I keep using the word "we" instead of "will"
Im a dork
I keep using the word "we" instead of "will"
Im a dork
As I've stated in another thread, I think it will settle at about $250 by the end of this year. Obviously, a graded 70 set will probably fetch more money.
I think it's really too early to tell but we will find out as we get further down the road. I feel confortable predicting that it'll sell for $250 to $300. I think it's a shame that so many people and companies are getting into the act of selling sets cheaply. The reverse proof is gonna be the coin that everybody wants, especially the collectors who have the other years. It only reasons to me that if this one sells for a low price, then the price on the other years will come down, any thoughts?
Yes, I think the price and quantity of 2012 sets will effect the 2006 RP price.
Last edited by USS656; 07-13-2012 at 11:04 AM.
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
It'll take a short while, but when the Coin Vaults, HSN's and MCM's sell out all that they bought, the prices should rise to $250-$300 range for these sets. Maybe slightly higher for 70's.
I agree with the $250-$300 range. I am not sure we will see the grading frenzy that we saw last year, since there is no need to send in sealed boxes to get the designation. More cherrypicked, which means fewer 69's (probably). 70's will command a decent premium, perhaps $400-450 for a set. I think $500 is possible for a raw set if a frenzy starts when the first are shipped, but doubtful for long-term pricing (after 6 months but before 2 years). Long-term profitability is questionable since most moderns seem to lose value when the series moves on to something else.
So in summary, for a raw set I think they will hold steady at $200 or slowly rise until the first are shipped, then you will see prices jump dramatically, then fall back to $250-300 for a while, and then probably losing value slowly over time.
i think it could hit $500.00 or more. this 2012s set is far better than 2006. two key dates against one.
As more RP issuances are released, I think it further decreases the novelty/unique premium for RPs. As a result these coins will end up, IMO, being close to the price of the proof coin. Possibly the 2006 will hold its value somewhat because it's out there in its own spot on a calendar. The decline is already being reflected in the pricing trends.
The only modern Eagle coin that I am aware of that has held on to its "unique" premium is the 2009 UHR. It's the only year that coin was made, there is nothing else like it, and if they don't have other issues, then those ~100K coins will continue to head to the price stratosphere. People who bought this coin during they year it could be bought are very fortunate indeed. Note: There is no "key date" to this series.
As far as there being no keys in the ASE series, the '95W proof is a key, IMO. The price it still commands tells you that.
Another unique that I would list with the UHR would be the bimetalic gold/silver. I forget the year, but there is at least one such coin from the mint.
If I were more aware when the first spouse gold coins started up, I would have collected the bachelor/liberty subset. Again, just too uninformed at the time. :P Time machines are for this sort of thing. Yeah, Google stock, here I come! Not.
So...what's the lesson? Get the first of the unique issues. That's something I'm keeping a close eye on now. Accordingly, the palladium issue is my next 'target'.
2012 Eagle sets will remain well above their issue cost and any PM valuation (so long as silver doesn't skyrocket!). Some folks suggest that this modern PM/bullion premium market is a fad, but even if it is, a bust in that won't suppress this issue enough to worry about.
Buy. Hold. Enjoy. God forbid you have to sell it...take your profit and walk away with a smile.
Since other members are being allowed to talk off topic about the 2009 UHR in this thread, I will remind this forum that a large number of collectors (or 'investors') widely trash-talked the 2009 UHR coin during the year it was available for sale. And for the record, I defended the coin on CT when I heard those opinions three years ago. Mind you it was a product that was available for almost a year for anyone to buy, before any of this 'mint-to-demand' speak entered the marketing lingo with which they sell coins. It was also during a year when spot price was rapidly climbing and the Mint's pricing structure meant the price moved up from initial release price. People also said the mintage of the 2009 UHR was going to be too high! They said it was a glorified bullion coin that would go faster to the smelter than would a collector base emmerge to pay a premium for the coin. The Mint eventually destroyed more than 85,000 minted 2009 UHR coins that did not sell that year, as well as an additional 67,240 un-minted blanks for the 2009 UHR that were ready to be used if sales demanded it during that year.
"So... what's the lesson?"
