| Author |
 Replies: 160 / Views: 13,797 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1027 Posts |
It won't be a Denver coin. Denver is not set up to strike ASEs, most certainly not proof ones. It may well be a West Point coin, if you read the Program Information, it sounds a lot less like a San Francisco coin than it does by only reading the introduction. I will second the notion that these coins are NOT bullion coins. I am not sure why so many people insist they are (mostly when they want to devalue them). The only thing they have in common with the one ounce silver bullion coins is the design. These coins are struck on specially prepared planchets by specially prepared die, and are struck twice at higher forces than bullion strikes. They are hand fed into the press and individually white glove handled and packaged for individual sale. Even a bullion coin, if packaged in the fashion of the uncirculated coins, would probably sell for around spot + $5 to $10, depending on the amount of human handling involved.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1116 Posts |
MintBlog.com is reporting the following about the Making History Coin and Currenct set: "Silver Eagle. Although not explicitly stated on the preliminary product page, this coin will carry the "S" mint mark. The other component of the set will be a series 2009 $5 note with a serial number beginning in "150″, the signature of Treasurer Rosie Rios, and the San Francisco Federal Reserve bank designation." It stated later: "The 2012-S Proof Silver Eagle had also been included in the San Francisco Silver Eagle Set, along with a reverse proof coin also bearing the "S" mint mark. Prior to and throughout the four week ordering window from June 7, 2012 to July 5, 2012, there had been no indication that either of the coins included in the set would be offered within other numismatic products. Now, less than two weeks after the conclusion of the ordering period, the Mint has revealed another product which contains one of the coins." http://mintnewsblog.com/2012/07/mak...ilver-eagle/If the reporting in MintNews Blog is correct then those of us who have recently purchased the 2 coin ASE appear to have been snookered and mislead by the US Mint. We have in reality purchase only the reverse proof as a special coin and most likely have overpaid for that. Once that set has been graded by the TPG how is the proof coin going to be differentiated from the making history coin. Has anyone seen anything that would be a counter agrument to what Mint News is reporting. If this stands then the integrity of the mint marketing announcements about special coins really is called into question. While I am not upset about my purchase of the 2 coin set, I am really not interested in purchasing this new product. I feel that by issuing this new set the mint (which is business) has really hurt its own integrity and future special issues would have to be looked at with an jaundice eye. As we all know the mint is the only producer in this game and they have a monopoly so they can do what they want. Our only recourse is to react with with our wallets. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7840 Posts |
There were probably lots of "leftovers" of the ASE so they might as well put them in some form of package instead of melting them. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4901 Posts |
Quote:There were probably lots of "leftovers" of the ASE so they might as well put them in some form of package instead of melting them. Using the above logic would also mean that there are "leftovers" of the RP also... Logical thought...but....it was "mint to demand"....there really shouldn't be any leftovers This was a planned sale..not an afterthought |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7840 Posts |
Not trying to debate the issue, but, would the mint manufacture additional 2012 Anniversary ASE's if some were returned for imperfections or damaged in transit? BTW, I did not participate in this set. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7195 Posts |
With now two sets holding the "s" proof I wonder if the mintage of the "w" will be actually lower than the San Fransisco coin.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:but, would the mint manufacture additional 2012 Anniversary ASE's if some were returned for imperfections or damaged in transit No they wouldnt, but my understanding is they wont replace it either. If you return it you just get a refund. Quote:If the reporting in MintNews Blog is correct then those of us who have recently purchased the 2 coin ASE appear to have been snookered and mislead by the US Mint. If they are correct mislead is far to kind a word. They have known for weeks if not months this set was coming out and chose to keep quiet about it as to not hurt the sales of the set. Less than two weeks after ordering is done they decide to put this up. This should have been up all along and they should have been honest about their intentions. This is very underhanded and deceptive and frankly if this is how they are going to do business from now on my days or ordering ANYTHING straight from the mint are over |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1027 Posts |
muddler, the W proof has already sold almost 500,000 coins so even if this new set has an S proof and sells 100K it will still be way behind the W proof sales. oih82w8, the mint does not replace individual coins from sets. If replacements were being made available, they would be entire sets and would require returning the complete set to be replaced. Typically in cases like this one, they do not make replacements available, only refunds.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
12844 Posts |
I have two schools of thought on this. 1) People are making a big deal out of a little thing. Many were upset when the mint announced "mint to demand" on the 2012 SF ASE set. Then the realization came that sales were only going to be around 250k. "Hey! Times are great, we have a couple possible key coins in the series!" 2) Another questionable move by the mint that is alienating long-time customers. "Wait, what? One of the coins that was supposed to be 'minted to demand' is now going to be available in another set? What the heck?! You screwed us again. Newman!!" I know there's more that goes into their decisions than we have visibility to -- it can't ALL be the stupid blowhard boss from Dilbert, can it? But I'm leaning towards #2 at this time. It's just ridiculous. Not to mention deceptive marketing. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Celtic  Quote:1) People are making a big deal out of a little thing. Many were upset when the mint announced "mint to demand" on the 2012 SF ASE set. Then the realization came that sales were only going to be around 250k. "Hey! Times are great, we have a couple possible key coins in the series!" I cant speak for other members but personally while I am happy where the set ended up still dont like how it got there. Just my opinion though. Now that weve seen this happen if the mint to demand is the worst thing they ever did I would be happy Quote:
It's just ridiculous. Not to mention deceptive marketing. And thats not even the worst part. Its not like they did the other set then months later decided to do this. They knew all along this was happening at the same time the other set was being sold/planned and at some point they actually made the decision that we wont announce this till after we get the money for the other sets and well just let everyone think thats the only way they can get those coins. You could argue it was an oversight on their part, but if thats the argument that someone wants to make then they would also have to admit that everyone running the mint is completely incompetent if they couldnt figure that out and they all need to be fired. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12844 Posts |
Yep, I agree, basebal.
