@ECHOES said:
I have 4 sets, all exhibit these 'bubbles'.
It is caused by the outer shell touching the inner insert holding the coins.
No foreign substance involved as I opened one set of quarters.
FWIW I don't see or think of it as a 'flaw'.
If it's not a flaw, why do previous similar Mint issues don't have a "bubble" issue? I've been buying Mint products for 30 years and this is the only time that I've encountered that issue.
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
@ECHOES said:
I have 4 sets, all exhibit these 'bubbles'.
It is caused by the outer shell touching the inner insert holding the coins.
No foreign substance involved as I opened one set of quarters.
FWIW I don't see or think of it as a 'flaw'.
If it's not a flaw, why do previous similar Mint issues don't have a "bubble" issue? I've been buying Mint products for 30 years and this is the only time that I've encountered that issue.
Not sure, possibly they (US Mint) are using a new type of inner insert, different material.
~HABE FIDUCIAM IN DOMINO III V VI / III XVI~ POST NUBILA PHOEBUS / AFTER CLOUDS, SUN Love for Music / Collector of Dreck
Any price movement yet in the secondary market or is it too soon?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Really? Dumb questions...How come none of the US Mint's unc or proof sets, issued over the years, that have a similar design, don't have "bubbles" in their sets?
Only in the past few years has the mint switched from cardboard to plastic innards. Test the plastic innards sets with the inner and outer plastic touching
@Overdate said:
I remember the 1997 unc. Jackie Robinson gold was on sale for six months and generally ignored. The 1995-W proof silver eagle was also on sale for several months and was actively disliked and boycotted in many quarters. I bought a few of each from the Mint and was not disappointed.
I'm comfortable with my belief that this set is undervalued at $30.
****I agree that this is undervalued at $30 for a ten coin limited edition set. To me, it is a bargain at this price! No telling what the future holds though. I bought a 1995-W proof silver eagle within the first minute of availability. Back then, I believe the mint was using an ordering service. Somehow orders were being "LOST" by this service. My order was lost and the US Mint had no record of my transaction when I called to check on the order several months later. I believe Numismatic News reported on the issue. This is another reason (rarely discussed) why that coin wasn't a sellout. If the truth was really known, that coin set might have been a sellout.****
I don't know about that last part. They'd have to have continued to lose orders for months.
FYI,
Looking back thru old Numismatic News articles I have, a reader first reported the problem in the 10/24/1995 issue of NN, Letters To The Editor. The editors reply to that letter was "You raise a very interesting question. One lost order can be ascribed to a quirk of some kind, the late hour, etc. Twice definitely increases the odds there is a problem with the order processing. No other reader has reported this problem. . ." at this time.
The 11/07/1995 issue of NN reports lost AE orders from Green Bay, Wisconsin; Northlake, Illinois; and ordering issues from El Cajon, California.
The 11/14/1995 issue of NN reports lost AE order from Staten Island, New York.
The 11/21/1995 issue of NN reports lost AE order from Plaineville, Ohio.
The 12/05/1995 issue of NN reports lost AE order from Millbrae, California.
So it appears "Lost Orders" occurred from Day 1 (midnight EST, April 21 thru the end of the year - approximately eight months for a 45,000 set maximum mintage edition. So the question has always been in my mind "Could the mint's ordering service have lost 14,875 orders in an eight month period? I guess it is a moot point by now, but one that shouldn't be overlooked when discussing the reasons for this low mintage figure of 30,125 sets, IMHO.
@SoundPoint said:
So the question has always been in my mind "Could the mint's ordering service have lost 14,875 orders in an eight month period? I guess it is a moot point by now, but one that shouldn't be overlooked when discussing the reasons for this low mintage figure of 30,125 sets, IMHO.
Do your 1995 issues of Numismatic News contain ads offering 1995-W proof Silver Eagles for sale? My recollection is that they were available from dealers for less than $300 each during the Mint's sales window and for a bit of time after Mint sales ended. If so, anyone whose orders had been lost could still purchase the coins on the open market at a reasonable price.
@SoundPoint said:
So the question has always been in my mind "Could the mint's ordering service have lost 14,875 orders in an eight month period? I guess it is a moot point by now, but one that shouldn't be overlooked when discussing the reasons for this low mintage figure of 30,125 sets, IMHO.
