlieC, onlyroosies, timrutnat, ShinyThingsInPM under login lightcycler
<< <i>I have another very workable solution...just outlaw the resale of all US Mint products...let's just use them all for the purpose originally intended...WHO IS WITH ME??? (Where is the cricket chirping emoticon?) >>
Ban brick and mortar stores. Down with capitalism.
So when the Mint limits purchases to 1 per household...or even worse, implements some crazy lottery system where being a longtime customer counts for zilch, we'll see how happy everyone is with their newly "equitable" arrangement.
Call me crazy, but even with a set-up like this, somehow the guys on TV will still manage to get their hands on 1,000 sets to sell...all pre-slabbed and ready to sell (for 5x the price) on Day 1!
<< <i>So when the Mint limits purchases to 1 per household...or even worse, implements some crazy lottery system where being a longtime customer counts for zilch, we'll see how happy everyone is with their newly "equitable" arrangement.
Call me crazy, but even with a set-up like this, somehow the guys on TV will still manage to get their hands on 1,000 sets to sell...all pre-slabbed and ready to sell (for 5x the price) on Day 1! >>
HSN must be the bigger than MCM dealer then? How long after the mint started shipping did HSN have these available for delivery? Or were they pre-selling too?
Perhaps the mint ought to start a program like is done for limited numbers of big game hunting licenses in the western states. If you order, but don't get coins then you get a preference point which puts you ahead of someone who orders for the first time when the next hot item is announced.
After watching what Ampex AND OTHERS did with the 2010 bullion ATB I have learned that the playing field the U S MInt allows is way outdated. I am sure that the U S Mint had no idea that some of these companies would start sending in all these bullion items to be graded at a MINIMUN Grade, keeping and selling those for a higher price while giving there customers the BU. What a great deal for them, best of both worlds they get the highest grades and sell them for twice what the mint charged but don't worry you can still buy this BU for 2 dollors over spot. I blame the mint for allowing all of this to happen. Like others have said this has been going on for awhile nothing new. As far as sending out emails to all your customers with a buy now price before the release, I question that, but I also question the guy who had his brother mother and every relative buy these too. Yeah funny C W did NOT write up any articles about the A Boxes................Enjoy
Wow. A guy can get really sick of all the complaining about Mint ordering limits. There's enough sour grapes out there to make lots of "whine"...
Last time I checked, it's still a free country- and anyone who ordered these can sell them to whomever they wish, whether it's to a dealer at a moderate profit, or a collector/speculator at a larger profit. This CW article is just a hatchet job, and I don't buy that the author doesn't either deal in or collect them. There's definitely some sort of agenda here imo.
That said, CW has the right to publish opinions, even unpopular ones...and the fact that MCM spent 6 digits in advertising shouldn't dissuade them from printing what they wish to print. In fact they may have printed it to show they aren't engaging in any cronyism or favoritism.
BUT...all of THAT said... from a purely business standpoint, CW was colossally stupid to do so in my opinion. If I were in John M.'s shoes, I'd strongly reconsider my ad budgeting insofar as CW is concerned.
<< <i>After watching what Ampex AND OTHERS did with the 2010 bullion ATB I have learned that the playing field the U S MInt allows is way outdated. I am sure that the U S Mint had no idea that some of these companies would start sending in all these bullion items to be graded at a MINIMUN Grade, keeping and selling those for a higher price while giving there customers the BU. What a great deal for them, best of both worlds they get the highest grades and sell them for twice what the mint charged but don't worry you can still buy this BU for 2 dollors over spot. I blame the mint for allowing all of this to happen. Like others have said this has been going on for awhile nothing new. As far as sending out emails to all your customers with a buy now price before the release, I question that, but I also question the guy who had his brother mother and every relative buy these too. Yeah funny C W did NOT write up any articles about the A Boxes................Enjoy >>
What happened with the APs and the 2010 ATB bullion coins was TOTALLY different.
In that case, the APs were the ONLY ones who could get the coins from The Mint. Some if not most totally abused what was supposed to be their role to get the bullion to the end consumer at a low markup just as with regular ASEs. This is 100% different from the A25 sets as anyone had the same to shot to get these directly from The Mint.
