@HalfDime said:
My problem with these is the size only for the price, as it is like ordering a premium hamburger and they serve you a McD 99 cent cheapie. The mint also has a clever new employee who is dreaming all this stuff up, they should probably have left them to go wild with many more products for this year. According to the court filings they drag out planning and production like they are making NASA spacecraft.
I agree , I like the design .... again I just can't see the price ?
Right. That's the entire problem. People like you who would be attracted to the product are not in a position to buy it, and those with the wherewithal to drop $20K on a gimmicky trinket will have no interest. Which is why it will land with a tremendous thud.
Instead of getting too cute by half, they should have just issued it with the usual mintages at the usual, already excessive pricing. I just don't think there is going to be a market for these.
They also could have made a clad version in a larger issuance for $100 or less. That might have had more appeal.
They also could have the silver version in a larger issuance for a far lower price. Precious metal value is not driving the pricing here, and you know it.
They are testing the waters to see if the market will tolerate very low, but not Stacks auction low, mintages at extremely elevated prices. And doing it with a one-off unique thing like this rather than messing with a variant of a popular series, like a privy on an AGE, because that would like make peoples' heads explode.
If this sells out, then yeah, look for infinite takes on it in the future. Otherwise, the market will have spoken, these will sit on the website unsold for years, and we won't see things like this anymore. After the DC debacle, I am reasonably confident we won't be seeing any more IP licensing deals going forward.
I didn't say it was. But they don't sell anything silver for under $100. The clad halves are $64, i believe.
This is an invoice from the mint from 5 months ago
Yeah. Pre price increase. No more. He's not wrong about that.
But he's out in left field speculating that clad would be the only way to go to sell these at reasonable prices. Or that the price for clad would be any more reasonable than that for a half ounce of silver if they also offered 2026 in clad. And he misses the point that selling a lot more clad would totally destroy what it is they are trying to do with this test.
The idea here was not to be reasonable. It was to test just how unreasonable they could be with 3 similar items with a collective mintage of a little over 6K.
I'm not wrong about anything. I NEVER SAID ANY OF THOSE THINGS.
I didn't say that a cheap clad version fit with their marketing. I didn't say that clad was the only way to make a cheaper product. I never said 2026 in clad, in fact, i specifically said a larger issuance.
You keep putting words in my mouth and then telling me that YOUR words are wrong. Why would you do that other than to create an argument that you want to have?
Really? You never said "2026 in clad"?
@jmlanzaf said:
They also could have made a clad version in a larger issuance for $100 or less. That might have had more appeal.
Who said that? "Clad." "Larger issuance." You said them both. They are both irrelevant, because that's not what this is.
They don't need clad to hit lower price point than $750 on an item with $32 worth of silver in it. That's the point.
And they could easily do a "larger issuance" in silver, gold, platinum, palladium, pewter, whatever, if they so chose. They didn't. They don't want a "larger issuance." They want a tiny issuance, and an astronomical price. So that's what this is.
You saying they COULD have done something else is saying nothing at all. Of course they could. They could ALWAYS do something other than what they end up doing.
The words you put in your own mouth were that clad would be tied to larger issuance to get to $100 or less. Because THAT would be consistent with a price under $100, because that would be consistent with 2026 pricing. A half ounce silver product under $100 would not be, because all one ounce silver product sells for more than $200. Right?
@jmlanzaf said:
But if you simply use their normal 2026 pricing scheme, there is no way (in my humble opinion) they are going to price the silver at under $100. Soooooo...If I wanted a sub-$100 price, it would likely have to be clad.
@HalfDime said:
My problem with these is the size only for the price, as it is like ordering a premium hamburger and they serve you a McD 99 cent cheapie. The mint also has a clever new employee who is dreaming all this stuff up, they should probably have left them to go wild with many more products for this year. According to the court filings they drag out planning and production like they are making NASA spacecraft.
So what would make you happy? A full ounce of silver?
That's really the deal breaker for you at $750? The missing thickness and $32 worth of silver?
The gold is already plenty big at one ounce, and the half ounce is almost the exact same size, just half as thick and half as expensive. And the silver is also the same size.
So again, is that really the problem, or just a nit to pick because you can't bring yourself to agree with those of us who just think it's crazy in general, not because it is a coin sized coin? It would be fine if it was a Mr. T sized trinket, but still priced at the same premium to spot?
No, it's not a 99 cent cheapie. It's just an artificial rarity that isn't really all that rare in relation to its pricing for what it is. Not one of 230 special FH gold coins, but one of 2026 trinkets, times 3, like a PAMP Hot Wheels or Barbie.
Those sell for around $200 each with similar mintages. True they are not official Mint products, but they are no more gimmicky. These are not coins. They are monetized tchotchkes. Attractive to some, but generally not to serious people with serious money to spend on coins.
The price is based on the artificial rarity. Not on the size, or the precious metal content. Clearly, given the wild premiums. TBD.
I agree!
Although I'm still toying with buying the silver - full disclosure.