Do your 1995 issues of Numismatic News contain ads offering 1995-W proof Silver Eagles for sale? My recollection is that they were available from dealers for less than $300 each during the Mint's sales window and for a bit of time after Mint sales ended. If so, anyone whose orders had been lost could still purchase the coins on the open market at a reasonable price.
Unfortunately, I didn't keep entire issues of Numismatic News. I just kept articles and advertisements related to that program. However, in the 10/1/1996 issue of NN, there is an article entitled "1995-W Eagle nears $600 level" where Ken Pines with Coast To Coast Coins was buying sets and breaking them up for the Silner Eagle.
With all the hype leading up to that release, what is amazing to me is a sellout possibility was being predicted by NN in their 4/27/1995 issue and they were already discussing how high the Silver Eagle would trade on the secondary market!
AND THEN IT DOESN'T COME CLOSE TO SELLING OUT!
In hindsight, I wish I would I would have collected coin publications in 1995 and 1996.
@Overdate said:
I remember the 1997 unc. Jackie Robinson gold was on sale for six months and generally ignored. The 1995-W proof silver eagle was also on sale for several months and was actively disliked and boycotted in many quarters. I bought a few of each from the Mint and was not disappointed.
I'm comfortable with my belief that this set is undervalued at $30.
****I agree that this is undervalued at $30 for a ten coin limited edition set. To me, it is a bargain at this price! No telling what the future holds though. I bought a 1995-W proof silver eagle within the first minute of availability. Back then, I believe the mint was using an ordering service. Somehow orders were being "LOST" by this service. My order was lost and the US Mint had no record of my transaction when I called to check on the order several months later. I believe Numismatic News reported on the issue. This is another reason (rarely discussed) why that coin wasn't a sellout. If the truth was really known, that coin set might have been a sellout.****
I don't know about that last part. They'd have to have continued to lose orders for months.
FYI,
Looking back thru old Numismatic News articles I have, a reader first reported the problem in the 10/24/1995 issue of NN, Letters To The Editor. The editors reply to that letter was "You raise a very interesting question. One lost order can be ascribed to a quirk of some kind, the late hour, etc. Twice definitely increases the odds there is a problem with the order processing. No other reader has reported this problem. . ." at this time.
The 11/07/1995 issue of NN reports lost AE orders from Green Bay, Wisconsin; Northlake, Illinois; and ordering issues from El Cajon, California.
The 11/14/1995 issue of NN reports lost AE order from Staten Island, New York.
The 11/21/1995 issue of NN reports lost AE order from Plaineville, Ohio.
The 12/05/1995 issue of NN reports lost AE order from Millbrae, California.
So it appears "Lost Orders" occurred from Day 1 (midnight EST, April 21 thru the end of the year - approximately eight months for a 45,000 set maximum mintage edition. So the question has always been in my mind "Could the mint's ordering service have lost 14,875 orders in an eight month period? I guess it is a moot point by now, but one that shouldn't be overlooked when discussing the reasons for this low mintage figure of 30,125 sets, IMHO.
Best of Luck!
I'm not arguing that they didn't lose multiple orders. There ordering system was awful up until recent years. But the window was so wide that there would have to have been thousands of orders that were repeatedly lost with the individuals unaware that their orders were lost for months. I'm just not sure there was that much latent demand that somehow went unmet. it took a loooong time for this issue to move up significantly in price on the secondary market.
@Overdate said:
I remember the 1997 unc. Jackie Robinson gold was on sale for six months and generally ignored. The 1995-W proof silver eagle was also on sale for several months and was actively disliked and boycotted in many quarters. I bought a few of each from the Mint and was not disappointed.
I'm comfortable with my belief that this set is undervalued at $30.
****I agree that this is undervalued at $30 for a ten coin limited edition set. To me, it is a bargain at this price! No telling what the future holds though. I bought a 1995-W proof silver eagle within the first minute of availability. Back then, I believe the mint was using an ordering service. Somehow orders were being "LOST" by this service. My order was lost and the US Mint had no record of my transaction when I called to check on the order several months later. I believe Numismatic News reported on the issue. This is another reason (rarely discussed) why that coin wasn't a sellout. If the truth was really known, that coin set might have been a sellout.****
I don't know about that last part. They'd have to have continued to lose orders for months.
