<< <i>The 2006-w congressional MS coins have done well because they are not the strongest silver coin, or stongest gold coin or strongest platinum coin.......they are the rarest modern type coin PERIOD THE END since 1915 and one of the strongest since the late 1800s. The silver three coin set holds two key date silver eagles( the only RP) and the key to the uncs. Key coin status and affordablility are a powerfull combination in a popular series. The movements in these silver and platinum coins were predictable.
Unfortunately the $5 and $10 gold 2006-w mint state coins are king of nothing. The 1999w unc $5 and $10 gold rule with an iron grip when it comes to relative rarity in series by date and mint mark.........and we do hope the series ends up a date and mint mark series becasue if they become type coins for any reason we are in a world of hurt. It can take a long time to absorb 15000-21000 coins in this price range. Look at the 1991 half, as late a 1995 it was trading just over melt and for less than the 1990!
THEY WILL MOVE UP OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS AND I HOPE THIS YEAR BUT the problem with the 2006-w gold is they are NOT MEGA COINS and NEVER WILL BE. Even the 2006-w half does not hold significant dominance in its denomination when one considers that the set will be collected mostly in MS-69 or better. MS-69 2006-w gold halves are not rarer than the 1991 MS-69 halves........what place in the moderns mintage rank does a 15,000-16,000 mintage modern stand? Answer 70-80th place.
Please don't get me wrong I do think the 2006-w gold MS coins will move up and like the 3 silver set about two months ago trading at $150 has moved up so too will these gold coins. At the same time the market is acting in a rational manner by not chasing as a first choice coins that are not the key dates.
Eric >>
According to mintage figures for AEB the 1999 ¼ ounce Gold had a total mintage of 564,232 and the 1/10 ounce Gold 2,750,338.
Never teach a pig to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy the pig
People just don't see the 1999-Ws as error coins, do they?
It would help the 06-W situation if they did. Otherwise all the 06-W has going for it is the unc status (special blanks, striking and handling), which as Akbeez implies above isn't that dramatic and glamorous a difference as, say, a reverse proof finish or a unique reverse design. If the uncs aren't *felt* to be different, then I can see how comparing the (certified!) pops to the 1991 shows that the 06 is indeed not a "mega coin."
Still a fun coin and one where I will be saving at least a few examples for my collection. I do see value in collecting *some* different finishes, depending on the final appearance, and I admit I don't have any other modern gold eagles in my collection.
Edit: I see that a couple posters above identify the 99-W as an error. So my question is really this: is it seen as a must-have by series collectors?
Hopefully collectors will see them as a whole new series as opposed to part of the bullion set which was a decision made by the registry buffs. There are a ton of collectors that cannot afford the 91 or even the 90 or 95 1/2 oz coin in ms69 and they can start collecting a high grade new series
Guys these modern gold fractional Saints are very nice coins. I hope to work on a complete fractional w set starting with the 99-w and going forward every year until the series ends.
<< <i>Ok, so I guess that would make the the 2006-W the lowest minted (by far) non-error issue. >>
By far !! their value can only really be impacted by future mintages and I am hopeful that 06 will be the "dream year " when all is said and done even though there will be thousands and thousands of ms69s
Hopefully collectors will see them as a whole new series as opposed to part of the bullion set which was a decision made by the registry buffs. There are a ton of collectors that cannot afford the 91 or even the 90 or 95 1/2 oz coin in ms69 and they can start collecting a high grade new series
It might make sense to have registry options for the "W" uncirculated eagles to be part of the bullion set AND a series of their own.
Registry set owners could then choose either option or both.
This would encourage the formation of new registry sets by collectors who might not be able to afford complete high-grade sets of all the previous bullion issues.
<< <i>The 2006-w congressional MS coins have done well because they are not the strongest silver coin, or stongest gold coin or strongest platinum coin.......they are the rarest modern type coin PERIOD THE END since 1915 and one of the strongest since the late 1800s. The silver three coin set holds two key date silver eagles( the only RP) and the key to the uncs. Key coin status and affordablility are a powerfull combination in a popular series. The movements in these silver and platinum coins were predictable.
