@ProofCollection said:
Wow you guys are really concerned about unsold mint inventory! If it doesn't sell out in a week the mint needs to fire sale it?
You realize they still have products like the 2024 Proof Gold Buffalos (ats 2079) and 2023 Proof APEs right (ats 640)? Why would they be so anxious to liquidate less than 1000oz of gold bells a week after going on sale?
The USM will realize thier pricing was "moon money" on the Golds - cannabalized by the Silver (even though a medal) of the same design and topic.
The other issues you mention were priced at GRID, they can hang around a while.
Assuming the USM will never reduce the price on these Gold Liberty Bells - they will sit for a long time with thick dust accumulating on those boxes.
Why does it matter what they are priced at? It cost the mint approximately the same. The other products examples I provided are also collecting dust but the mint doesn't care.
I agree with this - although I'm not sure why you are pumping these so hard.
There is zero risk to the Mint to let them sit. They generally hedge their gold and platinum positions, so fluctuations in the price of gold don't affect them.
The reason failure to sell out is important is because you can count on one hand the number of Mint issues in the last 30 years that didn't sell out in a week and ended up being anything more than bullion. That is not a big deal for something like the Gold Buffalos that is around $800 above spot. It's a HUGE problem for a coin that is $15,000 above spot.
While it may be too soon to totally bury these, it is also too late to be pumping these so hard.
Actually, no. They hedge silver, but not gold and platinum, which is why they price according to the grid.
That said, with the insane fixed price on these, precious metal pricing risk is not a factor. They have very little tied up in these, and yes, they are federal government.
They can sit on them indefinitely. They also just call it a day at the end of the year and just melt them down and be done with them.
After all, when Christmas comes and goes, anything left will be sitting until gold approaches $20K per ounce. No reason to sit on them forever rather than just turn them into cash.
They learned they can sell 2K of just about anything for $750, but can't sell 2K or 4K of gold for $20K per ounce. Let's see what they do with that information going forward.
They also released a bunch of excess inventory to the general public.
I dont agree with your assessment at all.
This issue (Gold Liberty Bells) - if it dies on the vine and excess inventory exists at year end- is PRIME for another "firesale" - call it what it whatever you want - but you can bet heavily that the "sealed bid" wont make it over 1.5x spot.
Which is a reason they won't do it. They would be totally burning whoever bought these things if they turn around sell them for 1.5x spot 5 months after selling them for 5x spot.
NEVER going to happen. Maybe years from now. But likely never. Better to melt them and preserve whatever value those that sold have than to liquidate them in a fire sale. If they do that with these, people will be reluctant to play in the future. Even more so than they will be anyway after seeing this.
Completely agree.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@NJCoin said:
They learned they can sell 2K of just about anything for $750, but can't sell 2K or 4K of gold for $20K per ounce. Let's see what they do with that information going forward.
No, they haven't learned it because it hasn't been proven or disproven yet. It's only been a week!
I disagree with your characterization, I'm not pumping them at all. I'm just being the lone voice of reason that says a successful product doesn't have to sell out in 5 minutes to be declared a success for the US Mint. I am not advocating that the gold bells will be good investments, or if people don't like the term investments, that these will appreciate in value at a noticeable rate. The silver might be. The mint doesn't care about this. For all we know, the mint may have been targeting a 6 month sell out because any thing faster actually indicates that they left money on the table.
Now if we're defining a successful product as a product that can be flipped for immediate profit, then yes these are a failure (although a few were successful at that). I don't think it's the yard stick that the community should use.
at 5x spot it was a pricing failure.
if there were 250 units @ 19,600 they would have sold out.
hey maybe they just tried to wrap up all their R&D costs and recover them thru into this one product - now they have to eat them on their P/L.
no bonuses this year
Why was it a pricing failure? If Louis Vitton reduced their prices they'd sell more handbags, but they are more than happy to have some on the shelf when you walk into the store. Why can't the mint operate the same way? That's not a pricing failure. It's intent.
@NJCoin said:
They learned they can sell 2K of just about anything for $750, but can't sell 2K or 4K of gold for $20K per ounce. Let's see what they do with that information going forward.
No, they haven't learned it because it hasn't been proven or disproven yet. It's only been a week!
I disagree with your characterization, I'm not pumping them at all. I'm just being the lone voice of reason that says a successful product doesn't have to sell out in 5 minutes to be declared a success for the US Mint. I am not advocating that the gold bells will be good investments, or if people don't like the term investments, that these will appreciate in value at a noticeable rate. The silver might be. The mint doesn't care about this. For all we know, the mint may have been targeting a 6 month sell out because any thing faster actually indicates that they left money on the table.
Now if we're defining a successful product as a product that can be flipped for immediate profit, then yes these are a failure (although a few were successful at that). I don't think it's the yard stick that the community should use.
at 5x spot it was a pricing failure.
if there were 250 units @ 19,600 they would have sold out.
hey maybe they just tried to wrap up all their R&D costs and recover them thru into this one product - now they have to eat them on their P/L.
no bonuses this year
Why was it a pricing failure? If Louis Vitton reduced their prices they'd sell more handbags, but they are more than happy to have some on the shelf when you walk into the store. Why can't the mint operate the same way? That's not a pricing failure. It's intent.
Yes, they did learn. You didn't, but they did.
Trust me, ATS in the next few weeks will be higher than today. Not lower. And, from there, it's never going down to 0.
These are expensive, and there is no flip. Anyone who might possibly want one already has one. They are not going to be selling hundreds in the next however many years, let alone weeks or months.
And, no, there was no intent to make 2K half ounce and full ounce gold and only sell around half of them. They screwed up on the pricing.
Priced the silver way too low, and priced the gold way too high. And/or, made far too few silver, and far too many gold. But, as it is, very clearly a pricing failure on the gold.
Really not sure why you can't see this. You are acting like "only" 600 remaining is nothing, as though it is 600 out of 30K. It's 600 out of 2K, and the number goes up every day. It's a lot. Especially for something designed to sell for such a premium. It would be just as bad if they set an auction reserve on the 2.5 ounce quarters, and had half of them sit unsold.
It's a huge fail, on something like this, with a mintage so low. They misjudged people's willingness to pay $750 for a half ounce of silver, so they should have made a lot more.
They also misjudged people's willingness to buy gold at $20K per ounce, so they should have made a lot less. Or not made them at all.
Huge fail. Like Linus in the Pumpkin Patch, keep waiting for the Great Pumpkin to show up and clean the Mint out of these. Just keep waiting.
This isn't Louis Vuitton, because these are never going to sell out. Never.
@NJCoin said:
They learned they can sell 2K of just about anything for $750, but can't sell 2K or 4K of gold for $20K per ounce. Let's see what they do with that information going forward.
No, they haven't learned it because it hasn't been proven or disproven yet. It's only been a week!
I disagree with your characterization, I'm not pumping them at all. I'm just being the lone voice of reason that says a successful product doesn't have to sell out in 5 minutes to be declared a success for the US Mint. I am not advocating that the gold bells will be good investments, or if people don't like the term investments, that these will appreciate in value at a noticeable rate. The silver might be. The mint doesn't care about this. For all we know, the mint may have been targeting a 6 month sell out because any thing faster actually indicates that they left money on the table.
Now if we're defining a successful product as a product that can be flipped for immediate profit, then yes these are a failure (although a few were successful at that). I don't think it's the yard stick that the community should use.
at 5x spot it was a pricing failure.
if there were 250 units @ 19,600 they would have sold out.
hey maybe they just tried to wrap up all their R&D costs and recover them thru into this one product - now they have to eat them on their P/L.
no bonuses this year
Why was it a pricing failure? If Louis Vitton reduced their prices they'd sell more handbags, but they are more than happy to have some on the shelf when you walk into the store. Why can't the mint operate the same way? That's not a pricing failure. It's intent.
Yes, they did learn. You didn't, but they did.
Trust me, ATS in the next few weeks will be higher than today. Not lower. And, from there, it's never going down to 0.
It's hard to trust you when you're wrong about so many things.
This morning a post reported an increase to 698 1oz golds. Since then they've sold 23. That's a pretty good rate. Even if that slows a little, a rate of 50-100/wk is not difficult. Within a week or so the bulk of the return window will be closed. The people buying today are keeping them, not flipping or returning them.
These are expensive, and there is no flip. Anyone who might possibly want one already has one. They are not going to be selling hundreds in the next however many years, let alone weeks or months.
You say that but today in about 12 hours they sold 23. That's pretty good evidence to the contrary.
And, no, there was no intent to make 2K half ounce and full ounce gold and only sell around half of them. They screwed up on the pricing.
Correct. They'll sell them all. Stop worrying.
Priced the silver way too low, and priced the gold way too high. And/or, made far too few silver, and far too many gold. But, as it is, very clearly a pricing failure on the gold.