FYI,
Looking back thru old Numismatic News articles I have, a reader first reported the problem in the 10/24/1995 issue of NN, Letters To The Editor. The editors reply to that letter was "You raise a very interesting question. One lost order can be ascribed to a quirk of some kind, the late hour, etc. Twice definitely increases the odds there is a problem with the order processing. No other reader has reported this problem. . ." at this time.
The 11/07/1995 issue of NN reports lost AE orders from Green Bay, Wisconsin; Northlake, Illinois; and ordering issues from El Cajon, California.
The 11/14/1995 issue of NN reports lost AE order from Staten Island, New York.
The 11/21/1995 issue of NN reports lost AE order from Plaineville, Ohio.
The 12/05/1995 issue of NN reports lost AE order from Millbrae, California.
So it appears "Lost Orders" occurred from Day 1 (midnight EST, April 21 thru the end of the year - approximately eight months for a 45,000 set maximum mintage edition. So the question has always been in my mind "Could the mint's ordering service have lost 14,875 orders in an eight month period? I guess it is a moot point by now, but one that shouldn't be overlooked when discussing the reasons for this low mintage figure of 30,125 sets, IMHO.
Best of Luck!
I'm not arguing that they didn't lose multiple orders. There ordering system was awful up until recent years. But the window was so wide that there would have to have been thousands of orders that were repeatedly lost with the individuals unaware that their orders were lost for months. I'm just not sure there was that much latent demand that somehow went unmet. it took a loooong time for this issue to move up significantly in price on the secondary market.
I agree with you too. It doesn't seem logical that many orders were lost. Like the other poster said, collectors who didn't want to pay $999 for the complete gold and silver set likely went on the secondary market and paid a couple of hundred dollars for just the silver eagle. It didn't make sense to me back then and it still doesn't make sense to me now as to why that program wasn't a sellout! That's the way it goes.
@SoundPoint said:
It didn't make sense to me back then and it still doesn't make sense to me now as to why that program wasn't a sellout! That's the way it goes.
My view is that the 1995-W proof Silver Eagle wasn't a sellout because many collectors were angry at the Mint for creating what they viewed as an artificial rarity and making the coin available only as part of an expensive set rather than available individually, as all Silver Eagles up to that point had been. Many Silver Eagle collectors were vocal about their intention to boycott the coin and not include it as part of their sets. On the other end of the spectrum, many collectors of proof Gold Eagles disliked the inclusion of the "special" Silver Eagle in their four-coin gold proof sets because it disrupted the continuity of the annual sets by inclusion of a non-gold coin. The Gold Eagle proof set was also made available without the Silver Eagle at the same price ($999) and about 10,000 four-coin gold sets were sold lacking the "free" 1995-W Silver Eagle. This turned out to be an expensive mistake in my opinion, but that's how strong the dislike of this coin was felt by some collectors.
@SoundPoint said:
It didn't make sense to me back then and it still doesn't make sense to me now as to why that program wasn't a sellout! That's the way it goes.
My view is that the 1995-W proof Silver Eagle wasn't a sellout because many collectors were angry at the Mint for creating what they viewed as an artificial rarity and making the coin available only as part of an expensive set rather than available individually, as all Silver Eagles up to that point had been. Many Silver Eagle collectors were vocal about their intention to boycott the coin and not include it as part of their sets. On the other end of the spectrum, many collectors of proof Gold Eagles disliked the inclusion of the "special" Silver Eagle in their four-coin gold proof sets because it disrupted the continuity of the annual sets by inclusion of a non-gold coin. The Gold Eagle proof set was also made available without the Silver Eagle at the same price ($999) and about 10,000 four-coin gold sets were sold lacking the "free" 1995-W Silver Eagle. This turned out to be an expensive mistake in my opinion, but that's how strong the dislike of this coin was felt by some collectors.
Same thing happened with the 2012-S ASE Proof. Many got pissed at the mint that they included the coin in the MAH C&C set (even though the Mint never claimed it was exclusive to the 75th SF set), and the coin became unloved, even though the total number struck still made it the second lowest mintage regular proof. (Next to the 95-W.)