I have confidence you'll come to your senses when you don't see a buzz materialize pre-release.e
NJ, I’m really just torn here. I can see you being 100% right, but I can also see it going the other way as part of a “greater fools” test. If I was to take a stab at any of these, it would strictly and only be to flip and run away from. In that case, I could end up stuck in it and have it relegated to a bottom corner of a safe somewhere, rarely seen and unloved.
At this point, I don’t love it and don’t want it in my collection. It looks inferior for its price point at this mintage level. Time will tell which way it goes. As much as it infuriates the masses, I find it an intriguing test of Mint decision-making and leadership.
In that case, please don't. Even if there is interest, at these prices the vast majority of the flip is already gone. You will do FAR better using $750 to buy 6 uncirculated sets to break up and have graded, or to just flip as is for whatever you can get.
Do you honestly see the half ounce silver Liberty Bell medal going for $1500, or $3K, in the secondary market? If so, please explain to me why 8300 of 25,000 2.5 ounce Superman medals sit unloved and unsold on the Mint website as we speak. Same with 4K out of 10K half ounce gold coins.
Also very low mintages, albeit admittedly not quite as low. Also very expensive, albeit not nearly as expensive.
Because this is different? I guess we'll see.
Some are salivating because the mintage is tantalizingly low, while ignoring the fact that the prices are eye wateringly high. They analogize to other things with low mintages selling for similar or higher premiums, while dismissing the fact that these are not those.
This is new and unique. Maybe a market develops for these at this mintage and price. Maybe not.
FWIW, I absolutely do not suffer from FOMO with this. As I have said repeatedly in the past, as a taxpayer and collector, I wish the US Mint nothing but success in all of its endeavors.
But this is a game I have no interest in playing. So I am perfectly content to sit on the sidelines, make my predictions, and then either take a victory lap or suffer a public shaming.
But I am not chasing artificial rarities that have nothing to do with the rest of my collection, or why I started collecting in the first place. Sure, if it was a guaranteed home run, I'd step up to the plate and accept the windfall, as I'm sure most of us would. But there are few guarantees in life, and 2,000 of anything at 5x to 23x very elevated intrinsic value are certainly not among them. Keep in mind that gold and silver are still historically very expensive, even after the recent pullback.
As a result, I don't want to have any part of encouraging the Mint to go in this direction. So I'm leaving that to others. I'm happy to sit in the cheap seats and just enjoy the show. Unless you have unlimited money to burn, I humbly suggest you do the same.
I hear you and am certainly leaning away from participating in this offering. I want to see how it plays out, and like you, as a taxpayer and collector I want to see the Mint succeed in producing good quality coins for reasonable profits for the Mint itself. This one seems extreme, but I’m anxious to see how they do. With the proper hype and a media blitz, they could pull it off handsomely and walk away the big winner, while the intial buyer is left holding the bag for some years. Is there a large enough market for these that several thousand willing buyers are shut out and feel compelled to spend double or triple due to FOMO? We are going to find out in relatively short order.
I’m watching the chattering class on YouTube and the consensus is with you for the moment. Presales are happening…..but the legitimacy of some sellers is questionable. That market won’t establish itself until drop day when and if it sells out.
I'm 99.44% sure I will be trying to get one of the Silver medals on release date. I'm closer to 0% on the gold coins. But I will be checking the ATS Numbers on release date and go from there...
@DotStore said:
I'm 99.44% sure I will be trying to get one of the Silver medals on release date. I'm closer to 0% on the gold coins. But I will be checking the ATS Numbers on release date and go from there...
I’m genuinely interested in your thinking. Are you wanting it because it’s a 2026 product that you feel you have to own, or would you be wanting to sell it while the iron is hot? If if if the Mint goes way overboard on marketing this to every media outlet that wants the story, that alone could drive the secondary prices for a few months to some decent flips for sellers, at least on the silver and the 1/2 Oz gold.
@NJCoin said:
TBD whether people care as much about Liberty Bell paperweights as they do about FH privy medals in 2026. I sure don't.
The only drawback to these is the size, they made them like little baby bells. Nobody buying is posting about these as they don't want more buyers,
This may be the only real low mintage product the mint offers for the 250th this year. The prices weren't pulled out of a hat, you may not like them but they did their homework. In order to justify making them they had to raise prices.
I doubt they could have done clad as the metal might have been too hard to strike in quantity. They went low mintage to be sure to make enough to fill the order.
@DotStore said:
I'm 99.44% sure I will be trying to get one of the Silver medals on release date. I'm closer to 0% on the gold coins. But I will be checking the ATS Numbers on release date and go from there...
I’m genuinely interested in your thinking. Are you wanting it because it’s a 2026 product that you feel you have to own, or would you be wanting to sell it while the iron is hot? If if if the Mint goes way overboard on marketing this to every media outlet that wants the story, that alone could drive the secondary prices for a few months to some decent flips for sellers, at least on the silver and the 1/2 Oz gold.