Comments
<< <i>[qEvery hot coin is hard to get so they put out a buy order to get what they can so they can sell the item we all did it i bought many sets off the BST and my 5 from the mint. They did not still them they bought them just like any other dealer like you and me if some one is selling them you can buy them that is BS there is no law that says you cant do this. But to out one guy is not right What if they put Wondercoin in the line of fire or P.C.G.S or E-Bay I think some one will be saying sorry in there next issue. >>
Wow.
Ends justify the means I guess. Your description of the BST buy offers from dealers is very different than I recall.
Question - does still = steal? Just wondering.... >>
Hoard the keys.
Not only at the negative and unfair picture Mr Francis has painted, but at the fact that so many facts were omitted, we were singled out in what is and has been a common practice for over 5 years now among both dealers and collectors, and MOSTLY that CoinWorld would publish this garbage without even contacting us to verify information or to tell Mr Francis that he would need to re-write his commentary to be more broad based in fairness and so as not to slander my company. We will respond to the community, you can bet on it, and it won't be via CoinWorld! I am sickened by CoinWorld's irresponsible publishing of this piece of trash.
John Maben
CEO, ModernCoinMart
<< <i>We are REALLY upset, yes.
Not only at the negative and unfair picture Mr Francis has painted, but at the fact that so many facts were omitted, we were singled out in what is and has been a common practice for over 5 years now among both dealers and collectors, and MOSTLY that CoinWorld would publish this garbage without even contacting us to verify information or to tell Mr Francis that he would need to re-write his commentary to be more broad based in fairness and so as not to slander my company. We will respond to the community, you can bet on it, and it won't be via CoinWorld! I am sickened by CoinWorld's irresponsible publishing of this piece of trash.
John Maben
CEO, ModernCoinMart >>
I would be very surprised if CW didn't publish your side of the story in the form of a rebutal commentary. CW wants to sell papers and controversy helps to sell papers.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>MCM didn't make those people buy those sets. MCM didn't send them money to make the purchases in order to circumvent anything. MCM offered a premium for those sets and created a market. That's what market makers do.
Now, some people used multiple addresses and multiple credit cards in order to buy extra sets in order to get around Mint policy. I'd say that those people showed disrespect for everyone else, and a bit of greed as well. MCM didn't do that (that I know of).
What I find ironic is that these people who took MCM's offer ended up selling for $60/set profit. If they'd sold them later, they'd have made at least $400/set. That's what I find somewhat amusing. The neophytes and non-collectors who may have thought they were making easy money actually shortchanged themselves! HaHa!
If you want to blame someone for anything, blame the Mint for their distribution policy and their mintage limits. All the Mint did was to draw people into another speculation over another of its product offerings. Standard practice, these days. Not very nice, but standard practice nontheless. >>
I don't think MCM "made the market", it was already there. By offering to pre-buy sets they are encouraging people to buy who wouldn't ordinarily buy them. I guess if I was a real collector, I wouldn't necessarily welcome the added competition, esp. if it ends up costing me more. Kinda like being a single guy and having to compete with other single guys AND married ones too for the available ladies.
If you agree to sell before you get them, a deal is a deal. I admit that I too had agreer's remorse after the prices shot up. I'm kicking myself in the ass for not realizing that these sets would be an uber winner.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>I am sickened by CoinWorld's irresponsible publishing of this piece of trash >>
In reality, anyone, including dealers, offering to buy these at more than issue price was taking a risk; in this case they were able to profit if what they paid was less than what they sold the coins for. That's free market and the way things should be. The mint's handling of the sales has a lot of people upset. It took me multiple attempts on-line to try to buy them and it was late in the day when my order finally went in. If I had been shut out, it would have just been too bad. I've tried to buy concert tickets or pro sport tickets to playoffs and have been unsuccessful. That's life. It's not always "fair" whatever that gets defined as.
It bothers me not in the least that any collector or dealer might want to offer to buy as many of these sets, or any other coins, as they want. If the prices had tanked, then the buyers would lose money.