There were a possible 100K MAH sets, with an initial production of 50K. They lingered on the mint site for a year, and was taken off-sale with a final mintage of just above 60K, even though the MAH set made it the cheap route to the coin. (Though the companion 2012-S RP in the SF set is a spectacular coin, which probably made it more desireable.)
@goldbuffalo said:
Back in1995 $1000 was a lot of cash. Gold was $400 oz. and it went down from there. You would been under water for many years on that set.
Yes, but Overdate's point is that people chose to spend the $1000 and NOT get the silver eagle rather than spend the $1000 and GET the silver eagle. Same price, extra coin.
So are the other 15K sets ever going to come up for sale or is final mintage on these going to stay at 210K?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@coinpalice said:
I can see this set selling in the 33 to 37 dollar area until December, prices may rise a bit for gift giving
That's basically below issue price when you factor in shipping from the Mint, and more so if you factor in ebay seller fees. You'd have to gross $40+ on ebay just to break even.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@coinpalice said:
I can see this set selling in the 33 to 37 dollar area until December, prices may rise a bit for gift giving
That's basically below issue price when you factor in shipping from the Mint, and more so if you factor in ebay seller fees. You'd have to gross $40+ on ebay just to break even.
Not really true. Originally, you could ship 100 for $5 which is 5 cents each shipping. In the last month, shipping has been free on any 225th anniversary product. So, there is NO shipping cost from the mint.
Shipping of a set is $3 USPS. eBay + PayPal fees are 8.5% if you have a store and topseller discount. So, on a $37 price tag, the net is actually $31 which is profitable. $36 is break even.
@coinpalice said:
I can see this set selling in the 33 to 37 dollar area until December, prices may rise a bit for gift giving
That's basically below issue price when you factor in shipping from the Mint, and more so if you factor in ebay seller fees. You'd have to gross $40+ on ebay just to break even.
Not really true. Originally, you could ship 100 for $5 which is 5 cents each shipping. In the last month, shipping has been free on any 225th anniversary product. So, there is NO shipping cost from the mint.
Shipping of a set is $3 USPS. eBay + PayPal fees are 8.5% if you have a store and topseller discount. So, on a $37 price tag, the net is actually $31 which is profitable. $36 is break even.
What percentage of casual sellers have a store and a top seller discount, though? For many sellers, the ebay/paypal fees total 13%, not 8.5%. If you sell a set for $40 with standard seller fees, you net about $34.80. Subtract $3.50 for shipping and handling (actual postage via ebay for a first class package up to 10 ounces is $3,46) and you're down to a net of $31.30. So even if you subtract 5 cents shipping from the Mint if you ordered 100 sets on the day of issue, you're making a whole buck and a quarter for your efforts.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@coinpalice said:
I can see this set selling in the 33 to 37 dollar area until December, prices may rise a bit for gift giving
That's basically below issue price when you factor in shipping from the Mint, and more so if you factor in ebay seller fees. You'd have to gross $40+ on ebay just to break even.
Not really true. Originally, you could ship 100 for $5 which is 5 cents each shipping. In the last month, shipping has been free on any 225th anniversary product. So, there is NO shipping cost from the mint.
Shipping of a set is $3 USPS. eBay + PayPal fees are 8.5% if you have a store and topseller discount. So, on a $37 price tag, the net is actually $31 which is profitable. $36 is break even.
What percentage of casual sellers have a store and a top seller discount, though? For many sellers, the ebay/paypal fees total 13%, not 8.5%. If you sell a set for $40 with standard seller fees, you net about $34.80. Subtract $3.50 for shipping and handling (actual postage via ebay for a first class package up to 10 ounces is $3,46) and you're down to a net of $31.30. So even if you subtract 5 cents shipping from the Mint if you ordered 100 sets on the day of issue, you're making a whole buck and a quarter for your efforts.
@coinpalice said:
I can see this set selling in the 33 to 37 dollar area until December, prices may rise a bit for gift giving
That's basically below issue price when you factor in shipping from the Mint, and more so if you factor in ebay seller fees. You'd have to gross $40+ on ebay just to break even.
Not really true. Originally, you could ship 100 for $5 which is 5 cents each shipping. In the last month, shipping has been free on any 225th anniversary product. So, there is NO shipping cost from the mint.
Shipping of a set is $3 USPS. eBay + PayPal fees are 8.5% if you have a store and topseller discount. So, on a $37 price tag, the net is actually $31 which is profitable. $36 is break even.
