2008 W platinum eagle coin populations likely duplicated between First Strike and non First Strike
Lionel
Posts: 536 ✭
When looking at the now-posted-on-this-forum population stats for the 2008 W platinum eagles, I noticed that for seven out of the eight coin types, the first strike vs. non first strike stats were identical. What' the probability of that? So, I suspected a clerical error (or web site interface problem) and I contacted PCGS Customer Service and had a rep look at this phenominon. The possibility of an error has been acknowledged, and I was assured this would be looked at.
Just thought ya'll would like to know.
Just thought ya'll would like to know.
Anyone can make a difference, but most people probably shouldn't. -- Marge Simpson
0
Comments
I can understand paying a few extra bucks for a more attractive looking label, or the idea that your coin was one of the first out of the hopper, or to protect against a crackout regrade (although if a slabbed 69 is reslabbed as a 70, it raises a question as to whether it was incorrectly graded in the first place, as well as a very real question about what the difference between the grades really is).
But paying a significant premium for FS designation, especially for platinums, always seemed pretty foolish to me. The low mintages, coupled with the expectation that dies for striking platinum would require replacement more frequently than dies for silver and gold, effectively makes all platinums first strikes.
<< <i>I'm hoping that the 2008s will finally kill off the allure of FS.
I can understand paying a few extra bucks for a more attractive looking label, or the idea that your coin was one of the first out of the hopper, or to protect against a crackout regrade (although if a slabbed 69 is reslabbed as a 70, it raises a question as to whether it was incorrectly graded in the first place, as well as a very real question about what the difference between the grades really is).
But paying a significant premium for FS designation, especially for platinums, always seemed pretty foolish to me. The low mintages, coupled with the expectation that dies for striking platinum would require replacement more frequently than dies for silver and gold, effectively makes all platinums first strikes. >>
<< <i>All the platinum coins were made at the same time. The First Strike designation is completely bogus. For example, the 1/10th ounce plats just sold out. Depending upon how they were stacked, shipped to the warehouse, stored and picked, the first one struck could have been sold this past weekend. Buying a FS coin is just throwing awaw money IMHO. Perhaps the marketplace values them slightly more, but in truth there is NO difference. >>
<< <i>All the platinum coins were made at the same time. The First Strike designation is completely bogus. For example, the 1/10th ounce plats just sold out. Depending upon how they were stacked, shipped to the warehouse, stored and picked, the first one struck could have been sold this past weekend. Buying a FS coin is just throwing awaw money IMHO. Perhaps the marketplace values them slightly more, but in truth there is NO difference. >>
Not so sure about that. There is plenty difference from coin to coin. Given the hardness of platinum, I don't think you would get more than 300-500 coins out of a die set. The single run of platinums probably had up to 10 sets of dies per denomination. Obviously the first coins off of the set would be better than the last. The whole thing is a moot point as FS labels are just a marketing gimmick devised by the grading companies. Buy the coin not the holder. To pay extra for a label is foolish in my opinion. A lot of people do it though.
The premium for a FS designation would basically have to be more than twice the current issue price just for those early buyers to break even.
I expect that most platinum collectors will be fine with the ugly blue label this time around.
For those who really desire FS coins, I have two Mint sealed 2008 platinum proof sets and another unopened box containing 5 $25 platinum proofs from May 2008; FS eligible-- make me an offer!!
<< <i>well, to qualify for FS status this year, 2008 platinums would have had to be purchased back in May/June before they went dark, at significantly higher prices than they are now being sold for.
The premium for a FS designation would basically have to be more than twice the current issue price just for those early buyers to break even.
I expect that most platinum collectors will be fine with the ugly blue label this time around.
For those who really desire FS coins, I have two Mint sealed 2008 platinum proof sets and another unopened box containing 5 $25 platinum proofs from May 2008; FS eligible-- make me an offer!!
<< <i>well, to qualify for FS status this year, 2008 platinums would have had to be purchased back in May/June before they went dark, at significantly higher prices than they are now being sold for.
The premium for a FS designation would basically have to be more than twice the current issue price just for those early buyers to break even.
I expect that most platinum collectors will be fine with the ugly blue label this time around.
For those who really desire FS coins, I have two Mint sealed 2008 platinum proof sets and another unopened box containing 5 $25 platinum proofs from May 2008; FS eligible-- make me an offer!!
Me too. I have FS eligible coins as well. I didn't think about that play!!!! I'm happy with the regular coins for my collection.