The lesson is not to just buy the first of a unique series. If that were true, then the U.S. Mint would have caught on and begun cranking out more and more "unique" series every year, like many world mints already do. The U.S. Mint seems to be trending in this direction. The existence of more and more RP coins and the effect it is now having on prices of numismatic ASE products demonstrates the error in that approach because future products of a similar design that are repeated undermine efforts and time spent looking for such opportunities and acquiring the coins to make a profit from them. Likewise, if it were true then those low mintage, unique coins of the 2010 5oz. ATB series should be doing better accordingly, in the face of lower spot metals prices. The premiums asked for the 2009 UHR haven't been suffering because the spot price of gold fell back a touch.
A better approach is to look at the effect of a collective group of people mulling over a topic and when they trash something, when no one want's to buy that thing, then the sales are bound to be weaker (mintage lower) and prices stronger later when sales results are published. The same thing just happened recently with one of the commemorative Army half dollars, though most 'collectors' were not aware of the fact until the numismatic press published the sales results (read 'mintage') and pointed the flock to what they should be paying a premium for. Mintage can work to the opposite but the U.S. Mint doesn't often offer low mintages very often for the uproar (e.g. ASE25) they get when they attempt it. Mintage played a key role in the LN6 set being an aftermarket success, because it was grossly under minted for the scale of the Lincoln collecting community. These mintage problems are grossly missed retail opportunities for the Mint and not the subject of this post, but have been cited for full disclosure of why they do not factor in the same way as certain other products.
As threads like this insist on being placed in the Bullion Investing sub forum, then it should be pretty obvious to investors and/or collectors looking for opportunities to buy, own or flip something with such potential value, that you buy into what others do not want and not the other way around. Investors who will be selling, wait for the demand to return, which is after the coin is no longer available from the initial source, i.e. the U.S. Mint direct to you. It may not be an immediate flip either, but may require patience. One lets the sales figures and numismatic press do the work of bringing that demand around later. A 'sales odometer' works to nullify the effect as do the high mintages attributed to having sold to demand.
Asking $75/oz for silver is a particular problem with the ASE 75th set, especially when spot prices are trending down and the Mint refuses to list all it's silver coins on the precious metals pricing matrix. If such a collectible doesn't turn out to have the value a bunch of collecting investors anticipated, then a quarter million units sold will have a hard time recouping those monies paid into procuring those products. An early $20-$30 flip isn't making much of a splash if the future value can't be maintained, either.
In the case of the 2009 UHR, had it been a flop, the intrinsic value of the coin would have been a fair flip since PMs continued to rise after the coin was no longer available for sale from the U.S. Mint. Economics of that period of time, and the act of buying of any gold coin, is something buyers reasonably risked doing, then. It's less reasonable to risk buying $75/oz. silver coins in the current climate. The 2010 ATB bullion 5 oz. coins made a killing for numerous flippers because mintage was actually low for once and demand was keen due to restricted channels obtaining them. Silver was up until later in that year as well, long after the monies made were collected. When the "P"ucks were released the frenzy had all but fizzled because the initial uniqueness was gone. Cautious investors will keep an eye on what this series is doing for its current plummeting sales figures and lack of 'buzz'.
This is all applicable because of the effect mintage has amongst coin collectors. Similarly, this is applicable because it all circles back to my position on how such a thread topic is or isn't discussed. That is, observing this discussion sheds light on the future performance of the thing being hyped or panned. Suggesting restraint in posting the sales figures and having discussion related to 'easy money making' schemes is more to protect the value of what some seem to be after through this activity. Some are happy to post higher numbers because they want to know the value exists in what they bought, but the act of drawing so much attention to the thing, doesn't necessarily deliver demand and a stable higher aftermarket price. The tendency is for price to peak and drop off for these and other reasons.
The palladium addition to the Eagle series is a very premature series to begin speculating about as the entire series has been floated for the past three years and has yet to be approved, and can't be known until the feasibility report is delivered to Congress later this year and made public. It may easily be postponed or shut down at that point. The early signs of the potential retail cost of these coins and the desirability of the designs has already cropped up in a thread that I started related to developments in this coin coming to fruition. While the suggested bill for this coin's legislation has already been put together, some amongst collectors/investors already wish for (budget-friendly) fractional sizes of the coin without understanding the expense and risk involved in offering such a thing, and in light of the U.S. Mint already taking off the market AGB fractional coins and platinum eagle fractional coinage in recent years. I suspect such thoughts being expressed are made more to force the U.S. Mint to fit new products to the individual collector's limited budget, rather than the collector working to coming up with the budget for the proposed coin or maintaining one's own budget at the level of coins with metals (i.e. silver) that is already suited to their means.