It's only a failure if their goal was to sell out in 1 day. I'm pretty sure that wasn't their goal. Maybe it was YOUR goal for them, but the mint didn't need to sell them all in one day. They are not in a hurry.
Really not sure why you can't see this. You are acting like "only" 600 remaining is nothing, as though it is 600 out of 30K. It's 600 out of 2K, and the number goes up every day. It's a lot. Especially for something designed to sell for such a premium. It would be just as bad if they set an auction reserve on the 2.5 ounce quarters, and had half of them sit unsold.
I'm really not sure why you think the mint's goals align with yours. 600 is "nothing" when you're selling over 23/day., that's less than 1 month of inventory. Even if selling slows it points to months of inventory, not years.
It's a huge fail, on something like this, with a mintage so low. They misjudged people's willingness to pay $750 for a half ounce of silver, so they should have made a lot more.
You clearly don't get product positioning and marketing. It had to be 2026 because that's the year of the 250 anniversary. The mintage is part of the marketing. It's too early to call it a failure. Reopen this thread in 1 year when there are still more than a dozen on the shelf and then I'll admit it's a failure.
They also misjudged people's willingness to buy gold at $20K per ounce, so they should have made a lot less. Or not made them at all.
Huge fail. Like Linus in the Pumpkin Patch, keep waiting for the Great Pumpkin to show up and clean the Mint out of these. Just keep waiting.
Why, because they didn't sell out in 1 day? That's not a fail. It's OK for stores to have inventory and not be sold out. That doesn't make a store or a product a failure.
This isn't Louis Vuitton, because these are never going to sell out. Never.
Your crystal ball is crap. They sold 23 1oz in the past 12 hours. Plot out the trajectory. It ends at zero before the end of the year.
@NJCoin said:
They learned they can sell 2K of just about anything for $750, but can't sell 2K or 4K of gold for $20K per ounce. Let's see what they do with that information going forward.
No, they haven't learned it because it hasn't been proven or disproven yet. It's only been a week!
I disagree with your characterization, I'm not pumping them at all. I'm just being the lone voice of reason that says a successful product doesn't have to sell out in 5 minutes to be declared a success for the US Mint. I am not advocating that the gold bells will be good investments, or if people don't like the term investments, that these will appreciate in value at a noticeable rate. The silver might be. The mint doesn't care about this. For all we know, the mint may have been targeting a 6 month sell out because any thing faster actually indicates that they left money on the table.
Now if we're defining a successful product as a product that can be flipped for immediate profit, then yes these are a failure (although a few were successful at that). I don't think it's the yard stick that the community should use.
at 5x spot it was a pricing failure.
if there were 250 units @ 19,600 they would have sold out.
hey maybe they just tried to wrap up all their R&D costs and recover them thru into this one product - now they have to eat them on their P/L.
no bonuses this year
Why was it a pricing failure? If Louis Vitton reduced their prices they'd sell more handbags, but they are more than happy to have some on the shelf when you walk into the store. Why can't the mint operate the same way? That's not a pricing failure. It's intent.
Yes, they did learn. You didn't, but they did.
Trust me, ATS in the next few weeks will be higher than today. Not lower. And, from there, it's never going down to 0.
It's hard to trust you when you're wrong about so many things.
This morning a post reported an increase to 698 1oz golds. Since then they've sold 23. That's a pretty good rate. Even if that slows a little, a rate of 50-100/wk is not difficult. Within a week or so the bulk of the return window will be closed. The people buying today are keeping them, not flipping or returning them.
These are expensive, and there is no flip. Anyone who might possibly want one already has one. They are not going to be selling hundreds in the next however many years, let alone weeks or months.
You say that but today in about 12 hours they sold 23. That's pretty good evidence to the contrary.
And, no, there was no intent to make 2K half ounce and full ounce gold and only sell around half of them. They screwed up on the pricing.
Correct. They'll sell them all. Stop worrying.
Priced the silver way too low, and priced the gold way too high. And/or, made far too few silver, and far too many gold. But, as it is, very clearly a pricing failure on the gold.
It's only a failure if their goal was to sell out in 1 day. I'm pretty sure that wasn't their goal. Maybe it was YOUR goal for them, but the mint didn't need to sell them all in one day. They are not in a hurry.
Really not sure why you can't see this. You are acting like "only" 600 remaining is nothing, as though it is 600 out of 30K. It's 600 out of 2K, and the number goes up every day. It's a lot. Especially for something designed to sell for such a premium. It would be just as bad if they set an auction reserve on the 2.5 ounce quarters, and had half of them sit unsold.
I'm really not sure why you think the mint's goals align with yours. 600 is "nothing" when you're selling over 23/day., that's less than 1 month of inventory. Even if selling slows it points to months of inventory, not years.
It's a huge fail, on something like this, with a mintage so low. They misjudged people's willingness to pay $750 for a half ounce of silver, so they should have made a lot more.
You clearly don't get product positioning and marketing. It had to be 2026 because that's the year of the 250 anniversary. The mintage is part of the marketing. It's too early to call it a failure. Reopen this thread in 1 year when there are still more than a dozen on the shelf and then I'll admit it's a failure.
They also misjudged people's willingness to buy gold at $20K per ounce, so they should have made a lot less. Or not made them at all.
Huge fail. Like Linus in the Pumpkin Patch, keep waiting for the Great Pumpkin to show up and clean the Mint out of these. Just keep waiting.
Why, because they didn't sell out in 1 day? That's not a fail. It's OK for stores to have inventory and not be sold out. That doesn't make a store or a product a failure.
This isn't Louis Vuitton, because these are never going to sell out. Never.
Your crystal ball is crap. They sold 23 1oz in the past 12 hours. Plot out the trajectory. It ends at zero before the end of the year.
Yeah, your blindspot with respect to the gold is placing you right up there with me in terms of your prognostication skills.
We are both batting .500 here. The only difference is that I see it while you are still in denial.
23 in a day, a week after on sale, when they still have 600 left. Big deal.
You are extrapolating that out to a sell out, and don't realize it is only going to go down from here. To zero, well before sell out. In fact, ATS will be higher in a few weeks than it is today.
What are you going to say when several hundred come back in the next few weeks, which is GUARANTEED to happen? When will you admit, at least with respect to this, that your crystal ball is far crappier than mine? End of the year, when they are still sitting unsold? Great, I'll put it on my calendar.
@NJCoin said:
They learned they can sell 2K of just about anything for $750, but can't sell 2K or 4K of gold for $20K per ounce. Let's see what they do with that information going forward.
No, they haven't learned it because it hasn't been proven or disproven yet. It's only been a week!
I disagree with your characterization, I'm not pumping them at all. I'm just being the lone voice of reason that says a successful product doesn't have to sell out in 5 minutes to be declared a success for the US Mint. I am not advocating that the gold bells will be good investments, or if people don't like the term investments, that these will appreciate in value at a noticeable rate. The silver might be. The mint doesn't care about this. For all we know, the mint may have been targeting a 6 month sell out because any thing faster actually indicates that they left money on the table.
Now if we're defining a successful product as a product that can be flipped for immediate profit, then yes these are a failure (although a few were successful at that). I don't think it's the yard stick that the community should use.
at 5x spot it was a pricing failure.
if there were 250 units @ 19,600 they would have sold out.
hey maybe they just tried to wrap up all their R&D costs and recover them thru into this one product - now they have to eat them on their P/L.
no bonuses this year
Why was it a pricing failure? If Louis Vitton reduced their prices they'd sell more handbags, but they are more than happy to have some on the shelf when you walk into the store. Why can't the mint operate the same way? That's not a pricing failure. It's intent.
Yes, they did learn. You didn't, but they did.
Trust me, ATS in the next few weeks will be higher than today. Not lower. And, from there, it's never going down to 0.
It's hard to trust you when you're wrong about so many things.
This morning a post reported an increase to 698 1oz golds. Since then they've sold 23. That's a pretty good rate. Even if that slows a little, a rate of 50-100/wk is not difficult. Within a week or so the bulk of the return window will be closed. The people buying today are keeping them, not flipping or returning them.
These are expensive, and there is no flip. Anyone who might possibly want one already has one. They are not going to be selling hundreds in the next however many years, let alone weeks or months.
You say that but today in about 12 hours they sold 23. That's pretty good evidence to the contrary.
And, no, there was no intent to make 2K half ounce and full ounce gold and only sell around half of them. They screwed up on the pricing.
Correct. They'll sell them all. Stop worrying.
Priced the silver way too low, and priced the gold way too high. And/or, made far too few silver, and far too many gold. But, as it is, very clearly a pricing failure on the gold.
It's only a failure if their goal was to sell out in 1 day. I'm pretty sure that wasn't their goal. Maybe it was YOUR goal for them, but the mint didn't need to sell them all in one day. They are not in a hurry.