Unfortunately the $5 and $10 gold 2006-w mint state coins are king of nothing. The 1999w unc $5 and $10 gold rule with an iron grip when it comes to relative rarity in series by date and mint mark.........and we do hope the series ends up a date and mint mark series becasue if they become type coins for any reason we are in a world of hurt. It can take a long time to absorb 15000-21000 coins in this price range. Look at the 1991 half, as late a 1995 it was trading just over melt and for less than the 1990!
THEY WILL MOVE UP OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS AND I HOPE THIS YEAR BUT the problem with the 2006-w gold is they are NOT MEGA COINS and NEVER WILL BE. Even the 2006-w half does not hold significant dominance in its denomination when one considers that the set will be collected mostly in MS-69 or better. MS-69 2006-w gold halves are not rarer than the 1991 MS-69 halves........what place in the moderns mintage rank does a 15,000-16,000 mintage modern stand? Answer 70-80th place.
Please don't get me wrong I do think the 2006-w gold MS coins will move up and like the 3 silver set about two months ago trading at $150 has moved up so too will these gold coins. At the same time the market is acting in a rational manner by not chasing as a first choice coins that are not the key dates.
Eric >>
Thanks Eric for contributing some very keen observations, good to have you join the discussion.
Although I agree with the slabbies that there may be a pop difference in ms69+ between the 1991's and 06w's, that doesn't seem to be a big factor in 91 sales. I've seen several raw 91's selling at the $1200 level in the past 6 mos (note that there are NONE selling or have been sold on eBay at this time). Are those bound for plastic shackles, or to fill an empty "slot" in the set? I like to believe there are still collectors seeking to complete sets without the hype of a defining grade (perhaps a novices perspective...) .
However, as you indicated, it took at least 4 years for the 91 to move [FYI, my 1992 Redbook lists them for $225, a common 1/2 oz value; 1997 Redbook for $410 (commons $250) vs 2007 book @ $1000]. SO -- it stands to reason that these will take some time to boost. I remain hopeful that they will be appreciated for their low numbers and overall scarcity -- hopefully sooner than later...
As for the 99-W's -- that's a different cat IMHO. I DO see that as an error piece, and for some reason, I'm not as jazzed about owning it -- oddly enough! (possibly because I passed on these earlier at much lower $$ Sour grapes perhaps???
GREAT DISCUSSION!! Wayne
Refs: MCM,Fivecents,Julio,Robman,Endzone,Coiny,Agentjim007,Musky1011,holeinone1972,Tdec1000,Type2,bumanchu, Metalsman,Wondercoin,Pitboss,Tomohawk,carew4me,segoja,thebigeng,jlc_coin,mbogoman,sportsmod,dragon,tychojoe,Schmitz7,claychaser, Bullsitter, robeck, Nickpatton, jwitten, and many OTHERS
Does it make sense to treat the W as a different series?
The "W" uncirculated eagles have some elements in common with the bullion coins, and some elements that make them distinct.
They have similar finishes, but the "W" coins are struck on "specially burnished blanks" according to the Mint and receive special packaging.
The distribution channels are different.
For the platinum coins, the "W" uncirculated reverses are different from the bullion coins and the same designs as the proofs. To my mind, this gives them more of a "commemorative" flavor and less of a bullion one.
All in all, I think it makes sense to treat the "W" uncirculated coins as part of the uncirculated series AND as distinct series (sub-series?) of their own.
<< <i>Does it make sense to treat the W as a different series? >>
The "W" uncirculated eagles have some elements in common with the bullion coins, and some elements that make them distinct.
They have similar finishes, but the "W" coins are struck on "specially burnished blanks" according to the Mint and receive special packaging.
The distribution channels are different.
For the platinum coins, the "W" uncirculated reverses are different from the bullion coins and the same designs as the proofs. To my mind, this gives them more of a "commemorative" flavor and less of a bullion one.
All in all, I think it makes sense to treat the "W" uncirculated coins as part of the uncirculated series AND as distinct series (sub-series?) of their own. >>
I can see the "specially burnished blanks" being a reason to be recognized as a separate series. However, I find it hard to justify using packaging and distribution as differentiators since those don't affect the coins themselves.
Eric seems to be suggesting that the 99w could be come part of a new series ...could unfinished proof dies and burnished blanks be the same thing? They kind of look the same !We might have to convince the registry folks to split them from the bullion MS coins
I can see the "specially burnished blanks" being a reason to be recognized as a separate series. However, I find it hard to justify using different packaging and distribution into account since those don't affect the coins themselves.