I understand the "right" of a publication like Coin World to print editorials and the most controversial do tend to gain the most interest and help sell copy, and generate interest; doing this has its risks, as we can see in John's Maben's response above. He has every right to defend himself and his business, and it could even mean that Coin World loses a big advertiser (that's up to John). That would be a shame, but I understand it completely. It is ironic that MCM has such a stellar reputation, vide supra, yet there are some regular Coin World advertisers that sell coins that I find to be overgraded, cleaned, and/or over priced; this opinion of mine is shared by others. Coin World stands to lose a great client and also keep other clients that are less than desirable, in my opinion. We will all watch and see what happens.
So the bar to get published may not be that high.
The author seemed to take almost a purist collector tone, as if any kind of speculation surrounding the release is unethical.
If that were the case, why wouldn't the Mint just limit it to one set and not five.
The other thing I would really like to know, is if the author got five sets and resold them.
I think most readers see through this, and I don't think MCM should overreact.
The author was very clear that nothing illegal happened, so I see zero case for litigation.
He said in the editorial that he does not collect these and did not buy them.
I think most readers see through this, and I don't think MCM should overreact.
I completely agree. Any response by MCM would only bring up the issue for more discussion and scrutinization. I doubt that MCM has been harmed by this in any way.
A lot of people were taken advantage of by this tactic, I think.
Geez. I have 2 basic questions:
1) Why did you buy the sets? Only to sell them? Your timing was off because of the dollar signs $$$$$$ when you committed to sell, and that's all there is to it.
2) What kinds of contracts do you think should not be binding? Should buyers be the only ones who have to execute on a promise, or are sellers equally obligated?
It's crazy that I'd even have to pose these questions.
I knew it would happen.
I fully support the practices of MCM since what they do is what everybody else who wants to make a profit in the coin business does. Maximize your buying power.
The practice has been occuring since the 1960's and is even supported by the US Mint with their Coin Dealers Program where established coin dealers can order bulk products at a certain percentage of discount. A percentage that simply is not availble to the onesey-twosey buyers.
I see nothing wrong with this practice as it is simple business.
Folks should really start paying attention and stop the whining when it doesn't work out the way they thought it should.
The name is LEE!
I've had differences in opinion on a few occasions with CW over the years and they always published the rebuttal. I'm not giving them the satisfaction of one this time because I do not want to help them sell papers and advertising at this point. Last year we spent $183,726.08 advertising in CW. For that I do not expect an exemption in standard tenants of journalism involving separation of editorials and advertising, but I do expect due diligence and fairness in protecting my company's reputation. That was completely omitted, and frankly, I am pissed. Allowing statements such as "I must question their moral compass" and describing our actions as "nothing short of greedy" in a targeted attack is reprehensible. Shame on you CoinWorld for giving credibility to a minority viewpoint that is targeted and damaging to one of your best customers.
As I said in the last post, we will respond, and it won't be in CW, but the community will see it.
John Maben
I would not be so sure that this is a minority viewpoint. There have been scores of letters to the editor on the side of Mr. Francis.
IMO, allowing the argument to continue hurts MCM more than letting it drop. When you are on top of the heap, you are going to take some shots. It goes with the territory, or as PerryHall likes to say, "It's the cost of doing business."
I agree with you ... a long, long time ago, I was involved with a slander/libel case. Someone was very upset about comments directed at their business. They wanted huge damages as a result. The only problem was I believe they essentially needed to prove their business went "down the tubes" after the alleged slander/libel. In fact, business had never been better. Does a company ever want to try to publicly prove their business is going down the tubes (especially one in the coin biz where folks are shipping you coins before you even pay for them), if the company wants to remain a "going concern" and ty to grow its business?
Just my 2 cents and everyone should consult their own attorney to learn about slander/libel cases. Maybe they are easier to win in the 21st century now.
Wondercoin
<< <i>...........and describing our actions as "nothing short of greedy" .......... >>
The term "greedy" gets bandied about quite frequently but I do not think that the historic definition of greed is applicable in this case. (i.e. wanting more than you need)
Every business today MUST show a profit or else they simply will not survive. To have folks interpret this as "greed" is simply wrong.
I can understand journalistic freedom but I cannot understand not recognizing the fact that a very large customer was going to be raked over the coals with the commentary and at the very minimum, allowing that customer the opportunity to respond.
What I do expect though, is that a good portion of their business just went somewhere else.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>"IMO, allowing the argument to continue hurts MCM more than letting it drop".