Really not sure why you can't see this. You are acting like "only" 600 remaining is nothing, as though it is 600 out of 30K. It's 600 out of 2K, and the number goes up every day. It's a lot. Especially for something designed to sell for such a premium. It would be just as bad if they set an auction reserve on the 2.5 ounce quarters, and had half of them sit unsold.
I'm really not sure why you think the mint's goals align with yours. 600 is "nothing" when you're selling over 23/day., that's less than 1 month of inventory. Even if selling slows it points to months of inventory, not years.
It's a huge fail, on something like this, with a mintage so low. They misjudged people's willingness to pay $750 for a half ounce of silver, so they should have made a lot more.
You clearly don't get product positioning and marketing. It had to be 2026 because that's the year of the 250 anniversary. The mintage is part of the marketing. It's too early to call it a failure. Reopen this thread in 1 year when there are still more than a dozen on the shelf and then I'll admit it's a failure.
They also misjudged people's willingness to buy gold at $20K per ounce, so they should have made a lot less. Or not made them at all.
Huge fail. Like Linus in the Pumpkin Patch, keep waiting for the Great Pumpkin to show up and clean the Mint out of these. Just keep waiting.
Why, because they didn't sell out in 1 day? That's not a fail. It's OK for stores to have inventory and not be sold out. That doesn't make a store or a product a failure.
This isn't Louis Vuitton, because these are never going to sell out. Never.
Your crystal ball is crap. They sold 23 1oz in the past 12 hours. Plot out the trajectory. It ends at zero before the end of the year.
Why no ATS countdown report today? Because, at this rate, they'll have more than 2026 available by the end of the year, if we "plot out the trajectory"? 🤣🤣🤣
@NJCoin said:
They learned they can sell 2K of just about anything for $750, but can't sell 2K or 4K of gold for $20K per ounce. Let's see what they do with that information going forward.
No, they haven't learned it because it hasn't been proven or disproven yet. It's only been a week!
I disagree with your characterization, I'm not pumping them at all. I'm just being the lone voice of reason that says a successful product doesn't have to sell out in 5 minutes to be declared a success for the US Mint. I am not advocating that the gold bells will be good investments, or if people don't like the term investments, that these will appreciate in value at a noticeable rate. The silver might be. The mint doesn't care about this. For all we know, the mint may have been targeting a 6 month sell out because any thing faster actually indicates that they left money on the table.
Now if we're defining a successful product as a product that can be flipped for immediate profit, then yes these are a failure (although a few were successful at that). I don't think it's the yard stick that the community should use.
at 5x spot it was a pricing failure.
if there were 250 units @ 19,600 they would have sold out.
hey maybe they just tried to wrap up all their R&D costs and recover them thru into this one product - now they have to eat them on their P/L.
no bonuses this year
Why was it a pricing failure? If Louis Vitton reduced their prices they'd sell more handbags, but they are more than happy to have some on the shelf when you walk into the store. Why can't the mint operate the same way? That's not a pricing failure. It's intent.
Yes, they did learn. You didn't, but they did.
Trust me, ATS in the next few weeks will be higher than today. Not lower. And, from there, it's never going down to 0.
It's hard to trust you when you're wrong about so many things.
This morning a post reported an increase to 698 1oz golds. Since then they've sold 23. That's a pretty good rate. Even if that slows a little, a rate of 50-100/wk is not difficult. Within a week or so the bulk of the return window will be closed. The people buying today are keeping them, not flipping or returning them.
These are expensive, and there is no flip. Anyone who might possibly want one already has one. They are not going to be selling hundreds in the next however many years, let alone weeks or months.
You say that but today in about 12 hours they sold 23. That's pretty good evidence to the contrary.
And, no, there was no intent to make 2K half ounce and full ounce gold and only sell around half of them. They screwed up on the pricing.
Correct. They'll sell them all. Stop worrying.
Priced the silver way too low, and priced the gold way too high. And/or, made far too few silver, and far too many gold. But, as it is, very clearly a pricing failure on the gold.
It's only a failure if their goal was to sell out in 1 day. I'm pretty sure that wasn't their goal. Maybe it was YOUR goal for them, but the mint didn't need to sell them all in one day. They are not in a hurry.
Really not sure why you can't see this. You are acting like "only" 600 remaining is nothing, as though it is 600 out of 30K. It's 600 out of 2K, and the number goes up every day. It's a lot. Especially for something designed to sell for such a premium. It would be just as bad if they set an auction reserve on the 2.5 ounce quarters, and had half of them sit unsold.
I'm really not sure why you think the mint's goals align with yours. 600 is "nothing" when you're selling over 23/day., that's less than 1 month of inventory. Even if selling slows it points to months of inventory, not years.
It's a huge fail, on something like this, with a mintage so low. They misjudged people's willingness to pay $750 for a half ounce of silver, so they should have made a lot more.
You clearly don't get product positioning and marketing. It had to be 2026 because that's the year of the 250 anniversary. The mintage is part of the marketing. It's too early to call it a failure. Reopen this thread in 1 year when there are still more than a dozen on the shelf and then I'll admit it's a failure.
They also misjudged people's willingness to buy gold at $20K per ounce, so they should have made a lot less. Or not made them at all.
Huge fail. Like Linus in the Pumpkin Patch, keep waiting for the Great Pumpkin to show up and clean the Mint out of these. Just keep waiting.
Why, because they didn't sell out in 1 day? That's not a fail. It's OK for stores to have inventory and not be sold out. That doesn't make a store or a product a failure.
This isn't Louis Vuitton, because these are never going to sell out. Never.
Your crystal ball is crap. They sold 23 1oz in the past 12 hours. Plot out the trajectory. It ends at zero before the end of the year.
Why no ATS countdown report today? Because, at this rate, they'll have more than 2026 available by the end of the year, if we "plot out the trajectory"? 🤣🤣🤣
707 one ounce
501 half ounce
Still going up, as expected.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@NJCoin said:
They learned they can sell 2K of just about anything for $750, but can't sell 2K or 4K of gold for $20K per ounce. Let's see what they do with that information going forward.
No, they haven't learned it because it hasn't been proven or disproven yet. It's only been a week!
I disagree with your characterization, I'm not pumping them at all. I'm just being the lone voice of reason that says a successful product doesn't have to sell out in 5 minutes to be declared a success for the US Mint. I am not advocating that the gold bells will be good investments, or if people don't like the term investments, that these will appreciate in value at a noticeable rate. The silver might be. The mint doesn't care about this. For all we know, the mint may have been targeting a 6 month sell out because any thing faster actually indicates that they left money on the table.
Now if we're defining a successful product as a product that can be flipped for immediate profit, then yes these are a failure (although a few were successful at that). I don't think it's the yard stick that the community should use.
at 5x spot it was a pricing failure.
if there were 250 units @ 19,600 they would have sold out.
hey maybe they just tried to wrap up all their R&D costs and recover them thru into this one product - now they have to eat them on their P/L.
no bonuses this year
Why was it a pricing failure? If Louis Vitton reduced their prices they'd sell more handbags, but they are more than happy to have some on the shelf when you walk into the store. Why can't the mint operate the same way? That's not a pricing failure. It's intent.
Yes, they did learn. You didn't, but they did.
Trust me, ATS in the next few weeks will be higher than today. Not lower. And, from there, it's never going down to 0.
It's hard to trust you when you're wrong about so many things.
This morning a post reported an increase to 698 1oz golds. Since then they've sold 23. That's a pretty good rate. Even if that slows a little, a rate of 50-100/wk is not difficult. Within a week or so the bulk of the return window will be closed. The people buying today are keeping them, not flipping or returning them.
These are expensive, and there is no flip. Anyone who might possibly want one already has one. They are not going to be selling hundreds in the next however many years, let alone weeks or months.
You say that but today in about 12 hours they sold 23. That's pretty good evidence to the contrary.
And, no, there was no intent to make 2K half ounce and full ounce gold and only sell around half of them. They screwed up on the pricing.
Correct. They'll sell them all. Stop worrying.
Priced the silver way too low, and priced the gold way too high. And/or, made far too few silver, and far too many gold. But, as it is, very clearly a pricing failure on the gold.
It's only a failure if their goal was to sell out in 1 day. I'm pretty sure that wasn't their goal. Maybe it was YOUR goal for them, but the mint didn't need to sell them all in one day. They are not in a hurry.
Really not sure why you can't see this. You are acting like "only" 600 remaining is nothing, as though it is 600 out of 30K. It's 600 out of 2K, and the number goes up every day. It's a lot. Especially for something designed to sell for such a premium. It would be just as bad if they set an auction reserve on the 2.5 ounce quarters, and had half of them sit unsold.