What percentage of casual sellers have a store and a top seller discount, though? For many sellers, the ebay/paypal fees total 13%, not 8.5%. If you sell a set for $40 with standard seller fees, you net about $34.80. Subtract $3.50 for shipping and handling (actual postage via ebay for a first class package up to 10 ounces is $3,46) and you're down to a net of $31.30. So even if you subtract 5 cents shipping from the Mint if you ordered 100 sets on the day of issue, you're making a whole buck and a quarter for your efforts.
How many casual sellers are selling these sets?
I'd bet of the people listing them for sale on ebay now, a higher percentage are playing closer to 13% in fees vs 8.5%.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Right now, at least, as far as flipping for a profit is concerned, the LE silver proof sets are offering better upside vs these sets. Will be interesting to see if prices for either set rise or fall going forward.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
there are quite a few people selling these sets who do not have stores. just your basic low end store costs 25 dollars per month, most people just don't sell enough to get a store.
@grote15 said:
Right now, at least, as far as flipping for a profit is concerned, the LE silver proof sets are offering better upside vs these sets. Will be interesting to see if prices for either set rise or fall going forward.
The LE silver proof sets are already dropping and getting close to "break even". The floor under the set is probably $100, however.
@coinpalice said:
I can see this set selling in the 33 to 37 dollar area until December, prices may rise a bit for gift giving
That's basically below issue price when you factor in shipping from the Mint, and more so if you factor in ebay seller fees. You'd have to gross $40+ on ebay just to break even.
Not really true. Originally, you could ship 100 for $5 which is 5 cents each shipping. In the last month, shipping has been free on any 225th anniversary product. So, there is NO shipping cost from the mint.
Shipping of a set is $3 USPS. eBay + PayPal fees are 8.5% if you have a store and topseller discount. So, on a $37 price tag, the net is actually $31 which is profitable. $36 is break even.
What percentage of casual sellers have a store and a top seller discount, though? For many sellers, the ebay/paypal fees total 13%, not 8.5%. If you sell a set for $40 with standard seller fees, you net about $34.80. Subtract $3.50 for shipping and handling (actual postage via ebay for a first class package up to 10 ounces is $3,46) and you're down to a net of $31.30. So even if you subtract 5 cents shipping from the Mint if you ordered 100 sets on the day of issue, you're making a whole buck and a quarter for your efforts.
How many casual sellers are selling these sets?
I'd bet of the people listing them for sale on ebay now, a higher percentage are playing closer to 13% in fees vs 8.5%.
Anyone who bought more than 2 of these sets either has a store or is an idiot. The people selling multiples are most definitely not amateurs.
@coinpalice said:
there are quite a few people selling these sets who do not have stores. just your basic low end store costs 25 dollars per month, most people just don't sell enough to get a store.
Most people don't buy dozens of these sets trying to score. Most of the sales I see on eBay are big players not little ones.
I actually did a little test on eBay searching "2017 Enhanced Uncirdculated Set" in USCoins: MInt sets. I got 297 hits. When I restricted to only "sellers with stores", I got 297 hits. For what that's worth.
When I expanded it to all US Coins, I got 712 hits. When restricted to "sellers with stores", I got 713 hits.
@grote15 said:
Right now, at least, as far as flipping for a profit is concerned, the LE silver proof sets are offering better upside vs these sets. Will be interesting to see if prices for either set rise or fall going forward.
The LE silver proof sets are already dropping and getting close to "break even". The floor under the set is probably $100, however.
At a sale price of $175 (which is typically what they sell for now on ebay) and using your 8.5% fee structure, you're still netting $160 after fees and before shipping~after shipping you got about $14 profit~not great but better than the enhanced sets, which are selling at about $36 on ebay, or at break even using your example above..
I know you have been the cheerleader for this set from the beginning, but it's already selling at break even or less, even after being unavailable on the Mint web site and frankly speaking, I don't see that changing in the future. I have 25 sets myself, so I'd be happy if it did, but I just don't see it. These modern mint issues typically decline in value over time no matter how you try to rationalize otherwise. Just too much product out there and this one was out there for a long time. The best opportunities at the flip for profit are those that quickly go unavailable and stay that way.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@grote15 said:
Right now, at least, as far as flipping for a profit is concerned, the LE silver proof sets are offering better upside vs these sets. Will be interesting to see if prices for either set rise or fall going forward.