@HalfDime said:
My problem with these is the size only for the price, as it is like ordering a premium hamburger and they serve you a McD 99 cent cheapie. The mint also has a clever new employee who is dreaming all this stuff up, they should probably have left them to go wild with many more products for this year. According to the court filings they drag out planning and production like they are making NASA spacecraft.
I agree , I like the design .... again I just can't see the price ?
Right. That's the entire problem. People like you who would be attracted to the product are not in a position to buy it, and those with the wherewithal to drop $20K on a gimmicky trinket will have no interest. Which is why it will land with a tremendous thud.
Instead of getting too cute by half, they should have just issued it with the usual mintages at the usual, already excessive pricing. I just don't think there is going to be a market for these.
They also could have made a clad version in a larger issuance for $100 or less. That might have had more appeal.
They also could have the silver version in a larger issuance for a far lower price. Precious metal value is not driving the pricing here, and you know it.
They are testing the waters to see if the market will tolerate very low, but not Stacks auction low, mintages at extremely elevated prices. And doing it with a one-off unique thing like this rather than messing with a variant of a popular series, like a privy on an AGE, because that would like make peoples' heads explode.
If this sells out, then yeah, look for infinite takes on it in the future. Otherwise, the market will have spoken, these will sit on the website unsold for years, and we won't see things like this anymore. After the DC debacle, I am reasonably confident we won't be seeing any more IP licensing deals going forward.
I didn't say it was. But they don't sell anything silver for under $100. The clad halves are $64, i believe.
This is an invoice from the mint from 5 months ago
Yeah. Pre price increase. No more. He's not wrong about that.
But he's out in left field speculating that clad would be the only way to go to sell these at reasonable prices. Or that the price for clad would be any more reasonable than that for a half ounce of silver if they also offered 2026 in clad. And he misses the point that selling a lot more clad would totally destroy what it is they are trying to do with this test.
The idea here was not to be reasonable. It was to test just how unreasonable they could be with 3 similar items with a collective mintage of a little over 6K.
I'm not wrong about anything. I NEVER SAID ANY OF THOSE THINGS.
I didn't say that a cheap clad version fit with their marketing. I didn't say that clad was the only way to make a cheaper product. I never said 2026 in clad, in fact, i specifically said a larger issuance.
You keep putting words in my mouth and then telling me that YOUR words are wrong. Why would you do that other than to create an argument that you want to have?
Really? You never said "2026 in clad"?
@jmlanzaf said:
They also could have made a clad version in a larger issuance for $100 or less. That might have had more appeal.
Who said that? "Clad." "Larger issuance." You said them both. They are both irrelevant, because that's not what this is.
They don't need clad to hit lower price point than $750 on an item with $32 worth of silver in it. That's the point.
And they could easily do a "larger issuance" in silver, gold, platinum, palladium, pewter, whatever, if they so chose. They didn't. They don't want a "larger issuance." They want a tiny issuance, and an astronomical price. So that's what this is.
You saying they COULD have done something else is saying nothing at all. Of course they could. They could ALWAYS do something other than what they end up doing.
The words you put in your own mouth were that clad would be tied to larger issuance to get to $100 or less. Because THAT would be consistent with a price under $100, because that would be consistent with 2026 pricing. A half ounce silver product under $100 would not be, because all one ounce silver product sells for more than $200. Right?
@jmlanzaf said:
But if you simply use their normal 2026 pricing scheme, there is no way (in my humble opinion) they are going to price the silver at under $100. Soooooo...If I wanted a sub-$100 price, it would likely have to be clad.
I said "clad in a LARGER ISSUANCE" (emphasis added) not a mintage of 2026 like you suggested. Thank you for proving my point the "2026" refered to the mintage.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@DotStore said:
I'm 99.44% sure I will be trying to get one of the Silver medals on release date. I'm closer to 0% on the gold coins. But I will be checking the ATS Numbers on release date and go from there...
I’m genuinely interested in your thinking. Are you wanting it because it’s a 2026 product that you feel you have to own, or would you be wanting to sell it while the iron is hot? If if if the Mint goes way overboard on marketing this to every media outlet that wants the story, that alone could drive the secondary prices for a few months to some decent flips for sellers, at least on the silver and the 1/2 Oz gold.
@HalfDime said:
My problem with these is the size only for the price, as it is like ordering a premium hamburger and they serve you a McD 99 cent cheapie. The mint also has a clever new employee who is dreaming all this stuff up, they should probably have left them to go wild with many more products for this year. According to the court filings they drag out planning and production like they are making NASA spacecraft.
I agree , I like the design .... again I just can't see the price ?
Right. That's the entire problem. People like you who would be attracted to the product are not in a position to buy it, and those with the wherewithal to drop $20K on a gimmicky trinket will have no interest. Which is why it will land with a tremendous thud.
Instead of getting too cute by half, they should have just issued it with the usual mintages at the usual, already excessive pricing. I just don't think there is going to be a market for these.
They also could have made a clad version in a larger issuance for $100 or less. That might have had more appeal.
They also could have the silver version in a larger issuance for a far lower price. Precious metal value is not driving the pricing here, and you know it.