I agree with you ... a long, long time ago, I was involved with a slander/libel case. Someone was very upset about comments directed at their business. They wanted huge damages as a result. The only problem was I believe they essentially needed to prove their business went "down the tubes" after the alleged slander/libel. In fact, business had never been better. Does a company ever want to try to publicly prove their business is going down the tubes (especially one in the coin biz where folks are shipping you coins before you even pay for them), if the company wants to remain a "going concern" and ty to grow its business?
Just my 2 cents and everyone should consult their own attorney to learn about slander/libel cases. Maybe they are easier to win in the 21st century now.
Wondercoin >>
Who was the guy who said that there is no such thing as "bad" publicity?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>
<< <i>"IMO, allowing the argument to continue hurts MCM more than letting it drop".
I agree with you ... a long, long time ago, I was involved with a slander/libel case. Someone was very upset about comments directed at their business. They wanted huge damages as a result. The only problem was I believe they essentially needed to prove their business went "down the tubes" after the alleged slander/libel. In fact, business had never been better. Does a company ever want to try to publicly prove their business is going down the tubes (especially one in the coin biz where folks are shipping you coins before you even pay for them), if the company wants to remain a "going concern" and ty to grow its business?
Just my 2 cents and everyone should consult their own attorney to learn about slander/libel cases. Maybe they are easier to win in the 21st century now.
Wondercoin >>
Who was the guy who said that there is no such thing as "bad" publicity? >>
You mean "the only thing worse than bad publicity is no publicity"?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>"IMO, allowing the argument to continue hurts MCM more than letting it drop".
I agree with you ... a long, long time ago, I was involved with a slander/libel case. Someone was very upset about comments directed at their business. They wanted huge damages as a result. The only problem was I believe they essentially needed to prove their business went "down the tubes" after the alleged slander/libel. In fact, business had never been better. Does a company ever want to try to publicly prove their business is going down the tubes (especially one in the coin biz where folks are shipping you coins before you even pay for them), if the company wants to remain a "going concern" and ty to grow its business?
Just my 2 cents and everyone should consult their own attorney to learn about slander/libel cases. Maybe they are easier to win in the 21st century now.
Wondercoin >>
Who was the guy who said that there is no such thing as "bad" publicity? >>
You mean "the only thing worse than bad publicity is no publicity"? >>
Something like that.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
There is no argument yet, only one viewpoint in the CW editorial. This was an attack against my company. Read it again. It was not general, it was very specific. However, it indirectly lumps all who had customers resell A25 sets to them prior to having them in hand in the same ugly category described by Richard Francis. No, I am not going to let the sleeping dog lie, I am going to present the other side of the coin. Calling my company greedy and lacking a moral compass also places scores of others ranging from the largest coin dealer in the world, to Mitch, to the corner coin shop in Mr Francis'same category as they among hundreds of others including many non-dealing collectors did not feel that they were doing anything wrong in pre-buying sets. If YOU were specifically named in this YOU might feel the same way I do. So while I truly appreciate both support and any opposing comments, I am not going to stand here take a punch in the face without hitting back.
John
Wait a minute John ... the US Mint was not pre-buying sets from customers
Wondercoin
"The "spirit of the household limit" is that a household should not get more than 5 sets max... right? The US Mint came up with the number of sets available for the household limit after careful research and consideration and, if they came up with a number that was (hypothetically) upwards of 5x more than it should have been for most collectors out there, then where does the problem truly lie with folks taking advantage of that household limit to essentially end up with their set for free (or even 2+ sets free) by selling off the other 3 or 4 sets to whomever they chose to? So, that writer acknowledges that nothing illegal had taken place. But, also, if the US Mint did not want collectors to buy more sets than they truly wanted to keep for their collection (i.e. if that was indeed the "spirit" of this offering), then couldn't the Mint have just simply stated that? Just like the Mint clearly set up rules for collectors to only buy as many Pres $1's as they intended to spend in commerce and not to bring to the bank to capture some quick credit card points."
I do believe there are some open questions that remain for those who "made up all the rules".
Wondercoin
I've said more than enough now. I will come back (in a day or two) to post a link to my response which will be on a news site that is TRULY one of the best if not the best out there. CW could take a few lessons from them. I will also be sending an email to our 20,000 active customers in the next couple of days.