The LE silver proof sets are already dropping and getting close to "break even". The floor under the set is probably $100, however.
At a sale price of $175 (which is typically what they sell for now on ebay) and using your 8.5% fee structure, you're still netting $160 after fees and before shipping~after shipping you got about $14 profit~not great but better than the enhanced sets, which are selling at about $36 on ebay, or at break even using your example above..
I know you have been the cheerleader for this set from the beginning, but it's already selling at break even or less, even after being unavailable on the Mint web site and frankly speaking, I don't see that changing in the future. I have 25 sets myself, so I'd be happy if it did, but I just don't see it. These modern mint issues typically decline in value over time no matter how you try to rationalize otherwise. Just too much product out there and this one was out there for a long time. The best opportunities at the flip for profit are those that quickly go unavailable and stay that way.
Actually, a lot of the LE sets are selling at $170 or lower. As I said, getting closer to "break even". And, as I also said, there is probably $100 floor under the set. And you can feel free to contradict yourself by telling me that there is value in the LE set while also telling me that "modern mint issues typically decline in value over time". Which is it? Are LE sets an exception, or are they also declining in value over time?
And, again, at the risk of "cheerleading" - 1995-W dime, 1970-D Half, 1950-D Nickel, 2012 proof sets, etc.
I totally agree - BUYING ALMOST ANY MINT PRODUCT IS AN INVESTMENT MISTAKE. But there are rare exceptions. Yes, the mint botched the sale of this and killed the quick flip, but that doesn't mean there isn't some long term value here. The cent alone continues to sell at $35 to $40 in SP70. The half dollar continues to sell at $25-$30 in SP70.
My prediction remains $45 within 2 years. I'm content to wait a couple years to say "I told you so". Feel free to continue to SPECULATE on the opposite.
Comments
If it's not a flaw, why do previous similar Mint issues don't have a "bubble" issue? I've been buying Mint products for 30 years and this is the only time that I've encountered that issue.
Not sure, possibly they (US Mint) are using a new type of inner insert, different material.
POST NUBILA PHOEBUS / AFTER CLOUDS, SUN
Love for Music / Collector of Dreck
Any price movement yet in the secondary market or is it too soon?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Probably too soon. Subtle at best.
I think it needs a SOLD OUT sign then you'll see some movement.
Don't quote me on that.
I've had plenty
Only in the past few years has the mint switched from cardboard to plastic innards. Test the plastic innards sets with the inner and outer plastic touching
I hope they change the packaging technique for next years RP sets. If not, I'm sure we'll hear more complaints about bubbles, oily spots, and smears.
FYI,
Looking back thru old Numismatic News articles I have, a reader first reported the problem in the 10/24/1995 issue of NN, Letters To The Editor. The editors reply to that letter was "You raise a very interesting question. One lost order can be ascribed to a quirk of some kind, the late hour, etc. Twice definitely increases the odds there is a problem with the order processing. No other reader has reported this problem. . ." at this time.
The 11/07/1995 issue of NN reports lost AE orders from Green Bay, Wisconsin; Northlake, Illinois; and ordering issues from El Cajon, California.
The 11/14/1995 issue of NN reports lost AE order from Staten Island, New York.
The 11/21/1995 issue of NN reports lost AE order from Plaineville, Ohio.
The 12/05/1995 issue of NN reports lost AE order from Millbrae, California.
So it appears "Lost Orders" occurred from Day 1 (midnight EST, April 21 thru the end of the year - approximately eight months for a 45,000 set maximum mintage edition. So the question has always been in my mind "Could the mint's ordering service have lost 14,875 orders in an eight month period? I guess it is a moot point by now, but one that shouldn't be overlooked when discussing the reasons for this low mintage figure of 30,125 sets, IMHO.
Best of Luck!
Do your 1995 issues of Numismatic News contain ads offering 1995-W proof Silver Eagles for sale? My recollection is that they were available from dealers for less than $300 each during the Mint's sales window and for a bit of time after Mint sales ended. If so, anyone whose orders had been lost could still purchase the coins on the open market at a reasonable price.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Unfortunately, I didn't keep entire issues of Numismatic News. I just kept articles and advertisements related to that program. However, in the 10/1/1996 issue of NN, there is an article entitled "1995-W Eagle nears $600 level" where Ken Pines with Coast To Coast Coins was buying sets and breaking them up for the Silner Eagle.