I pretty much agree, I mentioned it because some collectors assemble sets (series) by packaging options. An example would be a collection of 1983-1997 prestige proof sets, which contain the same coins as regular proof sets plus some commemoratives. The coins individually are found in other series, but prestige proof sets also form a separate category because of their distinct packaging.
I am collecting just the "w" coins just because I don't want to mess with chasing up all the high mintage back dates. Its just easy to just collect the low mintage "w" issues each year in the future.
<< <i>I can see the "specially burnished blanks" being a reason to be recognized as a separate series. However, I find it hard to justify using different packaging and distribution into account since those don't affect the coins themselves. >>
I pretty much agree, I mentioned it because some collectors assemble sets (series) by packaging options. An example would be a collection of 1983-1997 prestige proof sets, which contain the same coins as regular proof sets plus some commemoratives. The coins individually are found in other series, but prestige proof sets also form a separate category because of their distinct packaging. >>
But isn't Mint packaging irrelevant for registry sets because the packaging would have been changed to slabs?
Why a new series? They are American Gold Eagles. It's a great series in it's own, defined by their (almost too) consistent look -- albiet with a few subtle changes in texture and mintmarks. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck... I like these ducks!
Are Plat collectors seeking specific element definitions or collecting them as a general series? I would think the latter, but then I ain't a plat collector either (too dang pricey!). W
Refs: MCM,Fivecents,Julio,Robman,Endzone,Coiny,Agentjim007,Musky1011,holeinone1972,Tdec1000,Type2,bumanchu, Metalsman,Wondercoin,Pitboss,Tomohawk,carew4me,segoja,thebigeng,jlc_coin,mbogoman,sportsmod,dragon,tychojoe,Schmitz7,claychaser, Bullsitter, robeck, Nickpatton, jwitten, and many OTHERS
But isn't Mint packaging irrelevant for registry sets because the packaging would have been changed to slabs?
Not in all cases - for instance, some 2006-W coins are identified on slabs as coming from 20th anniversary sets, and the designations on the slabs can affect their value.
<< <i>But isn't Mint packaging irrelevant for registry sets because the packaging would have been changed to slabs? >>
Not in all cases - for instance, some 2006-W coins are identified on slabs as coming from 20th anniversary sets, and the designations on the slabs can affect their value. >>
Is/Will that done for any of the regular annual "W" releases?
<< <i>But isn't Mint packaging irrelevant for registry sets because the packaging would have been changed to slabs?
Not in all cases - for instance, some 2006-W coins are identified on slabs as coming from 20th anniversary sets, and the designations on the slabs can affect their value. >>
some even have the 20th anniversary designation even when they didnt come from sets but just cos PCGS said so...and then they stopped saying so
<< But isn't Mint packaging irrelevant for registry sets because the packaging would have been changed to slabs? >>
Not in all cases - for instance, some 2006-W coins are identified on slabs as coming from 20th anniversary sets, and the designations on the slabs can affect their value. >>
Is/Will that done for any of the regular annual "W" releases?
Good question, I guess it would depend on whether 2007 and later releases are included in other sets. There are supposed to be 10th anniversary platinum sets this year, so uncirculated coins from those sets might qualify for special identification.
Comments
<< <i>The 2006-w congressional MS coins have done well because they are not the strongest silver coin, or stongest gold coin or strongest platinum coin.......they are the rarest modern type coin PERIOD THE END since 1915 and one of the strongest since the late 1800s. The silver three coin set holds two key date silver eagles( the only RP) and the key to the uncs. Key coin status and affordablility are a powerfull combination in a popular series. The movements in these silver and platinum coins were predictable.
Unfortunately the $5 and $10 gold 2006-w mint state coins are king of nothing. The 1999w unc $5 and $10 gold rule with an iron grip when it comes to relative rarity in series by date and mint mark.........and we do hope the series ends up a date and mint mark series becasue if they become type coins for any reason we are in a world of hurt. It can take a long time to absorb 15000-21000 coins in this price range. Look at the 1991 half, as late a 1995 it was trading just over melt and for less than the 1990!
THEY WILL MOVE UP OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS AND I HOPE THIS YEAR BUT the problem with the 2006-w gold is they are NOT MEGA COINS and NEVER WILL BE. Even the 2006-w half does not hold significant dominance in its denomination when one considers that the set will be collected mostly in MS-69 or better. MS-69 2006-w gold halves are not rarer than the 1991 MS-69 halves........what place in the moderns mintage rank does a 15,000-16,000 mintage modern stand? Answer 70-80th place.
