2007 Silver Dollar Wedding Sets

Yeah. Something clearly stinks.

Funny how people think the Hamilton dealer was an idiot for talking about the hundreds of 2006 magnetics he discovered. Yet, people think someone would be talking if they hundreds of these sets.

Can you trust where people say they got the sets? When has any of this stuff been a good investment? And yet they got 2007 and no other year as an investment? Psychic.

There is little buzz. Little demand. Whoever has them is being very smart about this, and letting them trickle out.

If this becomes a lusted after date, then how much will a 10-20 a year be worth?

I see the two sellers that have these sets raised to price on the set to over $3000.00 .I'm out of luck at this price 231030358094 330955868205

111036471826

I see a lot of sets are coming out any comments

Has anyone purchase one lately .

1. 2007 PROOF SILVER Wedding Set Loon: Most people do not understand that 2007 was a very different year for the RCM, i.e. each set had its own special loon: [PREMIUM]Wedding Set (mint. 849, PROOF SILVER plain loon), Baby Rattle (mint: 3,207, unplated SILVER BABY RATTLE loon), PREMIUM BABY PROOF SET (mint: 1,911, selectively GOLD PLATED PROOF BABY RATTLE SILVER loon), and the Baby Blocks set (mint: 3,229, PROOF SILVER BABY BLOCKS loon). The mintage figures for these loon is <same as> for each of the sets.

By contrast, the 2008 Premium Wedding Set (number of sets issued by the RCM: approx. 550?) includes the 2008 PROOF SILVER [plain] loon. BUT this loon is also included in a.)Premium Baby Gift Set, b.) Keepsake Box and c.) the CD and Picture Frame Holder Set. So the TOTAL mintage of the 2008 PROOF SILVER [plain] loon is much higher that the 2007. I have it from a very good source that the TOTAL mintage for this coin is "a little over 9,000".

(Reference for the mintage figures will be found on pages 116 and 117 of Charlton's Vol. Two, 3rd Edition.)

2. 2009 Edmonton Oilers Mini-Puck Loon: The same source that was kind enough to disclose the approximate mintage for the 2008 Wedding Loon (and he has been extremely reliable) admitted to me that the mintages posted in the RCM Annual reports for the "Hockey Stuff" are basically unintelligible and he has no expectation that any reliable figures can be surmised. HOWEVER, I have been watching the 2009 Mini-Puck and for about two years now have seen fewer of these offered than the 2007 Silver Wedding Set loon. Based on my noting this I was able (after some considerable searching) to secure only three examples for my own collection (i.e. at prices under $50). I have seen in recent times these being sold occasionally for $250 ~ $350 but, understandably, there has been some reluctance by the buying public to believe the Charlton's mintage figure of [49] (again, Vol. Two, 3rd Edition page 112). I can't say that I recommend buying these for the $250+ figures but anything under $50 would seem to me to be a "real steal".

3. Lastly, please join me in expressing my profound disappointment in the RCM for not having issued clear mintage figures for such items. The collecting public is the fundamental support for the RCM's issuing of commemorative coins. This support will necessarily suffer if mintage figures cannot be relied upon. A good example (and there are many other vague figures) is the mintage figures posted by the RCM the "Hockey Stuff" which now makes the value of Hockey commemoratives very uncertain.

You will note that Charlton's carefully list mintage figures these days as "quantity sold". I have had some experienced Canada coin collecting people suggest that the RCM "must certainly reclaim (melt, destroy?) the unsold coins" when, for example, the RCM originally projects a mintage of 10,000 and only sells 4,000". If we are so sure then why is Charlton's so careful to list figures as "quantity sold"? Also note that J&M and Albern/GateWest always list mintage figures as original post by the RCM when the issue was originally introduced, not the figures posted in the RCM mintage reports issued later on. Sounds to me like the "CYA" approach.

****Anyway, can someone out there tell me with authority that the RCM certainly does destroy all unsold issues? Or, does the RCM wholesale off the unsold issues under a different guise and not account for these in the Annual Reports

Welcome to the forum.

Agreed on everything except 'most people do not understand". If you're talking about the general public, then yes. Most people have never heard of a silver loon dollar. But I think most people here and collectors in general know everything you posted.

Charlton reports 'quantity sold' because that is the only information that the Mint provides via their annual reports. I totally agree that it is pathetic that the Mint doesn't release accurate production records. Dealers likely use the expected mintage numbers because it's easier than updating their product listing a year later with what we all know are largely unreliable numbers. That said, some dealers do note 'actual mintage' numbers on some coins - usually those reported to be low mintage.

I would question exactly how much time and energy the mint exerts in recovery of coins. I sincerely doubt they rush to mint 10k coins before they are sold. They more likely mint a few thousand, see how it goes and mint further batches as needed. It makes no business sense to mint on speculation only to have a near 100% loss on all of the non PM production inputs of unsold coins. As well, the mint has a pretty good idea how many coins to mint because they allocate a large portion of the mintage to the various dealers longer before they actually produce the coins. They mint and the dealers have to figure out a way to sell. I don't think the mint takes returns from dealers (though I am 100% speculating).

I also suspect that dealers are offered older unsold coins at deep discounts. See the shopping channel for reference. It just makes sense since there are costs involved in melting them; especially the current coins with colour, jewels etc.

But that said, it's doubtful that you will ever get an answer 'with authority' on these topics.