With all the hype leading up to that release, what is amazing to me is a sellout possibility was being predicted by NN in their 4/27/1995 issue and they were already discussing how high the Silver Eagle would trade on the secondary market!
AND THEN IT DOESN'T COME CLOSE TO SELLING OUT!
In hindsight, I wish I would I would have collected coin publications in 1995 and 1996.
I'm not arguing that they didn't lose multiple orders. There ordering system was awful up until recent years. But the window was so wide that there would have to have been thousands of orders that were repeatedly lost with the individuals unaware that their orders were lost for months. I'm just not sure there was that much latent demand that somehow went unmet. it took a loooong time for this issue to move up significantly in price on the secondary market.
I agree with you too. It doesn't seem logical that many orders were lost. Like the other poster said, collectors who didn't want to pay $999 for the complete gold and silver set likely went on the secondary market and paid a couple of hundred dollars for just the silver eagle. It didn't make sense to me back then and it still doesn't make sense to me now as to why that program wasn't a sellout! That's the way it goes.
I heard a rumor that 2 million sets just came from Europe
Now that WOULD be a story. Best Day has been predicting the return of the missing 2 million sets. LOL
Ehanced but circulated.
Don't quote me on that.
My view is that the 1995-W proof Silver Eagle wasn't a sellout because many collectors were angry at the Mint for creating what they viewed as an artificial rarity and making the coin available only as part of an expensive set rather than available individually, as all Silver Eagles up to that point had been. Many Silver Eagle collectors were vocal about their intention to boycott the coin and not include it as part of their sets. On the other end of the spectrum, many collectors of proof Gold Eagles disliked the inclusion of the "special" Silver Eagle in their four-coin gold proof sets because it disrupted the continuity of the annual sets by inclusion of a non-gold coin. The Gold Eagle proof set was also made available without the Silver Eagle at the same price ($999) and about 10,000 four-coin gold sets were sold lacking the "free" 1995-W Silver Eagle. This turned out to be an expensive mistake in my opinion, but that's how strong the dislike of this coin was felt by some collectors.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Same thing happened with the 2012-S ASE Proof. Many got pissed at the mint that they included the coin in the MAH C&C set (even though the Mint never claimed it was exclusive to the 75th SF set), and the coin became unloved, even though the total number struck still made it the second lowest mintage regular proof. (Next to the 95-W.)
There were a possible 100K MAH sets, with an initial production of 50K. They lingered on the mint site for a year, and was taken off-sale with a final mintage of just above 60K, even though the MAH set made it the cheap route to the coin. (Though the companion 2012-S RP in the SF set is a spectacular coin, which probably made it more desireable.)
Back in1995 $1000 was a lot of cash. Gold was $400 oz. and it went down from there. You would been under water for many years on that set.
Yes, but Overdate's point is that people chose to spend the $1000 and NOT get the silver eagle rather than spend the $1000 and GET the silver eagle. Same price, extra coin.
New numbers. Oct 30 was the day the set went unavailable...
edit to fix table...
Imagine how many they'd sell if they were available.
So are the other 15K sets ever going to come up for sale or is final mintage on these going to stay at 210K?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I think that's the final number......awesome set.
Don't quote me on that.
In order to conserve energy, typing time, and pixel space, please use the following codes if possible:
A: this is overhyped, and I have posted this over and over
B: Great set, I have bought some
C: I have nothing to add, just boosting my post count
This is the greatest popcorn mega thread on this forum
If the 14k are not minted, they have only until 12/31 to do it.
I'm surprised they are not up for sale via minting a month ago (to ensure the EoY deadline is met) or on a Backorder basis.
Popcorn, popcorn
I can see this set selling in the 33 to 37 dollar area until December, prices may rise a bit for gift giving
Fantastic set!
POST NUBILA PHOEBUS / AFTER CLOUDS, SUN
Love for Music / Collector of Dreck
That's basically below issue price when you factor in shipping from the Mint, and more so if you factor in ebay seller fees. You'd have to gross $40+ on ebay just to break even.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Not really true. Originally, you could ship 100 for $5 which is 5 cents each shipping. In the last month, shipping has been free on any 225th anniversary product. So, there is NO shipping cost from the mint.