Please don't get me wrong I do think the 2006-w gold MS coins will move up and like the 3 silver set about two months ago trading at $150 has moved up so too will these gold coins. At the same time the market is acting in a rational manner by not chasing as a first choice coins that are not the key dates.
Eric >>
According to mintage figures for AEB the 1999 ¼ ounce Gold had a total mintage of 564,232 and the 1/10 ounce Gold 2,750,338.
It would help the 06-W situation if they did. Otherwise all the 06-W has going for it is the unc status (special blanks, striking and handling), which as Akbeez implies above isn't that dramatic and glamorous a difference as, say, a reverse proof finish or a unique reverse design. If the uncs aren't *felt* to be different, then I can see how comparing the (certified!) pops to the 1991 shows that the 06 is indeed not a "mega coin."
Still a fun coin and one where I will be saving at least a few examples for my collection. I do see value in collecting *some* different finishes, depending on the final appearance, and I admit I don't have any other modern gold eagles in my collection.
Edit: I see that a couple posters above identify the 99-W as an error. So my question is really this: is it seen as a must-have by series collectors?
ericj96
<< <i>Ok, so I guess that would make the the 2006-W the lowest minted (by far) non-error issue. >>
By far !! their value can only really be impacted by future mintages and I am hopeful that 06 will be the "dream year " when all is said and done even though there will be thousands and thousands of ms69s
Hopefully collectors will see them as a whole new series as opposed to part of the bullion set which was a decision made by the registry buffs. There are a ton of collectors that cannot afford the 91 or even the 90 or 95 1/2 oz coin in ms69 and they can start collecting a high grade new series
It might make sense to have registry options for the "W" uncirculated eagles to be part of the bullion set AND a series of their own.
Registry set owners could then choose either option or both.
This would encourage the formation of new registry sets by collectors who might not be able to afford complete high-grade sets of all the previous bullion issues.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>The 2006-w congressional MS coins have done well because they are not the strongest silver coin, or stongest gold coin or strongest platinum coin.......they are the rarest modern type coin PERIOD THE END since 1915 and one of the strongest since the late 1800s. The silver three coin set holds two key date silver eagles( the only RP) and the key to the uncs. Key coin status and affordablility are a powerfull combination in a popular series. The movements in these silver and platinum coins were predictable.
Unfortunately the $5 and $10 gold 2006-w mint state coins are king of nothing. The 1999w unc $5 and $10 gold rule with an iron grip when it comes to relative rarity in series by date and mint mark.........and we do hope the series ends up a date and mint mark series becasue if they become type coins for any reason we are in a world of hurt. It can take a long time to absorb 15000-21000 coins in this price range. Look at the 1991 half, as late a 1995 it was trading just over melt and for less than the 1990!
THEY WILL MOVE UP OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS AND I HOPE THIS YEAR BUT the problem with the 2006-w gold is they are NOT MEGA COINS and NEVER WILL BE. Even the 2006-w half does not hold significant dominance in its denomination when one considers that the set will be collected mostly in MS-69 or better. MS-69 2006-w gold halves are not rarer than the 1991 MS-69 halves........what place in the moderns mintage rank does a 15,000-16,000 mintage modern stand? Answer 70-80th place.
Please don't get me wrong I do think the 2006-w gold MS coins will move up and like the 3 silver set about two months ago trading at $150 has moved up so too will these gold coins. At the same time the market is acting in a rational manner by not chasing as a first choice coins that are not the key dates.
Eric >>
Thanks Eric for contributing some very keen observations, good to have you join the discussion.
Although I agree with the slabbies that there may be a pop difference in ms69+ between the 1991's and 06w's, that doesn't seem to be a big factor in 91 sales. I've seen several raw 91's selling at the $1200 level in the past 6 mos (note that there are NONE selling or have been sold on eBay at this time). Are those bound for plastic shackles, or to fill an empty "slot" in the set? I like to believe there are still collectors seeking to complete sets without the hype of a defining grade (perhaps a novices perspective...) .
