| Author |
 Replies: 13 / Views: 1,760 |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10038 Posts |
I'd like some opinions as to why the 2008 REV of 2007 ASE is not the same approx. value as the 1995W? Only 17,000 more of the 2008 R07 error were made. The 1995 W had a mintage of 30,125 The 2008 R07 error was (I believe) estimated at 47,000. |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7194 Posts |
Possibly because the 1995 w was a separate minted issue where the reverse of a 2006 is a variety of an issue. I did not know there was actual mintage #'s for the 2007 reverse of 2006. I personally collect by type and mint and I consider the 1995 w a part of a complete set but I do not include the reverse of the 2006 as part of the set.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1817 Posts |
The ASE dies were completely recut for 2008, the Mint must have had a leftover reverse of '07 when it began to strike the burnished coins. Probably the reason that the error coin is only 1/5th price of the '95W proof is it's a subvariety, not strictly necessary for a complete bullion/uncirculated set, whereas the '95W is a major variety and counted towards the complete set of proofs, and was the major key right out of the starting gate. The '08W-R07 may get there someday as the secondary key. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1302 Posts |
the big key to 1995 W is that it was part of an expensive gold set. The rarity is the barrier of entry. You essentially had to be able to afford the gold coins. This eliminates most collectors who aren't wealthy. When the rare split up coin appears at auction, the pent up demand exceeds availability... that's why it's a much tougher coin. Eliminate the gold- and it's a couple hundred dollar coin at best.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
301 Posts |
You can have a "complete" set of uncirculated ASE's without having 2008 R07. You cannot have a "complete" set of ASE proofs without the 1995W. |
|
Valued Member
United States
301 Posts |
Quote:
the big key to 1995 W is that it was part of an expensive gold set. The rarity is the barrier of entry. You essentially had to be able to afford the gold coins. This eliminates most collectors who aren't wealthy. When the rare split up coin appears at auction, the pent up demand exceeds availability... that's why it's a much tougher coin. Eliminate the gold- and it's a couple hundred dollar coin at best.  I'd give a "couple of hundred" dollars for a 1995-W anyday! |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1302 Posts |
I think you missed my point entirely.
The 1995-W set was never within a price point that most collectors of the silver eagle series could afford to begin with. Therefore, there is a lot of pent up demand for the coin because of how exclusive it is.
The minted totals of that coin are so low because of the barrier of entry to buy the set. The gold coins caused it to be rare. Without those coins, the mintage figures would have been greater and it wouldn't be as valuable.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
it would have had a higher mintage but not a lot higher. It had a specified maximum mintage of 50,000.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1302 Posts |
that mintage limit of 50,000 is specifically there because of the gold pieces. were it not for that, the 1995-W probably would have had a higher limit- but let's say for a moment that it was just 50,000. That would make it twice as rare as the 25th anniversary set, which was also made to screw over the collector (the mint couldn't give a rats behind, so they set a five set limit and let pandemonium ensue). These mintage caps on bullion coins are silly and really meant to screw over the consumer. Buying mint products has essentially been a losing proposition since they re-instituted the modern commemorative sets in 1982. Not saying there haven't been winners- but to look at the product line as a whole- it offers precious little in numismatic value and has been vastly overpriced. The same problem killed the commemorative series in the 1950s and I think also dogged the proof sets since they were re-instituted in 1968. there has been quite a lot written about this in scholarly books, too much to quote or parse from memory.
Personally, I like the bullion coins- but the 1995W is a coin, while rare, is artificially rare and a product I have almost no interest in buying because by paying the premium for the coin- I'd feel manipulated. I'd rather have a coin that is valuable because nobody wanted it and few were minted.
Edited by cc99999
12/07/2011 11:29 am
|
|
Valued Member
United States
301 Posts |
Quote:
1995W is a coin, while rare, is artificially rare Your logic escapes me. I understand what you're saying, but a rare coin is a rare coin....regardless of why it's rare. Many rare coins have a story behind why they are rare. Problems with hairlines, milkspots, die-states limited supply, and so forth. Does that make all of those coins "artificially" rare too? I feel so manipulated now.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1302 Posts |
a rare coin is a rare coin- except this 1995 W is not rare by any stretch of the imagination. How many exist? Every Single Proof Walking Liberty half is rarer. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
10038 Posts |
Thanks for your ideas on this. So, in reality, the 1995W was always destined to be low mintage, whereas, since the 2008 Rev 07 was a mistake, it is not generally considered part of a complete set. At present a complete set is considered to be actual, intended-to-be-minted coins. Maybe in the future this will change just like many see the 1955 DDO penny as part of the LCM collection. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4901 Posts |
Quote:a rare coin is a rare coin- except this 1995 W is not rare by any stretch of the imagination. How many exist? Every Single Proof Walking Liberty half is rarer. Well, every PF Walker has a lower mintage yes. Rare is a misused term that is often used to indicate the lowest mintage WITHIN a series. Thus the 95W being "rare" and in this case the most valuable because there is demand for this series. Rare = value...Look at the Platinum Eagle 1 ounce Proofs and unc's...a PF with a 4700 mintage is valued the same as one with a top 20800 mintage...an Unc. with a 6000 mintage is the same as one with 133,000 minted. That 2008 PF is "rare" but no one cares enough to create a demand. SO the case of the S and RP being "rare"...within this series a better term would be the "key coins" of their niche..RP and Burnished unc....with the 95-W being the key of the PF's |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1027 Posts |
There is a often great difference between being scarce in the marketplace and being rare. None of these modern issues, even ones minted in numbers of a few thousand will ever be truly rare because most are destined to survive. The 1995-W proof SAE is still very scarce in the market place because many are still in the hands of the original purchasers, the same reason that the 2001 Indian/Buffalo dollars demand a high price today, and to a lesser extent, anything associated with Lincoln. Many of the 2008-R07 coins appear to have hit the market, with their original purchasers preferring the profit over the coin. With most moderns, mintage is a minor factor at best. Market scarcity vs. market demand is the dominant price setter. The 1995-W coins are not always easy to find and many that are available are still bound to the entire set they were sold with, the gold still making the price of ownership high.
|
| |
Replies: 13 / Views: 1,760 |
|
Posted 12/06/2011 6:51 pm