I'm really not sure why you think the mint's goals align with yours. 600 is "nothing" when you're selling over 23/day., that's less than 1 month of inventory. Even if selling slows it points to months of inventory, not years.
It's a huge fail, on something like this, with a mintage so low. They misjudged people's willingness to pay $750 for a half ounce of silver, so they should have made a lot more.
You clearly don't get product positioning and marketing. It had to be 2026 because that's the year of the 250 anniversary. The mintage is part of the marketing. It's too early to call it a failure. Reopen this thread in 1 year when there are still more than a dozen on the shelf and then I'll admit it's a failure.
They also misjudged people's willingness to buy gold at $20K per ounce, so they should have made a lot less. Or not made them at all.
Huge fail. Like Linus in the Pumpkin Patch, keep waiting for the Great Pumpkin to show up and clean the Mint out of these. Just keep waiting.
Why, because they didn't sell out in 1 day? That's not a fail. It's OK for stores to have inventory and not be sold out. That doesn't make a store or a product a failure.
This isn't Louis Vuitton, because these are never going to sell out. Never.
Your crystal ball is crap. They sold 23 1oz in the past 12 hours. Plot out the trajectory. It ends at zero before the end of the year.
Why no ATS countdown report today? Because, at this rate, they'll have more than 2026 available by the end of the year, if we "plot out the trajectory"? 🤣🤣🤣
707 one ounce
501 half ounce
Still going up, as expected.
I just love the way some people won't shut up when they are right, but disappear when they are wrong. At least I don't hide either way.
@NJCoin said:
They learned they can sell 2K of just about anything for $750, but can't sell 2K or 4K of gold for $20K per ounce. Let's see what they do with that information going forward.
No, they haven't learned it because it hasn't been proven or disproven yet. It's only been a week!
I disagree with your characterization, I'm not pumping them at all. I'm just being the lone voice of reason that says a successful product doesn't have to sell out in 5 minutes to be declared a success for the US Mint. I am not advocating that the gold bells will be good investments, or if people don't like the term investments, that these will appreciate in value at a noticeable rate. The silver might be. The mint doesn't care about this. For all we know, the mint may have been targeting a 6 month sell out because any thing faster actually indicates that they left money on the table.
Now if we're defining a successful product as a product that can be flipped for immediate profit, then yes these are a failure (although a few were successful at that). I don't think it's the yard stick that the community should use.
at 5x spot it was a pricing failure.
if there were 250 units @ 19,600 they would have sold out.
hey maybe they just tried to wrap up all their R&D costs and recover them thru into this one product - now they have to eat them on their P/L.
no bonuses this year
Why was it a pricing failure? If Louis Vitton reduced their prices they'd sell more handbags, but they are more than happy to have some on the shelf when you walk into the store. Why can't the mint operate the same way? That's not a pricing failure. It's intent.
Yes, they did learn. You didn't, but they did.
Trust me, ATS in the next few weeks will be higher than today. Not lower. And, from there, it's never going down to 0.
It's hard to trust you when you're wrong about so many things.
This morning a post reported an increase to 698 1oz golds. Since then they've sold 23. That's a pretty good rate. Even if that slows a little, a rate of 50-100/wk is not difficult. Within a week or so the bulk of the return window will be closed. The people buying today are keeping them, not flipping or returning them.
These are expensive, and there is no flip. Anyone who might possibly want one already has one. They are not going to be selling hundreds in the next however many years, let alone weeks or months.
You say that but today in about 12 hours they sold 23. That's pretty good evidence to the contrary.
And, no, there was no intent to make 2K half ounce and full ounce gold and only sell around half of them. They screwed up on the pricing.
Correct. They'll sell them all. Stop worrying.
Priced the silver way too low, and priced the gold way too high. And/or, made far too few silver, and far too many gold. But, as it is, very clearly a pricing failure on the gold.
It's only a failure if their goal was to sell out in 1 day. I'm pretty sure that wasn't their goal. Maybe it was YOUR goal for them, but the mint didn't need to sell them all in one day. They are not in a hurry.
Really not sure why you can't see this. You are acting like "only" 600 remaining is nothing, as though it is 600 out of 30K. It's 600 out of 2K, and the number goes up every day. It's a lot. Especially for something designed to sell for such a premium. It would be just as bad if they set an auction reserve on the 2.5 ounce quarters, and had half of them sit unsold.
I'm really not sure why you think the mint's goals align with yours. 600 is "nothing" when you're selling over 23/day., that's less than 1 month of inventory. Even if selling slows it points to months of inventory, not years.
It's a huge fail, on something like this, with a mintage so low. They misjudged people's willingness to pay $750 for a half ounce of silver, so they should have made a lot more.
You clearly don't get product positioning and marketing. It had to be 2026 because that's the year of the 250 anniversary. The mintage is part of the marketing. It's too early to call it a failure. Reopen this thread in 1 year when there are still more than a dozen on the shelf and then I'll admit it's a failure.
They also misjudged people's willingness to buy gold at $20K per ounce, so they should have made a lot less. Or not made them at all.
Huge fail. Like Linus in the Pumpkin Patch, keep waiting for the Great Pumpkin to show up and clean the Mint out of these. Just keep waiting.
Why, because they didn't sell out in 1 day? That's not a fail. It's OK for stores to have inventory and not be sold out. That doesn't make a store or a product a failure.
This isn't Louis Vuitton, because these are never going to sell out. Never.
Your crystal ball is crap. They sold 23 1oz in the past 12 hours. Plot out the trajectory. It ends at zero before the end of the year.
Why no ATS countdown report today? Because, at this rate, they'll have more than 2026 available by the end of the year, if we "plot out the trajectory"? 🤣🤣🤣
707 one ounce
501 half ounce
Still going up, as expected.
I just love the way some people won't shut up when they are right, but disappear when they are wrong. At least I don't hide either way.
@NJCoin said:
They learned they can sell 2K of just about anything for $750, but can't sell 2K or 4K of gold for $20K per ounce. Let's see what they do with that information going forward.
No, they haven't learned it because it hasn't been proven or disproven yet. It's only been a week!
I disagree with your characterization, I'm not pumping them at all. I'm just being the lone voice of reason that says a successful product doesn't have to sell out in 5 minutes to be declared a success for the US Mint. I am not advocating that the gold bells will be good investments, or if people don't like the term investments, that these will appreciate in value at a noticeable rate. The silver might be. The mint doesn't care about this. For all we know, the mint may have been targeting a 6 month sell out because any thing faster actually indicates that they left money on the table.
Now if we're defining a successful product as a product that can be flipped for immediate profit, then yes these are a failure (although a few were successful at that). I don't think it's the yard stick that the community should use.
at 5x spot it was a pricing failure.
if there were 250 units @ 19,600 they would have sold out.
hey maybe they just tried to wrap up all their R&D costs and recover them thru into this one product - now they have to eat them on their P/L.
no bonuses this year
Why was it a pricing failure? If Louis Vitton reduced their prices they'd sell more handbags, but they are more than happy to have some on the shelf when you walk into the store. Why can't the mint operate the same way? That's not a pricing failure. It's intent.
Yes, they did learn. You didn't, but they did.
Trust me, ATS in the next few weeks will be higher than today. Not lower. And, from there, it's never going down to 0.
It's hard to trust you when you're wrong about so many things.
This morning a post reported an increase to 698 1oz golds. Since then they've sold 23. That's a pretty good rate. Even if that slows a little, a rate of 50-100/wk is not difficult. Within a week or so the bulk of the return window will be closed. The people buying today are keeping them, not flipping or returning them.
These are expensive, and there is no flip. Anyone who might possibly want one already has one. They are not going to be selling hundreds in the next however many years, let alone weeks or months.
You say that but today in about 12 hours they sold 23. That's pretty good evidence to the contrary.
And, no, there was no intent to make 2K half ounce and full ounce gold and only sell around half of them. They screwed up on the pricing.
Correct. They'll sell them all. Stop worrying.
Priced the silver way too low, and priced the gold way too high. And/or, made far too few silver, and far too many gold. But, as it is, very clearly a pricing failure on the gold.
It's only a failure if their goal was to sell out in 1 day. I'm pretty sure that wasn't their goal. Maybe it was YOUR goal for them, but the mint didn't need to sell them all in one day. They are not in a hurry.
Really not sure why you can't see this. You are acting like "only" 600 remaining is nothing, as though it is 600 out of 30K. It's 600 out of 2K, and the number goes up every day. It's a lot. Especially for something designed to sell for such a premium. It would be just as bad if they set an auction reserve on the 2.5 ounce quarters, and had half of them sit unsold.
I'm really not sure why you think the mint's goals align with yours. 600 is "nothing" when you're selling over 23/day., that's less than 1 month of inventory. Even if selling slows it points to months of inventory, not years.
