Best of the Mint 1916 Mercury Dime Gold Coin and Silver Medal Set

@LonghornDude said:

@Survivor50 said:
No one's returns or cancellations with a back order date of September 3. How do I return mine for this less expensive version 🤔 😆

I noticed the price drop also. What does this mean?

it means all the back orders get cancelled and re-ordered

.

Return option of “Changed My Mind” still available for Day 1 buyers.

Still on backorder, but the Mint price has now dropped to $765 for the set.

Been on the fence about ordering another set and seeing the strong prices for the silver medals so far, I just ordered another set. Dollar cost averaging a little too, ha!

Only 134 left available to sell so figured I'd bump in case anyone else was still on the fence and needed that push!

They did sell out yesterday, then added over 200 more this morning. Down to around 50 left again. Perhaps some are cancelling their $800+ backorders and reordering at $765???

@goldenboy89 said:

@DotStore said:
As I've mentioned before, if you happen to have a "damaged" or scraped reverse rim, why not call the Mint to ask if you can get a refund due to damage? If they allow the return, you can still order one of these at the new lower price as a bonus... What's the worse thing that happens? You later get a coin in the same shape, or the one you do get is actually better than the one you returned. Either way, you paid less for it now...

Personally, this is how I would have handled the scraped rim -- of course you can listen to others and just keep it for your collection.

wouldn't you still have to pay return shipping?

Not with the return label from the Mint

Canceled mine, but to save $ for 1804 or 1907

@Mark1010 said:
I returned my coin due to damaged rim on reverse. I thought from checking the mint return page i had seven days to request a refund. So I requested a return shipping label on day six from the delivery date and received a RMA number.
I did not get it to the post office for another six days after I requested the return label. I then went to the mint web site FAQ page and learned the return package has to be postmarked within 7 days of the delivery date. The request a return page didn’t say that so I assumed since i requested the return on day six from receiving the coin I was good to mail back anytime as my RMA was dated within six days of the delivery

I called the Mint and explained the situation and she said she would put a note on my account but could not guarantee anything. I received an email from them saying they received my coin and they would be issuing a $810 refund so no complaints on my end and I learned a new lesson.

Back in 2011, I ordered a bunch of 9/11 coins. Long story short, the box arrived at my PO Box when I was picking up some camera gear that had arrived, before I went on a 10 day trip. So I didn't even TRY to send the coins back, even though I had changed my mind. They're still sealed in the postal box, so I guess I could send them in for 1st Strike.

Ironically, I could sell them today for only about a $5 profit per coin because in 2011, the Mint was selling 1oz silver for about $55.

if they had an oversized holder that is also oversized in thickness then the holdup would be keeping the coins in place

i'm not sure what cores they have, but it is feasible

@HoneyMarket said:

@Tramp said:
Do you think PCGS or another TPG will holder two sets together so that the two silver medals will over lap each other to give the image like this?

Then the two gold coins from the two sets presented obverse and reverse, all in one holder with each coins' grade.

Or is this wishful thinking?

They certainly could create the holder - if they really wanted to stand out as a unique TPG.

As it is now, one could earn a college degree in packaging as packaging is an important aspect of some businesses - and one would think that packaging is VERY important to a TPG (or even the US Mint, although, I'd ding the Mint on the recent Liberty Bell packaging).

For coins to overlap like this inside a single slab, one would either have to rest directly on top of the other, or they would require a stepped, multi-level plastic core. If they touch, the metal surfaces will scratch, glide, and friction-wear during transit, entirely defeating the protective purpose of a TPG.

Your question poses a very unique business decision for TPG's - do they stay stogy or does anyone of them want to get out in front of the others? The TPGs rely on highly automated, uniform plastic molds designed for strict structural integrity and sonic-sealing efficiency. Creating a custom "stair-step" multi-holder for a single specific set is a massive engineering overhead that standard grading firms rarely entertain. I don't think they're up for the challenge!

If it made business sense they might. But how many collectors own two medals and would use that holder design? I estimate less than few dozen would buy it. I did purchase two and I'm about to send them in for reholdering in a standard double holder. I think it'll look fine without the overlap.

@cinque1543 said:

@Tramp said:
Do you think PCGS or another TPG will holder two sets together so that the two silver medals will over lap each other to give the image like this?

Not what was asked, but here's a mock-up of what the medals would look like in a PCGS standard double holder. Not sure though whether PCGS still makes that holder?

Thanks! I'd be ok with this setup, since my idea is most likely unrealistic, but would like to holder in the same slab the two gold pieces too; one showing the obverse and the other showing the reverse. One holder, 4 coins.

I'd think that would be a pretty cool display.

Then again, maybe it would be more plausible to put these in a custom Capital Plastic and skip the TPG. Thinking about this further, you could do the layover using custom Capital Plastic. I'll have to research that further.

Available this morning