They are testing the waters to see if the market will tolerate very low, but not Stacks auction low, mintages at extremely elevated prices. And doing it with a one-off unique thing like this rather than messing with a variant of a popular series, like a privy on an AGE, because that would like make peoples' heads explode.
If this sells out, then yeah, look for infinite takes on it in the future. Otherwise, the market will have spoken, these will sit on the website unsold for years, and we won't see things like this anymore. After the DC debacle, I am reasonably confident we won't be seeing any more IP licensing deals going forward.
I didn't say it was. But they don't sell anything silver for under $100. The clad halves are $64, i believe.
This is an invoice from the mint from 5 months ago
Yeah. Pre price increase. No more. He's not wrong about that.
But he's out in left field speculating that clad would be the only way to go to sell these at reasonable prices. Or that the price for clad would be any more reasonable than that for a half ounce of silver if they also offered 2026 in clad. And he misses the point that selling a lot more clad would totally destroy what it is they are trying to do with this test.
The idea here was not to be reasonable. It was to test just how unreasonable they could be with 3 similar items with a collective mintage of a little over 6K.
I'm not wrong about anything. I NEVER SAID ANY OF THOSE THINGS.
I didn't say that a cheap clad version fit with their marketing. I didn't say that clad was the only way to make a cheaper product. I never said 2026 in clad, in fact, i specifically said a larger issuance.
You keep putting words in my mouth and then telling me that YOUR words are wrong. Why would you do that other than to create an argument that you want to have?
Really? You never said "2026 in clad"?
@jmlanzaf said:
They also could have made a clad version in a larger issuance for $100 or less. That might have had more appeal.
Who said that? "Clad." "Larger issuance." You said them both. They are both irrelevant, because that's not what this is.
They don't need clad to hit lower price point than $750 on an item with $32 worth of silver in it. That's the point.
And they could easily do a "larger issuance" in silver, gold, platinum, palladium, pewter, whatever, if they so chose. They didn't. They don't want a "larger issuance." They want a tiny issuance, and an astronomical price. So that's what this is.
You saying they COULD have done something else is saying nothing at all. Of course they could. They could ALWAYS do something other than what they end up doing.
The words you put in your own mouth were that clad would be tied to larger issuance to get to $100 or less. Because THAT would be consistent with a price under $100, because that would be consistent with 2026 pricing. A half ounce silver product under $100 would not be, because all one ounce silver product sells for more than $200. Right?
@jmlanzaf said:
But if you simply use their normal 2026 pricing scheme, there is no way (in my humble opinion) they are going to price the silver at under $100. Soooooo...If I wanted a sub-$100 price, it would likely have to be clad.
You may be having a stroke.
No, I did not say the clad were "tied" to a larger issuance to get to a lower price point.
I did say, strictly hypothetically, that they COULD HAVE made a clad version in a larger issuance. And I suggested that might have had more appeal. You are creating a bunch of casualties that aren't even implied by what I wrote.
You have made a giant mountain out of a tiny ant hill. I suggested that a lower mintage, cheaper clad coin might have had more appeal than a lower mintage expensive coin. You probably even agree that is true. You are arguing everything except what I said.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@HalfDime said:
My problem with these is the size only for the price, as it is like ordering a premium hamburger and they serve you a McD 99 cent cheapie. The mint also has a clever new employee who is dreaming all this stuff up, they should probably have left them to go wild with many more products for this year. According to the court filings they drag out planning and production like they are making NASA spacecraft.
I agree , I like the design .... again I just can't see the price ?
Right. That's the entire problem. People like you who would be attracted to the product are not in a position to buy it, and those with the wherewithal to drop $20K on a gimmicky trinket will have no interest. Which is why it will land with a tremendous thud.
Instead of getting too cute by half, they should have just issued it with the usual mintages at the usual, already excessive pricing. I just don't think there is going to be a market for these.
They also could have made a clad version in a larger issuance for $100 or less. That might have had more appeal.
They also could have the silver version in a larger issuance for a far lower price. Precious metal value is not driving the pricing here, and you know it.
They are testing the waters to see if the market will tolerate very low, but not Stacks auction low, mintages at extremely elevated prices. And doing it with a one-off unique thing like this rather than messing with a variant of a popular series, like a privy on an AGE, because that would like make peoples' heads explode.
If this sells out, then yeah, look for infinite takes on it in the future. Otherwise, the market will have spoken, these will sit on the website unsold for years, and we won't see things like this anymore. After the DC debacle, I am reasonably confident we won't be seeing any more IP licensing deals going forward.
I didn't say it was. But they don't sell anything silver for under $100. The clad halves are $64, i believe.
This is an invoice from the mint from 5 months ago
Yeah. Pre price increase. No more. He's not wrong about that.
But he's out in left field speculating that clad would be the only way to go to sell these at reasonable prices. Or that the price for clad would be any more reasonable than that for a half ounce of silver if they also offered 2026 in clad. And he misses the point that selling a lot more clad would totally destroy what it is they are trying to do with this test.