It's a huge fail, on something like this, with a mintage so low. They misjudged people's willingness to pay $750 for a half ounce of silver, so they should have made a lot more.
You clearly don't get product positioning and marketing. It had to be 2026 because that's the year of the 250 anniversary. The mintage is part of the marketing. It's too early to call it a failure. Reopen this thread in 1 year when there are still more than a dozen on the shelf and then I'll admit it's a failure.
They also misjudged people's willingness to buy gold at $20K per ounce, so they should have made a lot less. Or not made them at all.
Huge fail. Like Linus in the Pumpkin Patch, keep waiting for the Great Pumpkin to show up and clean the Mint out of these. Just keep waiting.
Why, because they didn't sell out in 1 day? That's not a fail. It's OK for stores to have inventory and not be sold out. That doesn't make a store or a product a failure.
This isn't Louis Vuitton, because these are never going to sell out. Never.
Your crystal ball is crap. They sold 23 1oz in the past 12 hours. Plot out the trajectory. It ends at zero before the end of the year.
Why no ATS countdown report today? Because, at this rate, they'll have more than 2026 available by the end of the year, if we "plot out the trajectory"? 🤣🤣🤣
No, sometimes I have things to do than sit on the message board. Since that posted they sold 15 half ounce and 10 1oz. Not bad. At 10/day that's 70 days of inventory. As I said above, the returns will cease once we're out of the return window and the inventory will stop going up. You all should understand this.
I also won't be wrong until the end of the year, as I have been clear that these will sell out by then.
I just cant wrap my head around the packaging. They really couldn't manufacture a proper fitting capsule for an almost $20,000 coin? It is insulting to coin collectors for the Mint to send these out moving around in their holders.
If I had the money and the interest in spending it on this issue, Id buy one certified down the line.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
You guys don't realize that they haven't even begun to process actual physical returns. The ATS at the end of the year will be hundreds higher than it is right now. Not 0.
Many posts around various forums seem to be people that wanted to see it in person, get a few pictures, rattling it around in the loose oversized capsule for a good laugh, then getting it ready for return. Seems like the ATS will still be rising.
@GivenToFly55 said:
Many posts around various forums seem to be people that wanted to see it in person, get a few pictures, rattling it around in the loose oversized capsule for a good laugh, then getting it ready for return. Seems like the ATS will still be rising.
I highly doubt anyone would be shelling out $10k just to play with a coin (bell), grab a few pics for the Instagram page, and get a few laughs before returning.
BTW, while I may have been the FIRST to indicate the condition of the holder and how the coin (bell) could freely move within its holder - it's not like the coin (bell) is just rattileing around inside. There is a rubberized base on the bottom, and a rubberized sheet across the top of the holder, that prevents it from "rattling" around, but still allows movement of the coin (bell). The coin (bell) is "sandwiched" between these two rubber surfaces but still allows for limited movement.
The poor design of the holder, IMO, allows for the surface to be too easily scratched - it is after all highly pure gold content item and if you even look at it cross-eyed, the surface will get marked up. The edges of the coin (bell) don't 100% protect it from obtaining these surface imperfections after production.
But yes, the ATS will be rising, as other have indicated - as the return window is now open and then it should cease and we will watch it slowly fall as some continue to buy this coin (why, I have NO idea - these is the Edsel of coins).
@GivenToFly55 said:
Many posts around various forums seem to be people that wanted to see it in person, get a few pictures, rattling it around in the loose oversized capsule for a good laugh, then getting it ready for return. Seems like the ATS will still be rising.
I highly doubt anyone would be shelling out $10k just to play with a coin (bell), grab a few pics for the Instagram page, and get a few laughs before returning.
BTW, while I may have been the FIRST to indicate the condition of the holder and how the coin (bell) could freely move within its holder - it's not like the coin (bell) is just rattileing around inside. There is a rubberized base on the bottom, and a rubberized sheet across the top of the holder, that prevents it from "rattling" around, but still allows movement of the coin (bell). The coin (bell) is "sandwiched" between these two rubber surfaces but still allows for limited movement.
The poor design of the holder, IMO, allows for the surface to be too easily scratched - it is after all highly pure gold content item and if you even look at it cross-eyed, the surface will get marked up. The edges of the coin (bell) don't 100% protect it from obtaining these surface imperfections after production.
But yes, the ATS will be rising, as other have indicated - as the return window is now open and then it should cease and we will watch it slowly fall as some continue to buy this coin (why, I have NO idea - these is the Edsel of coins).
SOME will continue to buy. But, historically, "some" is very few once you get much past the release date. I would not be surprised if the end-of-year inventory number is significantly higher than the current number.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@DCW said:
I just cant wrap my head around the packaging. They really couldn't manufacture a proper fitting capsule for an almost $20,000 coin? It is insulting to coin collectors for the Mint to send these out moving around in their holders.
If I had the money and the interest in spending it on this issue, Id buy one certified down the line.
Yes, they could’ve done a better job and produced a custom shaped capsule. However, the coin will be fine no matter where it ends up. ie; a safe, SDB, or TPG holder.
Yes, the coin will slide and move around laterally inside the capsule; and yes, the edge of the coin will tap the sidewall of the capsule if either mishandled, shaken, or shipped. IMO, that is negligible, a non-issue, and I don't see damage happening to the radiused/cornered edges. Just me.
The Bell capsule is a deep, four(4) part assembly that is comprised of the two outer halves that snap together as usual, along with two thin, clear, flexible layers of a siliconized-type rubber membrane attached 1/8 of an inch away from the upper/lower surface of each capsule half.
This in turn leaves the coin suspended in midair within the capsule. I’m sure it’s a non-plasticized membrane.
Between the raised edge rim, and the protective membrane, the Bells are in little, to no danger of being damaged while in these holders, just me.
.
.
My guess is that the Mint has used a similar membrane-type product similar to what the TPG's use to "suspend" small coins within the holder.
.
@DCW said:
I just cant wrap my head around the packaging. They really couldn't manufacture a proper fitting capsule for an almost $20,000 coin? It is insulting to coin collectors for the Mint to send these out moving around in their holders.
If I had the money and the interest in spending it on this issue, Id buy one certified down the line.
Yes, they could’ve done a better job and produced a custom shaped capsule. However, the coin will be fine no matter where it ends up. ie; a safe, SDB, or TPG holder.
Yes, the coin will slide and move around laterally inside the capsule; and yes, the edge of the coin will tap the sidewall of the capsule if either mishandled, shaken, or shipped. IMO, that is negligible, a non-issue, and I don't see damage happening to the radiused/cornered edges. Just me.
The Bell capsule is a deep, four(4) part assembly that is comprised of the two outer halves that snap together as usual, along with two thin, clear, flexible layers of a siliconized-type rubber membrane attached 1/8 of an inch away from the upper/lower surface of each capsule half.
This in turn leaves the coin suspended in midair within the capsule. I’m sure it’s a non-plasticized membrane.
Between the raised edge rim, and the protective membrane, the Bells are in little, to no danger of being damaged while in these holders, just me.
.
.
My guess is that the Mint has used a similar membrane-type product similar to what the TPG's use to "suspend" small coins within the holder.
.
When I opened my box up for the 1st time, my coin (bell) was all the way over on the left side of the holder. As I held the holder in my hand and turned it over to see the reverse side, the coin "slid" within the holder.
IMO, those two layers of silicon don't do the best job of holding the coin (bell) securely in place.
As to the rim keeping the surface of the coin (bell) suspended - I don't see it that way.
Instead, I see the coin (bell) sitting there, as one would lie on a air mattress in a pool. While you may not sink into the pool, as your suspended by the air mattress above the water, your butt, back, etc are all going to sink into the surface of the air mattress (yeah, bad analogy...) But, the surface is def. touching the surface of the silicone. And thus, is highly subject to easily getting scratched (as was evident with mine). As I took my loupe and looked at the coin/bell, I was shocked at how much the surface already had fine scratches in it as well as the uneven edges and the finning error I had.
FWIW, in 2022 the Paris Mint produced this irregularly shaped silver commemorative. Like the Liberty Bell coin, it also came in an oversized round capsule. But the capsule was manufactured with small prongs inside to hold the piece in place. I guess the U.S. Mint could have done something similar, but for some reason chose not to.
The problem with my silver Liberty Bell capsule was that the 2 halves weren't pushed fully tight together to suspend the Medal onto these 2 silicone like padding.
Once push tighter, the medal won't be going anywhere.
@Sweetpie said:
The problem with my silver Liberty Bell capsule was that the 2 halves weren't pushed fully tight together to suspend the Medal in these 2 silicone like padding.
Once push tighter, the medal won't be going anywhere.
Same with the Gold - just a little tighter!
That Silver looks pretty good, first in-hand one I've seen.
