Might be time to order your 2007 platinum coins Update: $1,391 oz
GAT
Posts: 3,146 ✭
Platinum is up strong today to $1,346 per oz. It won't be long before the Mint stops platinum sales like they did the gold. I am not taking a chance so just ordered my 2007 W coins to continue the 3 year set.
USAF vet 1951-59
0
Comments
<< <i>Is 2006 a better date for the series? I dont follow platinum coins and seems high for an uncirculated to be that high above spot. Help me, I am uneducated on platinum stuff..... >>
Search the forum archives for platinum. You can spend hours reading it and educate yourself on platinum better then I can teach you.
See chart on Page 2
The 2006 W UNC is not a regular bullion coin. It is the first year of mint state coins with changing reverses for Platinum. Bottom line, the coins have tiny mintages and command a hefty premium.
Rounded-off unaudited sales figures for the burnished 2006-W Platinum Eagles reported in the July 5th Coin World :
Single 1-ounce platinum – 1,500
Single half-ounce platinum – 1,025
Single quarter-ounce platinum - 850
Single tenth-ounce platinum – 2000
Four-coin platinum Set - 2775
Final unaudited 2006-W Platinum Proof sales figures reported by Numismatic News:
Current 2007-W from October 02 Numismatic News:
Burnished
Proof
Do you happen to have the final #'s for 2006 AGE Proofs?
The Unc "W" went on sale 7/17. The price of Platinum was about $1320. It proceeded to fall to $1220 and now has rebounded back to $1330 - $1340. Based on Kitco.com
Because Platinum is at the same price it was at when the Mint started sell the Unc. "W", I don't see the Mint increasing the price, unless Platinum spikes from here.
If Platinum starts getting close to $1400, the Mint might act.
This is just my opinion, so don't blame me if you miss out...
Also, the low sales could be a result of the lower spot price. At $1489 an oz, (more for the fractionals), the coin was $240 above spot.
Almost forgot, there is rumor of a Platinum ETF, like the gold (GLD) and silver (SLV). If this was to happen we could get a real spike in the price of Platinum, similiar to what happened to gold and silver.
Not to mention bringing more attention to Platinum coins.
"Rounded-off unaudited sales figures for the burnished 2006-W Platinum Eagles reported in the July 5th Coin World :
Single 1-ounce platinum – 1,500
Single half-ounce platinum – 1,025
Single quarter-ounce platinum - 850
Single tenth-ounce platinum – 2000
Four-coin platinum Set - 2775"
FL, you do quote these numbers frequently. CoinBoy pointed out to you the potential problems with them on a previous thread.
********************************************************************************************
For those who are interested in the whole story.................
The 2006-w unc platinum numbers quoted in Coin World were from late June and do not reference anyone at the mint by name. The June CW numbers do not fit the known weekly sales report data, the historical mint sales relationships for each denomination, or the denominational pop reports from PCGS and NGC, or the ebay sales relationships over the last 9 months, etc. More importantly the CW article prompted calls to the US mint Office of Public Affairs and the actual numbers were requested from the accounting office that deals with mintages to confirm the CW data. A report on the 2006-w unc plats was given to Michael White in July. It is the most recent report and can be confirmed.
The numbers were
$100 single issue... 1079
$50 single issue..... 588
$25 single issue..... 687
$10 single issue.... 1555
4 coin set ...............1989
If the CW numbers were right they should have shown up again in July. I have been watching the sales report for years now and have NEVER seen it wrong by more than about 6 percent. The CW numbers would require about 40 percent error in the weekly sales report. It is good practice to use the highest numbers around as worst case numbers when deciding what a coin is worth long term so you do not get hurt but when you post numbers like that you should mention that the data may well be bad esp. after you were told so by other board members that have a tendency to do a great deal of homework.
Guys use the CW numbers as an unlikely worst case but realize the odds are stacked against them.
<< <i>QUOTE-FL,
"Rounded-off unaudited sales figures for the burnished 2006-W Platinum Eagles reported in the July 5th Coin World :
Single 1-ounce platinum – 1,500
Single half-ounce platinum – 1,025
Single quarter-ounce platinum - 850
Single tenth-ounce platinum – 2000
Four-coin platinum Set - 2775"
FL, you do quote these numbers frequently. CoinBoy pointed out to you the potential problems with them on a previous thread.