John
I prefer free enterprise. Carry on boys
<< <i>Margaret Thatcher, in a TV interview for Thames TV This Week [[1]]on Feb. 5, 1976, Prime Minister Thatcher said, "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
I prefer free enterprise. Carry on boys
But how free is the free enterprise when government entities create an unlevel playing field by showing favoritism and special treatment to a few well-connected people and corporations, effectively choosing the winners and losers? In a true free market, the government would be neither favoring nor discriminating against any participating entity.
<< <i>"I would be very surprised if CW didn't publish your side of the story in the form of a rebutal commentary. CW wants to sell papers and controversy helps to sell papers."
I've had differences in opinion on a few occasions with CW over the years and they always published the rebottle. I'm not giving them the satisfaction of one this time because I do not want to help them sell papers and advertising at this point. Last year we spent $183,726.08 advertising in CW. For that I do not expect an exemption in standard tenants of journalism involving separation of editorials and advertising, but I do expect due diligence and fairness in protecting my company's reputation. That was completely omitted, and frankly, I am pissed. Allowing statements such as "I must question their moral compass" and describing our actions as "nothing short of greedy" in a targeted attack is reprehensible. Shame on you CoinWorld for giving credibility to a minority viewpoint that is targeted and damaging to one of your best customers.
As I said in the last post, we will respond, and it won't be in CW, but the community will see it.
John Maben >>
Very well stated! I couldn't agree more.
<< <i>
Side note... if you think these 25th Anniv. sets were hard to come by ... did any try to get (great) Springsteen tickets this month? I need to sell a heck of a lot of 25th Anniv sets I am buying on the open market to raise the money needed to take the family to the Springsteen show!
Just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin >>
OMG the Springsteen sale was another blatant example of just how crooked the ticketing agencies are and I wish someone with Springsteens clout and wealth would have taken issue with it.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
<< <i>Why single out MCM??.........why not list every single person who offered to buy then and now??......where is the end?...........just because SOME could not get what many did is no reason to bash those that got.........just another part of being politically correct and trying to give those that don't have or didn't get..............sour grapes have no business in business..........would all those that didn't get be happy if they received 1 free set from the mint for the fiasco......probably not they would want to 2 .......as always IMO (edited) >>
I would assume whomever singled out MCM had some axe to grind with MCM.
Successful card BST transactions with cbcnow, brogurt, gstarling, Bravesfan 007, and rajah 424.
<< <i>
<< <i>Why single out MCM??.........why not list every single person who offered to buy then and now??......where is the end?...........just because SOME could not get what many did is no reason to bash those that got.........just another part of being politically correct and trying to give those that don't have or didn't get..............sour grapes have no business in business..........would all those that didn't get be happy if they received 1 free set from the mint for the fiasco......probably not they would want to 2 .......as always IMO (edited) >>
I would assume whomever singled out MCM had some axe to grind with MCM. >>
I would assume that MCM was singled out because they were the biggest name that was openly soliciting sets on the internet and by email. They were the only firm that emailed me that they were buying sets. If I did not visit this forum, I would have assumed that they were the largest (if not only) pre-market buyers of these sets. In fact, for all I know to this day, they may have been the largest buyers.
This goes back to what I said in another post. If you are the biggest (or perceived to be the biggest), you are going to take some shots. "It's the cost of doing business."
Should all mint products be sold without restriction as to who can buy what and how many?
Is it ok for the mint to place purchase limits on small volume product runs to give everyone a fair shake?
Part of the problem is that by enticing others to buy for them, the big players have fostered an atmosphere where nearly every purchaser is either a flipper, an opportunist or a hoarder all looking to make megabucks. With every new issue it gets worse and worse as more and more flippers join the parade. Even the collectors will have to have 50 friends ordering for them in the hopes that they will end up with just one.