Did you by chance buy it from the Mint directly or buy it on the secondary?
Unfortunately I had to raid my child's future college fund to get this in the secondary market. I was kinda surprised it got shipped based on the assumption that a large percentage of the 2026 Silver orders were bought by bots and were subsequently canceled by the mint.
Someone asked for a closeup of the window details:
It's unfortunate that the USM priced the Golds so high - just not worth it.
I bought the one oz - and im not impressed. It is being returned as well. The quality is not that good - some spotting even seen on the bell itself - edges were not so bad.
The USM has a big backlog on returns - they are asking that the Gold Bells returned....to be called in and wait for a special UPS return label (air/fully insured) is sent to use when returning the product.
The label takes more than a few days to actually get to people.
So - as a result - expect to see many more Gold bells available soon.
1 oz Gold Bell ATS today=732.
I suspect this will grow to well over a thousand, maybe even 1300-1500.
All joking aside - the USM missed a "Golden Opportunity" to reprice the bell once they saw the immediate result and return requests.
Cut the price in half and see how many are returned - probably very few. They could have instructed the Customer Servcie to issue refunds to those willing to keep it.
@coiner said:
Cut the price in half and see how many are returned - probably very few. They could have instructed the Customer Servcie to issue refunds to those willing to keep it.
I think I might have considered the Gold coins if they were half their original price.
@TomB said:
And yet even with those precautions; the end of one paw, part of the beard and the tip of the nose still broke off from the Lourvre coin!
Good one. I know you are joking, but for others I will note the coin is meant to mimic the actual condition of the statue of Tanis at the Louvre museum.
@jmlanzaf said:
Hopefully, the Mint will rethink their return policy.
That in itself may create more availability on drop day. A win-win for the taxpayer and for the actual collector.
When the buyer's clubs are actually telling their people to take advantage of the free returns to see if a flip develops, it's gone too far.
Adjusting the return policy would possibly solve that and take the clubs out of the equation. It’s better to compete with collectors and a smaller number of flippers than to have Johnny-college boy competing for credit card rewards and $100.
(Yes, I do know a Johnny who was doing this to pay for college books and vape pens. lol!)
@jmlanzaf said:
Hopefully, the Mint will rethink their return policy.
That in itself may create more availability on drop day. A win-win for the taxpayer and for the actual collector.
When the buyer's clubs are actually telling their people to take advantage of the free returns to see if a flip develops, it's gone too far.
Adjusting the return policy would possibly solve that and take the clubs out of the equation. It’s better to compete with collectors and a smaller number of flippers than to have Johnny-college boy competing for credit card rewards and $100.
(Yes, I do know a Johnny who was doing this to pay for college books and vape pens. lol!)
Well, at least books were on his shopping list also... unless they were coloring books.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@coiner said:
It's unfortunate that the USM priced the Golds so high - just not worth it.
I bought the one oz - and im not impressed. It is being returned as well. The quality is not that good - some spotting even seen on the bell itself - edges were not so bad.
The USM has a big backlog on returns - they are asking that the Gold Bells returned....to be called in and wait for a special UPS return label (air/fully insured) is sent to use when returning the product.
The label takes more than a few days to actually get to people.
So - as a result - expect to see many more Gold bells available soon.
Excellent information, thanks. Interesting that the mint's shipper is providing labels for air/insured shipping. It'll be very interesting to watch the ATS grow over time now that the returns process is under way. They could hardly have done a poorer job on the issue of these gold "coins" if they had tried to; all the way from pricing to encapsulation to shipping.
@jmlanzaf said:
Hopefully, the Mint will rethink their return policy.
That in itself may create more availability on drop day. A win-win for the taxpayer and for the actual collector.
When the buyer's clubs are actually telling their people to take advantage of the free returns to see if a flip develops, it's gone too far.
Correct. But what you want is unworkable, because you simply cannot refuse to accept returns on such expensive items.
Do you think they will be better off if they refuse buyer's remorse returns, if that means encouraging people to damage coins in order to return them? A restocking fee might help. But again, that won't fly for damaged items. And, if they insist on replacing damaged coins with good ones, you could end up in a vicious cycle where people who don't want to accept the haircut on a refund just keep damaging coins and returning them until the Mint gives up and waives the restocking fee.
No, this is what it is, and is the result of obnoxiously limiting mintages and jacking up prices like this. The answer is figuring out where the market is, and then meeting it, rather than trying to straddle the line between creating a side hustle for flippers while also trying to capture as much of the secondary market premium for the Mint as possible.
Nothing the Mint makes, nothing at all, should disappear in less than a minute. Similarly, nothing should lend itself to the level of cancellations and returns as these are. Shame on the Mint on all counts.
The Mint has lots of data and experience at this point on how much of most things they can sell, and at what prices. This was just an experiment gone haywire as they tried to straddle the line between a few hundred to be sold at auction and the "normal" quantity of several thousand of a gold product, and tens of thousands of silver typically sold via the website.
They are getting exactly what they deserve with this, even if some here still don't see it. This is an unmitigated disaster for them. They are not going to backtrack now by dropping prices, as much as people would love to see that, because that would set a terrible precedent for any other stupid experiments they might want to try in the future.
If they are smart, they will take the hit, melt whatever is left down at the end of the year, and give a nice unexpected surprise to whoever kept them. For better or worse, THAT might actually encourage people to take stupid shots at stupid things with stupid pricing in the future.
That news about the process they are implementing for the returns provides insight into the timeline to add returns back to ATS. Some here will be utterly shocked when they see the final results, given that this likely means that nothing we have seen yet represents an actual return.
If they are smart, they will take the hit, melt whatever is left down at the end of the year, and give a nice unexpected surprise to whoever kept them. For better or worse, THAT might actually encourage people to take stupid shots at stupid things with stupid pricing in the future.
They won't melt them. They will eventually "back door" them out to some of big boy's at reduced prices.
Actually, when the USM had reported a larger number of sales than was truth; the end collector suffered even though they later reported a lower number.
If they are smart, they will take the hit, melt whatever is left down at the end of the year, and give a nice unexpected surprise to whoever kept them. For better or worse, THAT might actually encourage people to take stupid shots at stupid things with stupid pricing in the future.
They won't melt them. They will eventually "back door" them out to some of big boy's at reduced prices.
Actually, when the USM had reported a larger number of sales than was truth; the end collector suffered even though they later reported a lower number.
No. They won't. They don't usually do that and no big boy wants them.
And if they heavily discounted them, they would drop the value for all the previous buyers.
If they do what they did the one time they did it, a 10% discount is not going to get any big boy interested.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@jmlanzaf said:
Hopefully, the Mint will rethink their return policy.
That in itself may create more availability on drop day. A win-win for the taxpayer and for the actual collector.
When the buyer's clubs are actually telling their people to take advantage of the free returns to see if a flip develops, it's gone too far.
Correct. But what you want is unworkable, because you simply cannot refuse to accept returns on such expensive items.
Do you think they will be better off if they refuse buyer's remorse returns, if that means encouraging people to damage coins in order to return them? A restocking fee might help. But again, that won't fly for damaged items. And, if they insist on replacing damaged coins with good ones, you could end up in a vicious cycle where people who don't want to accept the haircut on a refund just keep damaging coins and returning them until the Mint gives up and waives the restocking fee.
No, this is what it is, and is the result of obnoxiously limiting mintages and jacking up prices like this. The answer is figuring out where the market is, and then meeting it, rather than trying to straddle the line between creating a side hustle for flippers while also trying to capture as much of the secondary market premium for the Mint as possible.
Nothing the Mint makes, nothing at all, should disappear in less than a minute. Similarly, nothing should lend itself to the level of cancellations and returns as these are. Shame on the Mint on all counts.
The Mint has lots of data and experience at this point on how much of most things they can sell, and at what prices. This was just an experiment gone haywire as they tried to straddle the line between a few hundred to be sold at auction and the "normal" quantity of several thousand of a gold product, and tens of thousands of silver typically sold via the website.
They are getting exactly what they deserve with this, even if some here still don't see it. This is an unmitigated disaster for them. They are not going to backtrack now by dropping prices, as much as people would love to see that, because that would set a terrible precedent for any other stupid experiments they might want to try in the future.
If they are smart, they will take the hit, melt whatever is left down at the end of the year, and give a nice unexpected surprise to whoever kept them. For better or worse, THAT might actually encourage people to take stupid shots at stupid things with stupid pricing in the future.
That news about the process they are implementing for the returns provides insight into the timeline to add returns back to ATS. Some here will be utterly shocked when they see the final results, given that this likely means that nothing we have seen yet represents an actual return.
I didn't say I would refuse returns. I would allow exchanges. But pure returns should have a restocking fee.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
No. They won't. They don't usually do that and no big boy wants them.