The idea here was not to be reasonable. It was to test just how unreasonable they could be with 3 similar items with a collective mintage of a little over 6K.
I'm not wrong about anything. I NEVER SAID ANY OF THOSE THINGS.
I didn't say that a cheap clad version fit with their marketing. I didn't say that clad was the only way to make a cheaper product. I never said 2026 in clad, in fact, i specifically said a larger issuance.
You keep putting words in my mouth and then telling me that YOUR words are wrong. Why would you do that other than to create an argument that you want to have?
Really? You never said "2026 in clad"?
@jmlanzaf said:
They also could have made a clad version in a larger issuance for $100 or less. That might have had more appeal.
Who said that? "Clad." "Larger issuance." You said them both. They are both irrelevant, because that's not what this is.
They don't need clad to hit lower price point than $750 on an item with $32 worth of silver in it. That's the point.
And they could easily do a "larger issuance" in silver, gold, platinum, palladium, pewter, whatever, if they so chose. They didn't. They don't want a "larger issuance." They want a tiny issuance, and an astronomical price. So that's what this is.
You saying they COULD have done something else is saying nothing at all. Of course they could. They could ALWAYS do something other than what they end up doing.
The words you put in your own mouth were that clad would be tied to larger issuance to get to $100 or less. Because THAT would be consistent with a price under $100, because that would be consistent with 2026 pricing. A half ounce silver product under $100 would not be, because all one ounce silver product sells for more than $200. Right?
@jmlanzaf said:
But if you simply use their normal 2026 pricing scheme, there is no way (in my humble opinion) they are going to price the silver at under $100. Soooooo...If I wanted a sub-$100 price, it would likely have to be clad.
You may be having a stroke.
No, I did not say the clad were "tied" to a larger issuance to get to a lower price point.
I did say, strictly hypothetically, that they COULD HAVE made a clad version in a larger issuance. And I suggested that might have had more appeal. You are creating a bunch of casualties that aren't even implied by what I wrote.
You have made a giant mountain out of a tiny ant hill. I suggested that a lower mintage, cheaper clad coin might have had more appeal than a lower mintage expensive coin. You probably even agree that is true. You are arguing everything except what I said.
No. I'm arguing exactly what you said. You are just obtusely refusing to acknowledge my point.
Which is that clad is not necessary to produce in volume, or to hit a price point far lower than $750. They chose not to.
Not because they can't, but because that would defeat what they are trying to do here. $32 in silver is not why they will be asking $750. Taking that out would not necessitate a reduction in price. Certainly not to less than $100.
They could have made the silver in quantity and sold them for far less than $750. But that's not what they want with these.
So your suggestion that they COULD have turned this into something else is pointless. Because that's not what they wanted to do. And, trust me here, selling clad at less than $100 would kill any interest anyone would otherwise have in a half ounce silver version for $750. That much they know. Unlimited one ounce silver Superman medals likely reduce demand for 25K 2.5 ounce versions.
@HalfDime said:
My problem with these is the size only for the price, as it is like ordering a premium hamburger and they serve you a McD 99 cent cheapie. The mint also has a clever new employee who is dreaming all this stuff up, they should probably have left them to go wild with many more products for this year. According to the court filings they drag out planning and production like they are making NASA spacecraft.
I agree , I like the design .... again I just can't see the price ?
Right. That's the entire problem. People like you who would be attracted to the product are not in a position to buy it, and those with the wherewithal to drop $20K on a gimmicky trinket will have no interest. Which is why it will land with a tremendous thud.
Instead of getting too cute by half, they should have just issued it with the usual mintages at the usual, already excessive pricing. I just don't think there is going to be a market for these.
They also could have made a clad version in a larger issuance for $100 or less. That might have had more appeal.
They also could have the silver version in a larger issuance for a far lower price. Precious metal value is not driving the pricing here, and you know it.
They are testing the waters to see if the market will tolerate very low, but not Stacks auction low, mintages at extremely elevated prices. And doing it with a one-off unique thing like this rather than messing with a variant of a popular series, like a privy on an AGE, because that would like make peoples' heads explode.
If this sells out, then yeah, look for infinite takes on it in the future. Otherwise, the market will have spoken, these will sit on the website unsold for years, and we won't see things like this anymore. After the DC debacle, I am reasonably confident we won't be seeing any more IP licensing deals going forward.
I didn't say it was. But they don't sell anything silver for under $100. The clad halves are $64, i believe.
This is an invoice from the mint from 5 months ago
Yeah. Pre price increase. No more. He's not wrong about that.
But he's out in left field speculating that clad would be the only way to go to sell these at reasonable prices. Or that the price for clad would be any more reasonable than that for a half ounce of silver if they also offered 2026 in clad. And he misses the point that selling a lot more clad would totally destroy what it is they are trying to do with this test.
The idea here was not to be reasonable. It was to test just how unreasonable they could be with 3 similar items with a collective mintage of a little over 6K.
I'm not wrong about anything. I NEVER SAID ANY OF THOSE THINGS.