Shipping of a set is $3 USPS. eBay + PayPal fees are 8.5% if you have a store and topseller discount. So, on a $37 price tag, the net is actually $31 which is profitable. $36 is break even.
yeah, i agree. trying to make money on anything the u.s. mint puts out is a extreme longshot, about 50 to 1, yet people continue to buy from them
the odds get better if you pre-sale the mint items before prices fall off a cliff
What percentage of casual sellers have a store and a top seller discount, though? For many sellers, the ebay/paypal fees total 13%, not 8.5%. If you sell a set for $40 with standard seller fees, you net about $34.80. Subtract $3.50 for shipping and handling (actual postage via ebay for a first class package up to 10 ounces is $3,46) and you're down to a net of $31.30. So even if you subtract 5 cents shipping from the Mint if you ordered 100 sets on the day of issue, you're making a whole buck and a quarter for your efforts.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
How many casual sellers are selling these sets?
I'd bet of the people listing them for sale on ebay now, a higher percentage are playing closer to 13% in fees vs 8.5%.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Right now, at least, as far as flipping for a profit is concerned, the LE silver proof sets are offering better upside vs these sets. Will be interesting to see if prices for either set rise or fall going forward.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
there are quite a few people selling these sets who do not have stores. just your basic low end store costs 25 dollars per month, most people just don't sell enough to get a store.
too bad we all didn't invest 10 k in amazon 10 years ago
The LE silver proof sets are already dropping and getting close to "break even". The floor under the set is probably $100, however.
Anyone who bought more than 2 of these sets either has a store or is an idiot. The people selling multiples are most definitely not amateurs.
Most people don't buy dozens of these sets trying to score. Most of the sales I see on eBay are big players not little ones.
I actually did a little test on eBay searching "2017 Enhanced Uncirdculated Set" in USCoins: MInt sets. I got 297 hits. When I restricted to only "sellers with stores", I got 297 hits. For what that's worth.
When I expanded it to all US Coins, I got 712 hits. When restricted to "sellers with stores", I got 713 hits.
At a sale price of $175 (which is typically what they sell for now on ebay) and using your 8.5% fee structure, you're still netting $160 after fees and before shipping~after shipping you got about $14 profit~not great but better than the enhanced sets, which are selling at about $36 on ebay, or at break even using your example above..
I know you have been the cheerleader for this set from the beginning, but it's already selling at break even or less, even after being unavailable on the Mint web site and frankly speaking, I don't see that changing in the future. I have 25 sets myself, so I'd be happy if it did, but I just don't see it. These modern mint issues typically decline in value over time no matter how you try to rationalize otherwise. Just too much product out there and this one was out there for a long time. The best opportunities at the flip for profit are those that quickly go unavailable and stay that way.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Actually, a lot of the LE sets are selling at $170 or lower. As I said, getting closer to "break even". And, as I also said, there is probably $100 floor under the set. And you can feel free to contradict yourself by telling me that there is value in the LE set while also telling me that "modern mint issues typically decline in value over time". Which is it? Are LE sets an exception, or are they also declining in value over time?
And, again, at the risk of "cheerleading" - 1995-W dime, 1970-D Half, 1950-D Nickel, 2012 proof sets, etc.
I totally agree - BUYING ALMOST ANY MINT PRODUCT IS AN INVESTMENT MISTAKE. But there are rare exceptions. Yes, the mint botched the sale of this and killed the quick flip, but that doesn't mean there isn't some long term value here. The cent alone continues to sell at $35 to $40 in SP70. The half dollar continues to sell at $25-$30 in SP70.
My prediction remains $45 within 2 years. I'm content to wait a couple years to say "I told you so". Feel free to continue to SPECULATE on the opposite.
$100 floor? Doubt it. The LE sets of years past are doing better than that with no special silver eagle.
4 available - get 'em while they're hot!
Yep
All gone
They are coming in small bursts now...
you guys are incorrect...those were minor technological issues...I have the very last one....
Don't quote me on that.
I feel ashamed,
that I'm doing this again,
But this should be post 2500...