And if they heavily discounted them, they would drop the value for all the previous buyers.
If they do what they did the one time they did it, a 10% discount is not going to get any big boy interested.
Dont be so sure of yourself.
Heavily discounted in a transaction you will never know the details.
You can hallucinate paranoid delusions all you want, but there is no evidence that they ever do this or would ever do this.
When you look at the ridiculously small discounts the biggest of the big get, you realize how little favoritism the Mint shows.
Agree. The only "favoritism" is preferred access to hard to get items. Which is not nothing in a world where dealers are forced to pay premiums on the secondary market for access to hot items.
And, in general, I have absolutely no problem with them taking care of their very best customers. My only gripe was when they intentionally under produced FH silver medals, and consequently over seeded sealed boxes with privies that were very valuable and disproportionately went to dealers.
I don't think that should have happened. The boxes they received should not have contained privies. And, their allocations should have been based on actual production, not on a theoretical mintage limit the Mint knew it was not going to hit.
In any event, no, they are not going to dump $20K per ounce gold in order to give a few dealers a windfall while ultimately destroying the market for those who paid up. Doing that would come at the cost of people never taking a chance on anything like this in the future. Because it would condition dealers to wait for the dump. Which would, in turn, destroy anyone else's hope for a flip to them.
They will ultimately take the hit and melt these. At least the conversation has now turned away from a countdown to sell out.
Comments
Actually, no. They hedge silver, but not gold and platinum, which is why they price according to the grid.
That said, with the insane fixed price on these, precious metal pricing risk is not a factor. They have very little tied up in these, and yes, they are federal government.
They can sit on them indefinitely. They also just call it a day at the end of the year and just melt them down and be done with them.
After all, when Christmas comes and goes, anything left will be sitting until gold approaches $20K per ounce. No reason to sit on them forever rather than just turn them into cash.
They learned they can sell 2K of just about anything for $750, but can't sell 2K or 4K of gold for $20K per ounce. Let's see what they do with that information going forward.
Completely agree.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
No, they haven't learned it because it hasn't been proven or disproven yet. It's only been a week!
Why was it a pricing failure? If Louis Vitton reduced their prices they'd sell more handbags, but they are more than happy to have some on the shelf when you walk into the store. Why can't the mint operate the same way? That's not a pricing failure. It's intent.
Yes, they did learn. You didn't, but they did.
Trust me, ATS in the next few weeks will be higher than today. Not lower. And, from there, it's never going down to 0.
These are expensive, and there is no flip. Anyone who might possibly want one already has one. They are not going to be selling hundreds in the next however many years, let alone weeks or months.
And, no, there was no intent to make 2K half ounce and full ounce gold and only sell around half of them. They screwed up on the pricing.
Priced the silver way too low, and priced the gold way too high. And/or, made far too few silver, and far too many gold. But, as it is, very clearly a pricing failure on the gold.
Really not sure why you can't see this. You are acting like "only" 600 remaining is nothing, as though it is 600 out of 30K. It's 600 out of 2K, and the number goes up every day. It's a lot. Especially for something designed to sell for such a premium. It would be just as bad if they set an auction reserve on the 2.5 ounce quarters, and had half of them sit unsold.
It's a huge fail, on something like this, with a mintage so low. They misjudged people's willingness to pay $750 for a half ounce of silver, so they should have made a lot more.
They also misjudged people's willingness to buy gold at $20K per ounce, so they should have made a lot less. Or not made them at all.
Huge fail. Like Linus in the Pumpkin Patch, keep waiting for the Great Pumpkin to show up and clean the Mint out of these. Just keep waiting.
This isn't Louis Vuitton, because these are never going to sell out. Never.
It's hard to trust you when you're wrong about so many things.
This morning a post reported an increase to 698 1oz golds. Since then they've sold 23. That's a pretty good rate. Even if that slows a little, a rate of 50-100/wk is not difficult. Within a week or so the bulk of the return window will be closed. The people buying today are keeping them, not flipping or returning them.
You say that but today in about 12 hours they sold 23. That's pretty good evidence to the contrary.
Correct. They'll sell them all. Stop worrying.
It's only a failure if their goal was to sell out in 1 day. I'm pretty sure that wasn't their goal. Maybe it was YOUR goal for them, but the mint didn't need to sell them all in one day. They are not in a hurry.
I'm really not sure why you think the mint's goals align with yours. 600 is "nothing" when you're selling over 23/day., that's less than 1 month of inventory. Even if selling slows it points to months of inventory, not years.
You clearly don't get product positioning and marketing. It had to be 2026 because that's the year of the 250 anniversary. The mintage is part of the marketing. It's too early to call it a failure. Reopen this thread in 1 year when there are still more than a dozen on the shelf and then I'll admit it's a failure.
Why, because they didn't sell out in 1 day? That's not a fail. It's OK for stores to have inventory and not be sold out. That doesn't make a store or a product a failure.
Your crystal ball is crap. They sold 23 1oz in the past 12 hours. Plot out the trajectory. It ends at zero before the end of the year.
Yeah, your blindspot with respect to the gold is placing you right up there with me in terms of your prognostication skills.
We are both batting .500 here. The only difference is that I see it while you are still in denial.
23 in a day, a week after on sale, when they still have 600 left. Big deal.
You are extrapolating that out to a sell out, and don't realize it is only going to go down from here. To zero, well before sell out. In fact, ATS will be higher in a few weeks than it is today.
What are you going to say when several hundred come back in the next few weeks, which is GUARANTEED to happen? When will you admit, at least with respect to this, that your crystal ball is far crappier than mine? End of the year, when they are still sitting unsold? Great, I'll put it on my calendar.
Another Gold Bell Arrival
Also Bell details & overall product numbers info here:
https://www.coinnews.net/2026/07/22/freedom-ringing-coins-medal-arrive/?
It beggars belief. Almost twenty thousand dollars for a carelessly produced and haphazardly packaged trinket. But wait, it's rare!!!!!!!!
Now listen boy, I'm tryin' to teach you sumthin' . . . . that ain't an optical illusion, it only looks like an optical illusion.
My mind reader refuses to charge me. . . . . . .
Is it just me, or do these coins not look as pristine as the pictures on the mint site? What kind of PCGS rating will they get?
Why no ATS countdown report today? Because, at this rate, they'll have more than 2026 available by the end of the year, if we "plot out the trajectory"? 🤣🤣🤣
707 one ounce
501 half ounce
Still going up, as expected.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I just love the way some people won't shut up when they are right, but disappear when they are wrong. At least I don't hide either way.
No, sometimes I have things to do than sit on the message board. Since that posted they sold 15 half ounce and 10 1oz. Not bad. At 10/day that's 70 days of inventory. As I said above, the returns will cease once we're out of the return window and the inventory will stop going up. You all should understand this.
I also won't be wrong until the end of the year, as I have been clear that these will sell out by then.
Lol, there he goes again.
The Bells will be long gone by years end.
Possible, but I kind of doubt it.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I just cant wrap my head around the packaging. They really couldn't manufacture a proper fitting capsule for an almost $20,000 coin? It is insulting to coin collectors for the Mint to send these out moving around in their holders.
If I had the money and the interest in spending it on this issue, Id buy one certified down the line.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
very much doubt it. Extrapolating the current anemic sales rate to the next few months is a fools errand
Yeah. We'll see. Long gone. 🤣🤣🤣
You guys don't realize that they haven't even begun to process actual physical returns. The ATS at the end of the year will be hundreds higher than it is right now. Not 0.
Many posts around various forums seem to be people that wanted to see it in person, get a few pictures, rattling it around in the loose oversized capsule for a good laugh, then getting it ready for return. Seems like the ATS will still be rising.
I highly doubt anyone would be shelling out $10k just to play with a coin (bell), grab a few pics for the Instagram page, and get a few laughs before returning.
BTW, while I may have been the FIRST to indicate the condition of the holder and how the coin (bell) could freely move within its holder - it's not like the coin (bell) is just rattileing around inside. There is a rubberized base on the bottom, and a rubberized sheet across the top of the holder, that prevents it from "rattling" around, but still allows movement of the coin (bell). The coin (bell) is "sandwiched" between these two rubber surfaces but still allows for limited movement.
The poor design of the holder, IMO, allows for the surface to be too easily scratched - it is after all highly pure gold content item and if you even look at it cross-eyed, the surface will get marked up. The edges of the coin (bell) don't 100% protect it from obtaining these surface imperfections after production.
But yes, the ATS will be rising, as other have indicated - as the return window is now open and then it should cease and we will watch it slowly fall as some continue to buy this coin (why, I have NO idea - these is the Edsel of coins).