********************************************************************************************
For those who are interested in the whole story.................
The 2006-w unc platinum numbers quoted in Coin World were from late June and do not reference anyone at the mint by name. The June CW numbers do not fit the known weekly sales report data, the historical mint sales relationships for each denomination, or the denominational pop reports from PCGS and NGC, or the ebay sales relationships over the last 9 months, etc. More importantly the CW article prompted calls to the US mint Office of Public Affairs and the actual numbers were requested from the accounting office that deals with mintages to confirm the CW data. A report on the 2006-w unc plats was given to Michael White in July. It is the most recent report and can be confirmed.
The numbers were
$100 single issue... 1079
$50 single issue..... 588
$25 single issue..... 687
$10 single issue.... 1555
4 coin set ...............1989
If the CW numbers were right they should have shown up again in July. I have been watching the sales report for years now and have NEVER seen it wrong by more than about 6 percent. The CW numbers would require about 40 percent error in the weekly sales report. It is good practice to use the highest numbers around as worst case numbers when deciding what a coin is worth long term so you do not get hurt but when you post numbers like that you should mention that the data may well be bad esp. after you were told so by other board members that have a tendency to do a great deal of homework.
Guys use the CW numbers as an unlikely worst case but realize the odds are stacked against them. >>
The numbers from the Coin World article are the latest published figures I have seen which is why I feel they are the most up to date. What weekly sales report? Are you talking about the Numismatic News published figures? Those have not been updated since March. The Coin World article from July 5th states the figures were released directly from the Mint. If you have a problem with the figures take it up with Coin World or show me some updated published figures.
If they do an anniversary set, I guess that I'll have doubles!
I respect you as one of the best contributors here, certainly among the top 5 in terms of quality of the research. However, you are fighting up-hill, against the facts, on this.
The 2006 W Unc Plat Series I dare say has the highest submittal Rate for Grading of any modern issue that I know of.
Here are some facts:
1.) Look at 2006 sales week by week of the 2006 W Unc issue just like Eric did for his analysis.
2.) As one who has tracked the Graded Combined Pop for the 2006 W Unc Plats from the start, I can tell you now it statistically impossible for the $25 Coin to have a lower Mintage than the $50 Coin even if you USE the CW BS Numbers as the BASIS as it had "reported”
3.) Comparisons of final Plat Proof Mintage numbers issued by the US Mint with earlier issues 2001-2005, etc. as correlated to their published combined graded Pop from NGC & PCGS, show that the CW information is bogus and falls apart. I find it a laughable attempt by someone to misinform.
4.) In numerous conversations with EricJ96 over the course of the summer, I recall this statement quite vividly as it really went to the point of contention: ‘For the Plat Proofs, just as an example, in every year of changing reverse where the mintage was sold out, there was never a case were the $50 Coin had a higher Mintage than the $25 Coin. The only semi-anomaly was for 2003 W Proof sales, in which the $50 exceed the $25 only because the Mintage was NOT a sell-out.’
Again, it is mathematically impossible for the $25 Coin to have a lower Mintage than the $50 Coin.
I am astonished that you still post this CW crap as ‘authoritative’ in this forum!
<< <i>FBL,
I respect you as one of the best contributors here, certainly among the top 5 in terms of quality of the research. However, you are fighting up-hill, against the facts, on this.
The 2006 W Unc Plat Series I dare say has the highest submittal Rate for Grading of any modern issue that I know of.
Here are some facts:
1.) Look at 2006 sales week by week of the 2006 W Unc issue just like Eric did for his analysis.
2.) As one who has tracked the Graded Combined Pop for the 2006 W Unc Plats from the start, I can tell you now it statistically impossible for the $25 Coin to have a lower Mintage than the $50 Coin even if you USE the CW BS Numbers as the BASIS as it had "reported”
3.) Comparisons of final Plat Proof Mintage numbers issued by the US Mint with earlier issues 2001-2005, etc. as correlated to their published combined graded Pop from NGC & PCGS, show that the CW information is bogus and falls apart. I find it a laughable attempt by someone to misinform.
