| Author |
 Replies: 357 / Views: 34,801 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4901 Posts |
Well....many here say buy the coin and not the label....kinda goes the same way with packaging
|
|
Moderator
 United States
188560 Posts |
Quote:
Well, the packaging is much better than last years silver medal, but the price point is still very high. I only ordered one piece. Last year I ordered 2 from each mint. I got one form each mint last year. Quote:
Well....many here say buy the coin and not the label....kinda goes the same way with packaging Labels, I agree, but in this case I think it depends on the packaging. The generic OGP for proof and mint sets, sure. The 2016 silver medals, certainly. However, special sets can rightfully add a premium if the package appeals to the buyer. As a buyer, the C&C sets are a good example and the 2014 Silver Kennedy 50th Anniversary set is another. This set has a nice enclosure and what looks like it a substantial booklet. Who knows, I might be disappointed, but I like its potential. Also, it is the only way to get this medal. There is no cheaper package at this time. Yes, I think this medal is a bit overpriced. $10 more than last year would have been better. However, it is far from being as bad as the way overpriced Limited Edition Silver Proof Set where the coins are available in other packages. In the end, to each their own. I know there is a lot going against this medal for the investors. Good thing I am not one.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4901 Posts |
The raw 2014 Kennedy set is right around the same price it was when it was released (high mintage) http://www.ebay.com/itm/2014-50th-A...AOSwZKBZNkcnThe C & C sets value were (are) totally related to mintage not packaging.... This issue will follow the same path...good test case as to whether packaging plays a role in coin value...no limit but great packaging...I still lean towards coin Just my opinion.... Edited by Foxwoods Man
06/14/2017 3:56 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
188560 Posts |
Quote:
...good test case as to whether packaging plays a role in coin value... Agreed. To be honest, I am expecting it to lose value over time, but that is also time I have had to enjoy it. Just my opinion, your mileage may vary. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2815 Posts |
Looking forward to seeing your pictures, jbuck.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
703 Posts |
Jbuck, I also placed my order early. The design of this medal is simply gorgeous.
.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
12837 Posts |
Ordered mine just now, along with a couple other treats. Looking forward to comparing this one to last year's.
|
|
Moderator
United States
188560 Posts |
Quote:
Looking forward to seeing your pictures, jbuck. I suppose I can take a few. |
|
CCF Master Historian of USA Commemoratives
United States
12277 Posts |
@Foxwoods_Man: All good points, I just have a different perspective.
I think "created scarcity" does more long-term harm to the hobby than good; I don't measure the health of the market or a given issue in the short-term (i.e., one-year). I believe that artificial scarcity keeps many collectors away from certain issues (because they quickly become unaffordable) and then keeps them away from future issues of the same or similar series because they are already faced with a "hole" that they might not ever be able to fill. We all know how collectors often like to fill "holes."
If the Mint's coins and medals were allowed to reach their natural level of scarcity based on actual collector interest upon release, I think certain issues would develop a following over time and then experience a more natural price appreciation curve.
I think a good approach to achieve natural scarcity vs. artificial scarcity is to offer items w/o a mintage limit, but to offer them only for a specific period of time - maybe six months, maybe 12 months. This approach gives collectors ample opportunity to make their purchases without having items available "forever" and thus suppressing the development of a secondary market.
One member here described this piece as a "loser" because of the unlimited mintage. I am always dismayed by such comments. A coin or medal is not a "loser" simply because a select group of speculators can't quickly make a profit off the piece. Such speculative activity is not "collecting" in my mind - it seems more like commodities trading.
From your various posts, I understand that you look to focus your coin purchases on those that have an almost guaranteed potential for price appreciation. A perfectly valid approach, just one that doesn't fit my personality and approach to building a collection.
Our hobby is made strong by the various ways folks approach it - all are valid, all have a place.
I placed my order for two medals yesterday afternoon. I'm sure I will enjoy them once they arrive and I know I will bring them to my local coin clubs for show-and-tell and likely include them in a future exhibit or talk that I prepare. I honestly don't care if they sell for $25 a year from now - I will have earned enough "joy of collecting" dollars between now and then to make up for any retail price drop.
Collecting history one coin or medal at a time! (c) commems. All rights reserved.
|
|
CCF Master Historian of USA Commemoratives
United States
12277 Posts |
Regarding the selling price of the medals... As a comparison, the Mint is charging $53.95 for its 2017 proof ASE; it comes in the Mint's standard packaging. The American Liberty medals use the same one-ounce planchets as the ASEs and go through the same striking process to produce their proof finish. So, it stands to reason that the Mint's price point for the two pieces should be similar. Bottom line, both products are one-ounce proof silver rounds. One is considered a coin (with a symbolic "One Dollar" denomination) and the other a medal. It's up to each individual to determine if they believe one is worth more than the other. The extra six dollars being charged for the medal gets you a nicer package for the piece and an informative booklet. To me, the extra items are worth $6.00. Collecting history one coin or medal at a time! (c) commems. All rights reserved.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4901 Posts |
Quote:
If the Mint's coins and medals were allowed to reach their natural level of scarcity based on actual collector interest upon release, I think certain issues would develop a following over time and then experience a more natural price appreciation curve. TOTALLY agree...but...when you put a ridiculous mintage max on a product one year and follow it up with a no limit similar item the next year it tends to crimp the desire of some to want the second issue.. If the Mint NEVER put limits on mintage for ANYTHING it would be great for everyone...demand would determine the value not "created scarcity" AND all collectors would have a chance to get their prize No argument.... |
|
Moderator
United States
188560 Posts |
Quote:
If the Mint NEVER put limits on mintage for ANYTHING it would be great for everyone...demand would determine the value not "created scarcity" AND all collectors would have a chance to get their prize I agree. I wish this were the case. I cannot begin to describe how much more enjoyable the purchase was yesterday compared to the one last year, or for any of the other limited items in the past. |
|
Valued Member
United States
89 Posts |
If the price point is right, then why did they sell the 2016 silver american liberty medal for $34.95? And that had a miniscule mintage
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12837 Posts |
I've wondered the same thing. Perhaps they were testing the waters and completely underestimated what the market would bear.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4901 Posts |
Quote:
If the price point is right, then why did they sell the 2016 silver american liberty medal for $34.95? And that had a miniscule mintage The price point for the 2017 is no way "right" but the 2016 price WAS appropriate for a medal. The only issue with last years' was the assumption that there would be little interest in a non-coin product thus the mintage limit...duh! The limit created the interest.... This year they saw a cash cow and did the complete opposite...no brainiacs at the Mint...a simple 50-75k limit would have worked out very well even with the excessive price increase. Packaging should not determine the price of a coin/medal. The coin should be the main focus and it's a $34.95 coin Edited by Foxwoods Man
06/16/2017 07:13 am
|
| |
Replies: 357 / Views: 34,801 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 06/14/2017 3:35 pm
