| Author |
Replies: 19 / Views: 3,548 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
And the current quarters are the only ones released into circulation
|
|
Moderator
 United States
188952 Posts |
I forgot to mention those. I spent too much time trying to make sure I got the 2014/2015 issues straight. 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1613 Posts |
Which was the point, keeping with the title. What I've noticed is that dealers are listing both proof sets for a bit over Mint cost but not including the Cent. One such dealer has those listed at $15.95. So, yeah, they're capitalizing on the "rarity" they created. When reality sets in they'll be lucky to get half of that.
ANA member - PAN Member - BCCS Member There are no problems only solutions - the late, great John Lennon
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2477 Posts |
nope. no interest in the set or the W cent.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
12841 Posts |
I got my 2 sets when they were released in early March. I can only imagine that the Mint added the W cents to this year's sets as an afterthought to attempt to boost flagging sales.
Edited by CelticKnot 05/11/2019 4:49 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote: I can only imagine that the Mint added the W cents to this year's sets as an afterthought to attempt to boost flagging sales. Might not have been an afterthought necessarily, but they were absolutely tied to sets to try and boost the sales of those sets.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4692 Posts |
Don't forget, they also changed the silver set to .999 silver for the first time. Next, I would look for them to make the 5 cent coin from silver, maybe even the wartime composition. Just a guess. And if so, why not make the mintmark like the big reverse style?
Edited by jimbucks 05/11/2019 5:42 pm
|
|
Moderator
 United States
188952 Posts |
Quote: Might not have been an afterthought necessarily, but they were absolutely tied to sets to try and boost the sales of those sets. I agree.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
12841 Posts |
The only reason I say "afterthought" is because they weren't part of the set packaging and instead came in their own little envelopes and baggies. You separate those W cents from the sets they shipped with and then those sets are just regular annual sets.
I suppose it could have been intentional to keep them separate, but the surprise nature of the W quarters and the W cents seems to be a scramble IMO.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
188952 Posts |
Even if they planned it, getting the packaging changed to include it may have required a much a longer lead time.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote: Even if they planned it, getting the packaging changed to include it may have required a much a longer lead time. Given that they were calling it a gift I suspect they had no interest in spending money redesigning anything hence the separate baggie
|
|
Moderator
 United States
188952 Posts |
Quote: Given that they were calling it a gift I suspect they had no interest in spending money redesigning anything hence the separate baggie Agreed.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
12841 Posts |
Quote: Given that they were calling it a gift... Marketing.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote: Marketing. No up-charge so it was actually an extra.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
12841 Posts |
It's a complete guess but I feel the $5 increase in the silver proof sets makes up (or at least, *could* make up) for any cost associated with manufacturing these cents. There certainly was not 5 additional dollars' worth of silver at current prices added to the set by going from .900 to .999. The composition change only amounts to an additional 0.17 troy ounces of silver per set.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 19 / Views: 3,548 |
Page 2 of 2
|