I didn't say that a cheap clad version fit with their marketing. I didn't say that clad was the only way to make a cheaper product. I never said 2026 in clad, in fact, i specifically said a larger issuance.
You keep putting words in my mouth and then telling me that YOUR words are wrong. Why would you do that other than to create an argument that you want to have?
Really? You never said "2026 in clad"?
@jmlanzaf said:
They also could have made a clad version in a larger issuance for $100 or less. That might have had more appeal.
Who said that? "Clad." "Larger issuance." You said them both. They are both irrelevant, because that's not what this is.
They don't need clad to hit lower price point than $750 on an item with $32 worth of silver in it. That's the point.
And they could easily do a "larger issuance" in silver, gold, platinum, palladium, pewter, whatever, if they so chose. They didn't. They don't want a "larger issuance." They want a tiny issuance, and an astronomical price. So that's what this is.
You saying they COULD have done something else is saying nothing at all. Of course they could. They could ALWAYS do something other than what they end up doing.
The words you put in your own mouth were that clad would be tied to larger issuance to get to $100 or less. Because THAT would be consistent with a price under $100, because that would be consistent with 2026 pricing. A half ounce silver product under $100 would not be, because all one ounce silver product sells for more than $200. Right?
@jmlanzaf said:
But if you simply use their normal 2026 pricing scheme, there is no way (in my humble opinion) they are going to price the silver at under $100. Soooooo...If I wanted a sub-$100 price, it would likely have to be clad.
You may be having a stroke.
No, I did not say the clad were "tied" to a larger issuance to get to a lower price point.
I did say, strictly hypothetically, that they COULD HAVE made a clad version in a larger issuance. And I suggested that might have had more appeal. You are creating a bunch of casualties that aren't even implied by what I wrote.
You have made a giant mountain out of a tiny ant hill. I suggested that a lower mintage, cheaper clad coin might have had more appeal than a lower mintage expensive coin. You probably even agree that is true. You are arguing everything except what I said.
No. I'm arguing exactly what you said. You are just obtusely refusing to acknowledge my point.
Which is that clad is not necessary to produce in volume, or to hit a price point far lower than $750. They chose not to.
Not because they can't, but because that would defeat what they are trying to do here. $32 in silver is not why they will be asking $750. Taking that out would not necessitate a reduction in price. Certainly not to less than $100.
They could have made the silver in quantity and sold them for far less than $750. But that's not what they want with these.
So your suggestion that they COULD have turned this into something else is pointless. Because that's not what they wanted to do. And, trust me here, selling clad at less than $100 would kill any interest anyone would otherwise have in a half ounce silver version for $750. That much they know. Unlimited one ounce silver Superman medals likely reduce demand for 25K 2.5 ounce versions.
No, you're not because I NEVER said they needed a large issuance to hit that price point. Again, you are arguing casuality when "clad", "larger issuance" and "sub $100" price t ag were 3 separate properties not 3 connected properties.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@HalfDime said:
My problem with these is the size only for the price, as it is like ordering a premium hamburger and they serve you a McD 99 cent cheapie. The mint also has a clever new employee who is dreaming all this stuff up, they should probably have left them to go wild with many more products for this year. According to the court filings they drag out planning and production like they are making NASA spacecraft.
I agree , I like the design .... again I just can't see the price ?
Right. That's the entire problem. People like you who would be attracted to the product are not in a position to buy it, and those with the wherewithal to drop $20K on a gimmicky trinket will have no interest. Which is why it will land with a tremendous thud.
Instead of getting too cute by half, they should have just issued it with the usual mintages at the usual, already excessive pricing. I just don't think there is going to be a market for these.
They also could have made a clad version in a larger issuance for $100 or less. That might have had more appeal.
They also could have the silver version in a larger issuance for a far lower price. Precious metal value is not driving the pricing here, and you know it.
They are testing the waters to see if the market will tolerate very low, but not Stacks auction low, mintages at extremely elevated prices. And doing it with a one-off unique thing like this rather than messing with a variant of a popular series, like a privy on an AGE, because that would like make peoples' heads explode.
If this sells out, then yeah, look for infinite takes on it in the future. Otherwise, the market will have spoken, these will sit on the website unsold for years, and we won't see things like this anymore. After the DC debacle, I am reasonably confident we won't be seeing any more IP licensing deals going forward.
I didn't say it was. But they don't sell anything silver for under $100. The clad halves are $64, i believe.
This is an invoice from the mint from 5 months ago
Yeah. Pre price increase. No more. He's not wrong about that.
But he's out in left field speculating that clad would be the only way to go to sell these at reasonable prices. Or that the price for clad would be any more reasonable than that for a half ounce of silver if they also offered 2026 in clad. And he misses the point that selling a lot more clad would totally destroy what it is they are trying to do with this test.
The idea here was not to be reasonable. It was to test just how unreasonable they could be with 3 similar items with a collective mintage of a little over 6K.
I'm not wrong about anything. I NEVER SAID ANY OF THOSE THINGS.