As more and more buyers wise up there will likely be fewer and fewer sets available to the big players; providing the mint continues to offer such opportunities. They will then have to go out into the open market and purchase them at prevailing prices.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>
<< <i>Margaret Thatcher, in a TV interview for Thames TV This Week [[1]]on Feb. 5, 1976, Prime Minister Thatcher said, "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
I prefer free enterprise. Carry on boys
But how free is the free enterprise when government entities create an unlevel playing field by showing favoritism and special treatment to a few well-connected people and corporations, effectively choosing the winners and losers? In a true free market, the government would be neither favoring nor discriminating against any participating entity. >>
Are you implying that the "Approved Purchasers" need to be disbanded thereby enabling the US Citizens to purchase "bullion" Silver/Gold/Platinum Eagles directly from the US Mint?
If so, I'm all for it!
That process was implemented way before the Internet reached the level its at today and IMO, is way outdated. I'd sure like to be able to buy a 500 coin box ast a discount to resell.
The name is LEE!
Sorry guys, I promised to shut up for now, but had to correct this statement.
We were not the biggest name offering to buy by email. I will not say who was, but others on here know. Further, I personally received about 5 or 6 emails to my personal email addresses from other companies doing exactly the same thing, and there were a dozen others on FACTS/CCE. I won't name any of them either but it's a fact. I do understand that we are high profile in moderns and that in itself makes a target and yes I have considered that as well as the fact that as you grow professional jealousy and individuals with an axe to grind do abound by default.
It would be correct to say we were one of the first to start pre-buying years ago during the 20th anniversary sales.
I have much more to say, but will save it for the fine folks at CoinWeek to post.
John
John Maben
Pegasus Coin and Jewelry (Brick and Mortar)
ANA LM, PNG, APMD, FUN, Etc
800-381-2646
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Margaret Thatcher, in a TV interview for Thames TV This Week [[1]]on Feb. 5, 1976, Prime Minister Thatcher said, "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."
I prefer free enterprise. Carry on boys
But how free is the free enterprise when government entities create an unlevel playing field by showing favoritism and special treatment to a few well-connected people and corporations, effectively choosing the winners and losers? In a true free market, the government would be neither favoring nor discriminating against any participating entity. >>
Are you implying that the "Approved Purchasers" need to be disbanded thereby enabling the US Citizens to purchase "bullion" Silver/Gold/Platinum Eagles directly from the US Mint?
If so, I'm all for it!
That process was implemented way before the Internet reached the level its at today and IMO, is way outdated. I'd sure like to be able to buy a 500 coin box ast a discount to resell. >>
I have no issue with distributorship arrangements when it makes sense to have them. When it is limited mintage with a higher price, then IMO it makes sense to sell direct to the public and avoid any semblance of favoritism or monopolization. When they mint 10 million 2012 ASEs then it makes little sense to sell to the public one coin at a time. Then again, I'd have no problems if they'd sell monster boxes direct, but it usually isn't good business policy to compete with your distributors.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>It's another thing for a business to demand that once you agree, you absolutely, positively, step on a crack, break your mother's back HAVE to sell to them or else your name will be mud.
A lot of people were taken advantage of by this tactic, I think.
2) What kinds of contracts do you think should not be binding? Should buyers be the only ones who have to execute on a promise, or are sellers equally obligated?
It's crazy that I'd even have to pose these questions. >>
Nobody forced anyone to accept those deals. A lot of folks [probly except for the big boys] apparently misjudged how fast and how much those sets appreciated in price. It's probly a good idea to honor those deals one makes in a public venue as your name can be just as easily smeared in that same venue if you end up being a welcher. I'd bet that there were a lot of sets purchased from friends and neighbors for a lot less than was offered here.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>"I would assume that MCM was singled out because they were the biggest name that was openly soliciting sets on the internet and by email."
Sorry guys, I promised to shut up for now, but had to correct this statement.
We were not the biggest name offering to buy by email. I will not say who was, but others on here know. Further, I personally received about 5 or 6 emails to my personal email addresses from other companies doing exactly the same thing, and there were a dozen others on FACTS/CCE. I won't name any of them either but it's a fact. I do understand that we are high profile in moderns and that in itself makes a target and yes I have considered that as well as the fact that as you grow professional jealousy and individuals with an axe to grind do abound by default.
It would be correct to say we were one of the first to start pre-buying years ago during the 20th anniversary sales.
I have much more to say, but will save it for the fine folks at CoinWeek to post.
John >>
People have short memories on both sides of the fence.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
As far as I know, that may or may not be true ... I am just not sure the other larger companies were soliciting on BOTH the internet and by email. If the comment would have had an "or" instead of an 'and" it certainly would not have been true.