However, as you indicated, it took at least 4 years for the 91 to move [FYI, my 1992 Redbook lists them for $225, a common 1/2 oz value; 1997 Redbook for $410 (commons $250) vs 2007 book @ $1000]. SO -- it stands to reason that these will take some time to boost. I remain hopeful that they will be appreciated for their low numbers and overall scarcity -- hopefully sooner than later...
As for the 99-W's -- that's a different cat IMHO. I DO see that as an error piece, and for some reason, I'm not as jazzed about owning it -- oddly enough! (possibly because I passed on these earlier at much lower $$
GREAT DISCUSSION!! Wayne
The "W" uncirculated eagles have some elements in common with the bullion coins, and some elements that make them distinct.
They have similar finishes, but the "W" coins are struck on "specially burnished blanks" according to the Mint and receive special packaging.
The distribution channels are different.
For the platinum coins, the "W" uncirculated reverses are different from the bullion coins and the same designs as the proofs. To my mind, this gives them more of a "commemorative" flavor and less of a bullion one.
All in all, I think it makes sense to treat the "W" uncirculated coins as part of the uncirculated series AND as distinct series (sub-series?) of their own.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>
<< <i>Does it make sense to treat the W as a different series? >>
The "W" uncirculated eagles have some elements in common with the bullion coins, and some elements that make them distinct.
They have similar finishes, but the "W" coins are struck on "specially burnished blanks" according to the Mint and receive special packaging.
The distribution channels are different.
For the platinum coins, the "W" uncirculated reverses are different from the bullion coins and the same designs as the proofs. To my mind, this gives them more of a "commemorative" flavor and less of a bullion one.
All in all, I think it makes sense to treat the "W" uncirculated coins as part of the uncirculated series AND as distinct series (sub-series?) of their own. >>
I can see the "specially burnished blanks" being a reason to be recognized as a separate series. However, I find it hard to justify using packaging and distribution as differentiators since those don't affect the coins themselves.
I pretty much agree, I mentioned it because some collectors assemble sets (series) by packaging options. An example would be a collection of 1983-1997 prestige proof sets, which contain the same coins as regular proof sets plus some commemoratives. The coins individually are found in other series, but prestige proof sets also form a separate category because of their distinct packaging.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Good to chat with all you guys.
Good Night
Ericj96
<< <i>
<< <i>I can see the "specially burnished blanks" being a reason to be recognized as a separate series. However, I find it hard to justify using different packaging and distribution into account since those don't affect the coins themselves. >>
I pretty much agree, I mentioned it because some collectors assemble sets (series) by packaging options. An example would be a collection of 1983-1997 prestige proof sets, which contain the same coins as regular proof sets plus some commemoratives. The coins individually are found in other series, but prestige proof sets also form a separate category because of their distinct packaging. >>
But isn't Mint packaging irrelevant for registry sets because the packaging would have been changed to slabs?
Are Plat collectors seeking specific element definitions or collecting them as a general series? I would think the latter, but then I ain't a plat collector either (too dang pricey!). W
But isn't Mint packaging irrelevant for registry sets because the packaging would have been changed to slabs?
Not in all cases - for instance, some 2006-W coins are identified on slabs as coming from 20th anniversary sets, and the designations on the slabs can affect their value.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>
<< <i>But isn't Mint packaging irrelevant for registry sets because the packaging would have been changed to slabs? >>
Not in all cases - for instance, some 2006-W coins are identified on slabs as coming from 20th anniversary sets, and the designations on the slabs can affect their value. >>
Is/Will that done for any of the regular annual "W" releases?
<< <i>But isn't Mint packaging irrelevant for registry sets because the packaging would have been changed to slabs?
Not in all cases - for instance, some 2006-W coins are identified on slabs as coming from 20th anniversary sets, and the designations on the slabs can affect their value. >>
some even have the 20th anniversary designation even when they didnt come from sets but just cos PCGS said so...and then they stopped saying so
<< But isn't Mint packaging irrelevant for registry sets because the packaging would have been changed to slabs? >>
Not in all cases - for instance, some 2006-W coins are identified on slabs as coming from 20th anniversary sets, and the designations on the slabs can affect their value. >>
Is/Will that done for any of the regular annual "W" releases?
Good question, I guess it would depend on whether 2007 and later releases are included in other sets. There are supposed to be 10th anniversary platinum sets this year, so uncirculated coins from those sets might qualify for special identification.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