I didn't say that a cheap clad version fit with their marketing. I didn't say that clad was the only way to make a cheaper product. I never said 2026 in clad, in fact, i specifically said a larger issuance.
You keep putting words in my mouth and then telling me that YOUR words are wrong. Why would you do that other than to create an argument that you want to have?
Really? You never said "2026 in clad"?
@jmlanzaf said:
They also could have made a clad version in a larger issuance for $100 or less. That might have had more appeal.
Who said that? "Clad." "Larger issuance." You said them both. They are both irrelevant, because that's not what this is.
They don't need clad to hit lower price point than $750 on an item with $32 worth of silver in it. That's the point.
And they could easily do a "larger issuance" in silver, gold, platinum, palladium, pewter, whatever, if they so chose. They didn't. They don't want a "larger issuance." They want a tiny issuance, and an astronomical price. So that's what this is.
You saying they COULD have done something else is saying nothing at all. Of course they could. They could ALWAYS do something other than what they end up doing.
The words you put in your own mouth were that clad would be tied to larger issuance to get to $100 or less. Because THAT would be consistent with a price under $100, because that would be consistent with 2026 pricing. A half ounce silver product under $100 would not be, because all one ounce silver product sells for more than $200. Right?
@jmlanzaf said:
But if you simply use their normal 2026 pricing scheme, there is no way (in my humble opinion) they are going to price the silver at under $100. Soooooo...If I wanted a sub-$100 price, it would likely have to be clad.
You may be having a stroke.
No, I did not say the clad were "tied" to a larger issuance to get to a lower price point.
I did say, strictly hypothetically, that they COULD HAVE made a clad version in a larger issuance. And I suggested that might have had more appeal. You are creating a bunch of casualties that aren't even implied by what I wrote.
You have made a giant mountain out of a tiny ant hill. I suggested that a lower mintage, cheaper clad coin might have had more appeal than a lower mintage expensive coin. You probably even agree that is true. You are arguing everything except what I said.
No. I'm arguing exactly what you said. You are just obtusely refusing to acknowledge my point.
Which is that clad is not necessary to produce in volume, or to hit a price point far lower than $750. They chose not to.
Not because they can't, but because that would defeat what they are trying to do here. $32 in silver is not why they will be asking $750. Taking that out would not necessitate a reduction in price. Certainly not to less than $100.
They could have made the silver in quantity and sold them for far less than $750. But that's not what they want with these.
So your suggestion that they COULD have turned this into something else is pointless. Because that's not what they wanted to do. And, trust me here, selling clad at less than $100 would kill any interest anyone would otherwise have in a half ounce silver version for $750. That much they know. Unlimited one ounce silver Superman medals likely reduce demand for 25K 2.5 ounce versions.
No, you're not because I NEVER said they needed a large issuance to hit that price point. Again, you are arguing casuality when "clad", "larger issuance" and "sub $100" price t ag were 3 separate properties not 3 connected properties.
If you say so. You said it all in one sentence. I did what normal people do and connected them.
@jmlanzaf said:
They also could have made a clad version in a larger issuance for $100 or less. That might have had more appeal.
If you are going to admit that your posts are nothing more than word salad, they are probably not worth paying attention to.
Sentences are groups of words strung together to convey thoughts. Are you really saying
@jmlanzaf said:
No, you're not because I NEVER said they needed a large issuance to hit that price point. Again, you are arguing casuality when "clad", "larger issuance" and "sub $100" price t ag were 3 separate properties not 3 connected properties.
meant anything other than
@jmlanzaf said:
They also could have made a clad version in a larger issuance for $100 or less. That might have had more appeal.
?????
If so, while I realize that you can never admit you are wrong, and can never publicly concede a point or lose an argument, you should understand how anyone else reading what you wrote would take it. And how utterly ridiculous you now sound trying to parse your own words, rather than just admit what you said. After all, it is here for all to see.
The 75th anniversary privy gold eagle marking the end of World War II was a much better deal
Still kicking myself over that one
I’m really disliking these instant rarities.
I was OK with the gold Sacajawea dollars that were flown into space because those were made for a purpose.
I feel like I’m going to wake up tomorrow and find out the mint is going to issue ten 2027 Eisenhower dollars for $200k each and my Ike collection will never be complete
"I'll split the atom! I am the fifth dimension! I am the eighth wonder of the world!" -Gef the talking mongoose.
Comments
🫢🫣🤫🤫🤫😁
Really? You never said "2026 in clad"?
Who said that? "Clad." "Larger issuance." You said them both. They are both irrelevant, because that's not what this is.
They don't need clad to hit lower price point than $750 on an item with $32 worth of silver in it. That's the point.
And they could easily do a "larger issuance" in silver, gold, platinum, palladium, pewter, whatever, if they so chose. They didn't. They don't want a "larger issuance." They want a tiny issuance, and an astronomical price. So that's what this is.
You saying they COULD have done something else is saying nothing at all. Of course they could. They could ALWAYS do something other than what they end up doing.