Only thing I can think of is maybe a senior bean counter said, "Crap. We have all these surplus planchets/ASEs/whatever."
Then a senior exec said, "There's money to be made and we WILL get a product to market in a month; make it happen."
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Celtic I wouldnt be surprised one bit if they had this package already in mind and then ended up having to either run a short minting to finish off the special sets or had more dies prepared and didnt want to waste them and decided to use the S coin for this set as a result. But again that would bring me back to the competency issue that they couldnt foresee how ticked this would make everyone.
If thats the case though that begs the question would they be brazen enough to do the same with any left over RPs?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12844 Posts |
Quote:
...that begs the question would they be brazen enough to do the same with any left over RPs? basebal, jeez I really hope not, as I'm sure you and everyone else here does too. Though there have been only 3 releases that I can think of, the RP's have historically been the "sacred" ASE's and only offered in certain sets; never by themselves. I guess what you're saying is, if there are/were a ton of extras enough to "warrant" a strange set like the $5/ASE, who's to say the RP's won't show up in another odd set or be sold by themselves. I won't like it either way if that happens. The RP's command a bit of respect. I'd hope they keep these beauties to the 250k originally advertized (indirectly, by way of the now-suspect "mint to demand" verbiage). I think the RP ASE's are some of the best looking coins ever produced by the US Mint. And I hope they stay rare. One final thought - even if another 100k are sold of the regular S proof, it'll still make 2012 one of the lowest mintages of the series. This new crazy hybrid set has no heavy advertizing (nor favor with collectors, from what I'm reading). So hopefully this is something we gripe about for a month, then we realize that only 50k or less have been added to the proof ASE S sales count and they don't touch the RPs. How happy are y'all that you have the 2006 and 2011 RPs now and 2012 coming?! |
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
I hope the RPs stay low mintage and rare as well even if they do become a yearly coin. The look of them is just second to none and I love them. If they do however do something similar with the RPs I will be canceling or returning all my special sets and just get some of the new cheaper sets for the RPs. Truth be told the RP is really why I personally wanted the set in the first place. Knowing this bill ASE set would be on the way I wouldnt have changed my orders. What it really comes down to (for me at least) isn't the fact that they are offering it again in another set, rather how they are doing it. I dont like to deal with people or businesses that engage in deceptive/underhanded practices which is exactly what I feel the mint has done here by not saying a word about this until the sales concluded. Considering this project has to be a joint adventure between two government agencies and not something the mint could just put together in house, this has to have been in the works for months if not longer. The decision for the S to be in it could have been a last minute switch but either way they were more than happy to imply the only way to get both coins was with the set and basically as soon as sales ended they put it out again. I feel like theyre that shady salesmen who only puts one of an item on the shelves telling everyone its a one of a kind when theres a room full of them in the back. I do also agree about the only bright side to all of this is that the new set is so horribly conceptualized that the sales should be minimal and would be shocked if it hit 100k unless bill collectors found it extremely desirable and just wanted the $5. Edited by basebal21
07/20/2012 02:39 am
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12844 Posts |
Quote:
Considering this project has to be a joint adventure between two government agencies...this has to have been in the works for months if not longer. Good point. I'm just trying to keep from being totally negative on the Mint and looking for some possible explanations. I love their products, I think the quality is excellent for the most part, and I end up spending a good deal of take home pay on them annually. It does feel like we're getting railroaded here lately with PM pricing and perceived bait-and-switch. If I were a fly on the wall in the mint product development/marketing group, would I see a group of people just trying brainstorming crazy products to squeeze every last possible dime out of their customer base? or would I see a group of excited, creative people that are genuinely proud of their products and think that they're offering another great product for collectors? Dunno. I'd like to the think the latter but it's easy to come up with negative scenarios with this recent SF Proof ASE thing. Phooey on that. And I know that we at CCF are a small fraction of the US Mint's customers and that it's easy to get on the bandwagon when someone starts griping. Wallet fatigue is a big part of my frustration, but I don't suppose that's really their fault. No one has a gun to my head to buy everything they mint (and I don't). Someone's done their research and apparently knows what the market (thus their coffers) will absorb (might be all those surveys I've answered that say I'll be buying 20+ products in the coming year...) Let's just try to think objectively about it every once in a while between rants. I'm trying to do that myself but it's not easy these days. They need to mint a money tree. |
| |
Replies: 160 / Views: 13,797 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 07/19/2012 11:42 am