4.) In numerous conversations with EricJ96 over the course of the summer, I recall this statement quite vividly as it really went to the point of contention: ‘For the Plat Proofs, just as an example, in every year of changing reverse where the mintage was sold out, there was never a case were the $50 Coin had a higher Mintage than the $25 Coin. The only semi-anomaly was for 2003 W Proof sales, in which the $50 exceed the $25 only because the Mintage was NOT a sell-out.’
Again, it is mathematically impossible for the $25 Coin to have a lower Mintage than the $50 Coin.
I am astonished that you still post this CW crap as ‘authoritative’ in this forum! >>
We will find out at the end of the fiscal year when the Mint releases the final audited figures. Once again, the July 05 Coin World published numbers are the latest figures I have seen published. Since the weekly sales figures reported by Numismatic News were last updated in March I can only assme the figures published by Coin World in which they claim in the article that reported them came from rounded off sales figures reported to them by the US Mint are the most current numbers until somone publishes new ones.
<< <i>CALL THE MINTS OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS. ASK MICHAEL WHITE FOR THE LATEST MINTAGE REPORT FROM JULY AND AT LEAST FOOT NOTE YOUR CW NUMBERS. >>
I have already stated the unaudited figures are debated. Until the final audited figures are released by the Mint all reported sales figures are debatable and should not be considedred fact. Believe whomever's figures you choose. It is not my duty to correct Coin World's published figures, that would be up to Coin World if indeed the numbers they reported are incorrect.
Ericj96
<< <i>FL, You act as though you are interested in serious research but you are not. If some one told me a US mint report was out and where to get it and it did not reflect the data I was telling others I would be very interested and look into it closely. I would at least footnote my mintage quotes to cover my butt. THATS SAD!
Ericj96 >>
Obviously, you have greater faith in your Mint source and analysis. You claim the numbers came from the Mint and so does Coin World. Until the final numbers are known both are simply reported figures, with the difference that Coin Worlds figures were published.
Please refute this:
Based on the Current Combined NGC/PCGS Graded Population, it is statistically impossible for the $25 Coin to have a lower Mintage than the $50 Coin even if you USE the CW BS Numbers as the BASIS as it had been "reported” .
Now, no pluging of the ears and yelling "Coin World", "CoinWorld" "Coin World", "CoinWorld" "Coin World", "CoinWorld" to drown out the facts as they are being hurled at you!
<< <i>FBL:
Please refute this:
Based on the Current Combined NGC/PCGS Graded Population, it is statistically impossible for the $25 Coin to have a lower Mintage than the $50 Coin even if you USE the CW BS Numbers as the BASIS as it had been "reported” .
Now, no pluging of the ears and yelling "Coin World", "CoinWorld" "Coin World", "CoinWorld" "Coin World", "CoinWorld" to drown out the facts as they are being hurled at you! >>
Final numbers are fact, anything else is hypothetical speculation. You know the saying, there are lies and then there are statistics. I will say I hope you are right for your sake since you seem determined to discredit the Coin World reported figures.
Up to your old antics I see.
The numbers you quote are not substantiated by anyone.
Eric has done serious research and supported his numbers. The office of public affairs has confirmed the sales he reported. The July 5 sales reported by CW have not been confirmed.
BTW, did you get out of all those First Haag's before the market collapsed?
<< <i>FLBuff -
Up to your old antics I see.
The numbers you quote are not substantiated by anyone.
Eric has done serious research and supported his numbers. The office of public affairs has confirmed the sales he reported. The July 5 sales reported by CW have not been confirmed.
BTW, did you get out of all those First Haag's before the market collapsed? >>
I could never understand how 1/4th of the total mintage could be overlooked for months and then suddenly appear in the reconciliation, all within one week, after sales were done. Now, it appears that it was a phantom increase.
Now, ericj is reporting the correction in the opposite direction, again before the rest of the pack. I tend to think that his information is pretty good. I daresay that Coin World will eventually stumble across the same information and will duly report it.
We shall see, in due time what the actual numbers really are. My fear is that I will be too old and senile for the information to be meaningful by the time it is publically available.
I knew it would happen.
They are from the US Mint.
There are just so few coins, it's not too hard to just take the Mint's word for it.