The words you put in your own mouth were that clad would be tied to larger issuance to get to $100 or less. Because THAT would be consistent with a price under $100, because that would be consistent with 2026 pricing. A half ounce silver product under $100 would not be, because all one ounce silver product sells for more than $200. Right?
I hear you and am certainly leaning away from participating in this offering. I want to see how it plays out, and like you, as a taxpayer and collector I want to see the Mint succeed in producing good quality coins for reasonable profits for the Mint itself. This one seems extreme, but I’m anxious to see how they do. With the proper hype and a media blitz, they could pull it off handsomely and walk away the big winner, while the intial buyer is left holding the bag for some years. Is there a large enough market for these that several thousand willing buyers are shut out and feel compelled to spend double or triple due to FOMO? We are going to find out in relatively short order.
I’m watching the chattering class on YouTube and the consensus is with you for the moment. Presales are happening…..but the legitimacy of some sellers is questionable. That market won’t establish itself until drop day when and if it sells out.
I'm 99.44% sure I will be trying to get one of the Silver medals on release date. I'm closer to 0% on the gold coins. But I will be checking the ATS Numbers on release date and go from there...
I’m genuinely interested in your thinking. Are you wanting it because it’s a 2026 product that you feel you have to own, or would you be wanting to sell it while the iron is hot? If if if the Mint goes way overboard on marketing this to every media outlet that wants the story, that alone could drive the secondary prices for a few months to some decent flips for sellers, at least on the silver and the 1/2 Oz gold.
The only drawback to these is the size, they made them like little baby bells. Nobody buying is posting about these as they don't want more buyers,
This may be the only real low mintage product the mint offers for the 250th this year. The prices weren't pulled out of a hat, you may not like them but they did their homework. In order to justify making them they had to raise prices.
I doubt they could have done clad as the metal might have been too hard to strike in quantity. They went low mintage to be sure to make enough to fill the order.
The world will survive this, don't worry.
Just want to have one for my collection
I said "clad in a LARGER ISSUANCE" (emphasis added) not a mintage of 2026 like you suggested. Thank you for proving my point the "2026" refered to the mintage.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I truly wish you the best of luck getting one!
You may be having a stroke.
No, I did not say the clad were "tied" to a larger issuance to get to a lower price point.
I did say, strictly hypothetically, that they COULD HAVE made a clad version in a larger issuance. And I suggested that might have had more appeal. You are creating a bunch of casualties that aren't even implied by what I wrote.
You have made a giant mountain out of a tiny ant hill. I suggested that a lower mintage, cheaper clad coin might have had more appeal than a lower mintage expensive coin. You probably even agree that is true. You are arguing everything except what I said.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
🤐🤐😴😴🤫🤫😊
They will be crazy about them for about 15 days.
Will those who buy them and flip make money - I absolutely think so - the $1000-$1500 range is definitely in the cards.
Buy and hold longer - risk losing any premium and probably holding the bag and maybe never getting issue price.
Good luck to all who wants one.
No. I'm arguing exactly what you said. You are just obtusely refusing to acknowledge my point.
Which is that clad is not necessary to produce in volume, or to hit a price point far lower than $750. They chose not to.
Not because they can't, but because that would defeat what they are trying to do here. $32 in silver is not why they will be asking $750. Taking that out would not necessitate a reduction in price. Certainly not to less than $100.
They could have made the silver in quantity and sold them for far less than $750. But that's not what they want with these.
So your suggestion that they COULD have turned this into something else is pointless. Because that's not what they wanted to do. And, trust me here, selling clad at less than $100 would kill any interest anyone would otherwise have in a half ounce silver version for $750. That much they know. Unlimited one ounce silver Superman medals likely reduce demand for 25K 2.5 ounce versions.
No, you're not because I NEVER said they needed a large issuance to hit that price point. Again, you are arguing casuality when "clad", "larger issuance" and "sub $100" price t ag were 3 separate properties not 3 connected properties.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
If you say so. You said it all in one sentence. I did what normal people do and connected them.
If you are going to admit that your posts are nothing more than word salad, they are probably not worth paying attention to.
Sentences are groups of words strung together to convey thoughts. Are you really saying
meant anything other than
?????
If so, while I realize that you can never admit you are wrong, and can never publicly concede a point or lose an argument, you should understand how anyone else reading what you wrote would take it. And how utterly ridiculous you now sound trying to parse your own words, rather than just admit what you said. After all, it is here for all to see.
Getting back to the release specs, IMO this thread would have ended pages ago if this was not a compelling conversational topic.
And those who are on the high horse, realize this modern merch is auctioned by your bosom buddies at all the auction houses. Deal with it.
The 75th anniversary privy gold eagle marking the end of World War II was a much better deal
Still kicking myself over that one
I’m really disliking these instant rarities.
I was OK with the gold Sacajawea dollars that were flown into space because those were made for a purpose.
I feel like I’m going to wake up tomorrow and find out the mint is going to issue ten 2027 Eisenhower dollars for $200k each and my Ike collection will never be complete