BST references available on request
SOME will continue to buy. But, historically, "some" is very few once you get much past the release date. I would not be surprised if the end-of-year inventory number is significantly higher than the current number.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Yes, they could’ve done a better job and produced a custom shaped capsule. However, the coin will be fine no matter where it ends up. ie; a safe, SDB, or TPG holder.
Yes, the coin will slide and move around laterally inside the capsule; and yes, the edge of the coin will tap the sidewall of the capsule if either mishandled, shaken, or shipped. IMO, that is negligible, a non-issue, and I don't see damage happening to the radiused/cornered edges. Just me.
The Bell capsule is a deep, four(4) part assembly that is comprised of the two outer halves that snap together as usual, along with two thin, clear, flexible layers of a siliconized-type rubber membrane attached 1/8 of an inch away from the upper/lower surface of each capsule half.
This in turn leaves the coin suspended in midair within the capsule. I’m sure it’s a non-plasticized membrane.
Between the raised edge rim, and the protective membrane, the Bells are in little, to no danger of being damaged while in these holders, just me.
.
.
My guess is that the Mint has used a similar membrane-type product similar to what the TPG's use to "suspend" small coins within the holder.
.
When I opened my box up for the 1st time, my coin (bell) was all the way over on the left side of the holder. As I held the holder in my hand and turned it over to see the reverse side, the coin "slid" within the holder.
IMO, those two layers of silicon don't do the best job of holding the coin (bell) securely in place.
As to the rim keeping the surface of the coin (bell) suspended - I don't see it that way.
Instead, I see the coin (bell) sitting there, as one would lie on a air mattress in a pool. While you may not sink into the pool, as your suspended by the air mattress above the water, your butt, back, etc are all going to sink into the surface of the air mattress (yeah, bad analogy...) But, the surface is def. touching the surface of the silicone. And thus, is highly subject to easily getting scratched (as was evident with mine). As I took my loupe and looked at the coin/bell, I was shocked at how much the surface already had fine scratches in it as well as the uneven edges and the finning error I had.
BST references available on request
FWIW, in 2022 the Paris Mint produced this irregularly shaped silver commemorative. Like the Liberty Bell coin, it also came in an oversized round capsule. But the capsule was manufactured with small prongs inside to hold the piece in place. I guess the U.S. Mint could have done something similar, but for some reason chose not to.
And yet even with those precautions; the end of one paw, part of the beard and the tip of the nose still broke off from the Lourvre coin!
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
How long until we get the first reports back from our hosts as to the grading of these coins (bells)??
BST references available on request
How long before someone complains that the bells are rattling in the slab? 🤣
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
All in all it’s a sad state of affairs - $20K is absurd.
Learning curve for Mint's marketing dept. Guaranteed next year they'll pull another somewhat similar stunt based on the outcome of the bells.
That's why they're called 'Ringing.'
The problem with my silver Liberty Bell capsule was that the 2 halves weren't pushed fully tight together to suspend the Medal onto these 2 silicone like padding.
Once push tighter, the medal won't be going anywhere.
Same with the Gold - just a little tighter!
That Silver looks pretty good, first in-hand one I've seen.
Did you by chance buy it from the Mint directly or buy it on the secondary?
Congrats!
Unfortunately I had to raid my child's future college fund to get this in the secondary market. I was kinda surprised it got shipped based on the assumption that a large percentage of the 2026 Silver orders were bought by bots and were subsequently canceled by the mint.
Someone asked for a closeup of the window details:
It's unfortunate that the USM priced the Golds so high - just not worth it.
I bought the one oz - and im not impressed. It is being returned as well. The quality is not that good - some spotting even seen on the bell itself - edges were not so bad.
The USM has a big backlog on returns - they are asking that the Gold Bells returned....to be called in and wait for a special UPS return label (air/fully insured) is sent to use when returning the product.
The label takes more than a few days to actually get to people.
So - as a result - expect to see many more Gold bells available soon.
1 oz Gold Bell ATS today=732.
I suspect this will grow to well over a thousand, maybe even 1300-1500.
All joking aside - the USM missed a "Golden Opportunity" to reprice the bell once they saw the immediate result and return requests.
Cut the price in half and see how many are returned - probably very few. They could have instructed the Customer Servcie to issue refunds to those willing to keep it.
I think I might have considered the Gold coins if they were half their original price.
Good one. I know you are joking, but for others I will note the coin is meant to mimic the actual condition of the statue of Tanis at the Louvre museum.
Hopefully, the Mint will rethink their return policy.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
That in itself may create more availability on drop day. A win-win for the taxpayer and for the actual collector.
When the buyer's clubs are actually telling their people to take advantage of the free returns to see if a flip develops, it's gone too far.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Adjusting the return policy would possibly solve that and take the clubs out of the equation. It’s better to compete with collectors and a smaller number of flippers than to have Johnny-college boy competing for credit card rewards and $100.
(Yes, I do know a Johnny who was doing this to pay for college books and vape pens. lol!)
Well, at least books were on his shopping list also... unless they were coloring books.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Excellent information, thanks. Interesting that the mint's shipper is providing labels for air/insured shipping. It'll be very interesting to watch the ATS grow over time now that the returns process is under way. They could hardly have done a poorer job on the issue of these gold "coins" if they had tried to; all the way from pricing to encapsulation to shipping.
Now listen boy, I'm tryin' to teach you sumthin' . . . . that ain't an optical illusion, it only looks like an optical illusion.
My mind reader refuses to charge me. . . . . . .
Correct. But what you want is unworkable, because you simply cannot refuse to accept returns on such expensive items.
Do you think they will be better off if they refuse buyer's remorse returns, if that means encouraging people to damage coins in order to return them? A restocking fee might help. But again, that won't fly for damaged items. And, if they insist on replacing damaged coins with good ones, you could end up in a vicious cycle where people who don't want to accept the haircut on a refund just keep damaging coins and returning them until the Mint gives up and waives the restocking fee.
No, this is what it is, and is the result of obnoxiously limiting mintages and jacking up prices like this. The answer is figuring out where the market is, and then meeting it, rather than trying to straddle the line between creating a side hustle for flippers while also trying to capture as much of the secondary market premium for the Mint as possible.
Nothing the Mint makes, nothing at all, should disappear in less than a minute. Similarly, nothing should lend itself to the level of cancellations and returns as these are. Shame on the Mint on all counts.
The Mint has lots of data and experience at this point on how much of most things they can sell, and at what prices. This was just an experiment gone haywire as they tried to straddle the line between a few hundred to be sold at auction and the "normal" quantity of several thousand of a gold product, and tens of thousands of silver typically sold via the website.
They are getting exactly what they deserve with this, even if some here still don't see it. This is an unmitigated disaster for them. They are not going to backtrack now by dropping prices, as much as people would love to see that, because that would set a terrible precedent for any other stupid experiments they might want to try in the future.
If they are smart, they will take the hit, melt whatever is left down at the end of the year, and give a nice unexpected surprise to whoever kept them. For better or worse, THAT might actually encourage people to take stupid shots at stupid things with stupid pricing in the future.
That news about the process they are implementing for the returns provides insight into the timeline to add returns back to ATS. Some here will be utterly shocked when they see the final results, given that this likely means that nothing we have seen yet represents an actual return.
They won't melt them. They will eventually "back door" them out to some of big boy's at reduced prices.
Actually, when the USM had reported a larger number of sales than was truth; the end collector suffered even though they later reported a lower number.
No. They won't. They don't usually do that and no big boy wants them.
And if they heavily discounted them, they would drop the value for all the previous buyers.
If they do what they did the one time they did it, a 10% discount is not going to get any big boy interested.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I didn't say I would refuse returns. I would allow exchanges. But pure returns should have a restocking fee.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Dont be so sure of yourself.
Heavily discounted in a transaction you will never know the details.
You can hallucinate paranoid delusions all you want, but there is no evidence that they ever do this or would ever do this.
When you look at the ridiculously small discounts the biggest of the big get, you realize how little favoritism the Mint shows.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Agree. The only "favoritism" is preferred access to hard to get items. Which is not nothing in a world where dealers are forced to pay premiums on the secondary market for access to hot items.
And, in general, I have absolutely no problem with them taking care of their very best customers. My only gripe was when they intentionally under produced FH silver medals, and consequently over seeded sealed boxes with privies that were very valuable and disproportionately went to dealers.
I don't think that should have happened. The boxes they received should not have contained privies. And, their allocations should have been based on actual production, not on a theoretical mintage limit the Mint knew it was not going to hit.
In any event, no, they are not going to dump $20K per ounce gold in order to give a few dealers a windfall while ultimately destroying the market for those who paid up. Doing that would come at the cost of people never taking a chance on anything like this in the future. Because it would condition dealers to wait for the dump. Which would, in turn, destroy anyone else's hope for a flip to them.
They will ultimately take the hit and melt these. At least the conversation has now turned away from a countdown to sell out.