Regarding the personal "axe to grind" ... I too wonder why the commentator unfairly singled out MCM. Maybe someone should ask him?
Regarding what my wife had to say on the subject .... assuming two or three companies could email 20,000-25,000 or more customers on an US Mint offering that only has 20,000-30,000 likely possible orders allowable in total, is it OK (hypothetically) for a couple of the biggest players to essentially control nearly an entire US mint offering? The more and more I think about this, doesn't this fall directly back on the US Mint to set appropriate rules and limits for an offering (knowing full well the realities of the market and the mass marketing abilities of a number of coin companies) and once they do ... anyone who has a beef should take it up with the US Mint? The Mint has had at least one or more miscues in the past 12-18 months in my opinion with situations like this ... isn't it time for the Mint to come up with workable product limts and mintages and take full responsibility for the situations they put into play? As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
That solves the problem.
<< <i>I have another very workable solution...just outlaw the resale of all US Mint products...let's just use them all for the purpose originally intended...WHO IS WITH ME??? (Where is the cricket chirping emoticon?)
Ban brick and mortar stores. Down with capitalism.
Call me crazy, but even with a set-up like this, somehow the guys on TV will still manage to get their hands on 1,000 sets to sell...all pre-slabbed and ready to sell (for 5x the price) on Day 1!
<< <i>So when the Mint limits purchases to 1 per household...or even worse, implements some crazy lottery system where being a longtime customer counts for zilch, we'll see how happy everyone is with their newly "equitable" arrangement.
Call me crazy, but even with a set-up like this, somehow the guys on TV will still manage to get their hands on 1,000 sets to sell...all pre-slabbed and ready to sell (for 5x the price) on Day 1! >>
HSN must be the bigger than MCM dealer then? How long after the mint started shipping did HSN have these available for delivery? Or were they pre-selling too?
Perhaps the mint ought to start a program like is done for limited numbers of big game hunting licenses in the western states. If you order, but don't get coins then you get a preference point which puts you ahead of someone who orders for the first time when the next hot item is announced.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
I used to be famous now I just collect coins.
Link to My Registry Set.
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-specialty-sets/washington-quarters-complete-variety-set-circulation-strikes-1932-1964/publishedset/78469
Varieties Are The Spice Of LIFE and Thanks to Those who teach us what to search For.
Last time I checked, it's still a free country- and anyone who ordered these can sell them to whomever they wish, whether it's to a dealer at a moderate profit, or a collector/speculator at a larger profit.
This CW article is just a hatchet job, and I don't buy that the author doesn't either deal in or collect them. There's definitely some sort of agenda here imo.
That said, CW has the right to publish opinions, even unpopular ones...and the fact that MCM spent 6 digits in advertising shouldn't dissuade them from printing what they wish to print. In fact they may have printed it to show they aren't engaging in any cronyism or favoritism.
BUT...all of THAT said... from a purely business standpoint, CW was colossally stupid to do so in my opinion. If I were in John M.'s shoes, I'd strongly reconsider my ad budgeting insofar as CW is concerned.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>After watching what Ampex AND OTHERS did with the 2010 bullion ATB I have learned that the playing field the U S MInt allows is way outdated. I am sure that the U S Mint had no idea that some of these companies would start sending in all these bullion items to be graded at a MINIMUN Grade, keeping and selling those for a higher price while giving there customers the BU. What a great deal for them, best of both worlds they get the highest grades and sell them for twice what the mint charged but don't worry you can still buy this BU for 2 dollors over spot. I blame the mint for allowing all of this to happen. Like others have said this has been going on for awhile nothing new. As far as sending out emails to all your customers with a buy now price before the release, I question that, but I also question the guy who had his brother mother and every relative buy these too. Yeah funny C W did NOT write up any articles about the A Boxes................Enjoy
What happened with the APs and the 2010 ATB bullion coins was TOTALLY different.
In that case, the APs were the ONLY ones who could get the coins from The Mint. Some if not most totally abused what was supposed to be their role to get the bullion to the end consumer at a low markup just as with regular ASEs. This is 100% different from the A25 sets as anyone had the same to shot to get these directly from The Mint.