<< <i>FBL, careful your illogical is showing, you ol' buyer of Platinum, you... >>
Given the 2006-W was the first year the burnished Platinum was offered directly to collectors by the Mint. I would believe bullion platinum sales figures from prior years would not have accurate data on which to determine likely sales for the burnished W coins. To me that sounds illogical.
Eric has never called a number before checking it first. After calling the Office of Public Affairs and getting those numbers, he spent days trying to make sense of them before calling them. That is the Eric I know. In my experience, Eric has always been the closest to final numbers, year after year.
<< <i>Now for a questions aside from the mintage numbers.... it was mentiond that 2006 was the first year of the rotating reverses... when I lok at a registry set many have the different reverse so was 2006 the first for the $100? >>
The Platinum Proofs have rotating reverses. The non 'W' bullion Platinum coins all have the soaring eagle reverse.
2006 was the first year the 'W' burnished coins were offered directly by the Mint to collectors. The reverses have have the same design as the Proofs which are part of a 3 year series:
<< <i>In 2006, the United States Mint embarked on a new, three-year series titled The Foundations of American Democracy. Each year, beginning in 2006, the reverse design will feature an image emblematic of one of the three institutional foundations of our American democracy – the Legislative,the Executive and the Judicial branches. >>
If you look at my registry set (sig line) you will see the changing reverses on my set. Those are proofs. If you look at my other coins you'll see the 2006W and 2007W Uncirculated ones. You will not see bullion. I hope this answers your question...
I really like the 2006 proof reverse.....
LINKY to Picture Thread
I have a 2006 and the reverse does not appear to be rotating. In fact, it's not moving at all!
Regarding the Mint's sales figures, there were many orders accepted and reported as backordered that were later canceled. Could that have something to do with the higher sales numbers?
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
I have a strong feeling that you are right on that one. It seems those numbers are the total orders taken by the mint and not the total coins made. As you just said many of those orders were not filled...
<< <i>
<< <i>FBL, careful your illogical is showing, you ol' buyer of Platinum, you... >>
Given the 2006-W was the first year the burnished Platinum was offered directly to collectors by the Mint. I would believe bullion platinum sales figures from prior years would not have accurate data on which to determine likely sales for the burnished W coins. To me that sounds illogical. >>
FBL, be careful.
You have touted previous gold commemorative sales figures and mintages in your ongoing defense of the true collector market for the First Hags and their potential for appreciation.
I think we have all seen how valuable that comparison was.
Bottom line for both the First Hags and Unc changing reverse plats - The market is still not mature enough to make any "logical" predictions. You roll the dice and hang on. You win some, you lose some. How will both these series pan out - only time will tell.
<< <i>FBL,
Again, it is mathematically impossible for the $25 Coin to have a lower Mintage than the $50 Coin.
I am astonished that you still post this CW crap as ‘authoritative’ in this forum! >>
Popcorn! Getcher popcorn over here..
Naw, I saw this day coming.. I'm firmly in the "who knows" camp when it comes to plat mintages, but for the record, Eric lives, eats and breathes platinum sales to the point of OCD. I throw my hat into his camp.
<< <i>The proofs had changing reverses since inception. The 2006 Uncirculated Platinum Eagles with "W" mint marks started changing reverses (like the proofs) since last year only. Bullion Platinum Eagle coins have never changed reverses.
>>
The Uncs did change finish, though, in 2003. They don't look as nice as they did back then.
Box of 20
The finish they used prior to 2003 was a lot nicer than what they use now. It sort of looked like a reverse proof...
Box of 20
It's just like the stock market. As long as the corporation gives good guidence fundamentals the stock sells (prices rise). So what if they may need to restate earnings a year or two down the road. New investors will be happy to buy more stock and keep the demand going.
<< <i>CALL THE MINTS OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS. ASK MICHAEL WHITE FOR THE LATEST MINTAGE REPORT FROM JULY AND AT LEAST FOOT NOTE YOUR CW NUMBERS. >>
Is July's mintage report the FINAL report ?
"There are lies, damn lies and statistics"- M. Twain
"Figures lie and liars figure. The most commonly employed method is called Statistics"- Cliff Schwartz
Proud recipient of two "You Suck" awards