5 Oz America The Beautiful Bullion

These coins won't have millions of collectors. If you want evidence, look at the sales of the silver proof quarter sets. If you can't sell millions of those at $32.95, how are you going to sell millions of 5oz coins at almost $200 per?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I've always liked doing business with APMEX but they messed up on this one. Scott Thomas citing a 5 ounce silver Panda's $425 retail price and comparing it to a U.S. Mint issue that they buy at the cost of bullion (+5%) was NOT good.

Regular strike bullion Panda's that could be bought by a wholesaler for a few % over melt is what the contract with the mint requires for comparison and that can't be done with Pandas. The wholesale buy price on 5oz Pandas is likely well over $300, but I don't have those figures in front of me right now.

These (ATB 5ozers) coins should be sold to the public at around $200/each on a first come, first serve basis.

And to reiterate, I like APMEX and have done a lot of business with them and will in the future also. I just think they made a mistake. That's life - we move on and see where it goes from here. Cheers!

 

Check out Provident Metals site, they have sets listed for $899.95:

http://www.providentmetals.com/2010...utiful-5-coin-set-brilliant-uncirculated.html

TC

 

You Da Man TC!
Finally, an honest to goodness respectable bullion dealer!

 

Think they know something about the Mints decision??? Still have not seen a date the bullion goes on sale and Provident is not taking pre-orders at that price.

 

Maybe we will find out today? Or at least by Friday!
Provident surely has thousands of orders in their system, likely more than any other company?
Ya think this is proof that ALL the other companies were not treating these like other normal US Mint bullion products?
This should really boost opinions about Provident! I wonder if they are publicly owned. If so, should probably check out their stock!

 

First, you don't have a copy of that Agreement. Second, the exact quote is: "These premiums are to be competitive with those charged for other bullion coins, considering prevailing market conditions."

You keep forgetting that last part while simultaneously adding words which aren't there. The excerpt goes on "we anticipate that our Authorized Purchasers will carry out the United States Mint's objective ..." I suggest you look up the word "anticipate" and contrast it with the definition of the word "require" or "obligation."

Quite possibly, but at least they'll know what's coming. On the other hand, without previous sales, the pent-up demand will make it even worse. If the Mint has to hobble together a direct sale this year to meet the requirements of the law, it will be a disaster.

The distinction "public purchasers" and middlemen is meaningless unless you impose sales limits and minimum holding period on the buyers. At that point, any pretense of these being bullion coins vanishes. Such limits would be inconsistent with the quoted portion of Authorized Purchaser Agreement and bullion markets in general. Nor does your opinion, right or wrong, about what's "better" have nothing to do with contractual obligations or abuse.

The National Park Service has the right to first refusal, so APMEX and the others can only be second in line. Do try to read what's actually in the law, dear chap. Just because you've only heard of one term doesn't mean the other doesn't exist. I once reviewed a contract with a right of third refusal as well as first and second.

I explicitly make no comments about the competence of Congress, but it's disingenuous to say that the Mint couldn't provide input into the legislation. However, other times when Congress has made mistakes in coin legislation, the Mint has realized the problem in time and gotten corrective legislation passed. Instead, it initially forecast a late Summer release and did nothing when it was clear they were going to miss that date. Even as late as early October they were still forecasting a mintage of 100,000 pieces per design.

APMEX has not been "cut out" as of your writing and may well not be. Nor were they singled out -- shipments to all distributors were suspended whether they quoted a price or not. So this time your claim is doubly false.

Kindly try to stick to reality, dear chap.

 

Honest or just smelling the coffee? I wonder what price they'd have charged without the crapstorm that hit APMEX? What dealer would try to charge $1400 right now?

 

It's about time . Just think what would have happened, if there was not a hurricane and firestorm from the public over the initial offerings by AMPEX and other choice secondary market dealers. I'm not advocating for anyone to discontinue doing business with AMPEX. The facts remain, that the Mint was the ultimate culprit in all this, I continue to urge for a call to replace MOY. I've already made my decision how I choose to express my continued dismay with this Mint for lack of a clear vision , insight and leadership that will not only meet, but surpass it's public's needs and expectations. Hopefully for collectors, this ATB situation will work it's way out. But more importantly how they do that will mark the way for future collectors beyond my years.

 

Their web site now lists the price at $0.01 and says they are not taking orders until the coins are released by the US Mint.

 

I have to laugh at all of this . No one knows what the heck their doing, including the Mint itself !

 

It is a true comedy of errors.

 

True, it's getting kinda old, but I'll bet this thread is getting a huge amount of hits. Anybody that's thinking about, or planning to try and buy them, keep checking back to see if any news has broken because they don't want to miss out. The last people to find out will be left out in the cold. This release sorta reminds me of the UHR fiasco.

When they get this thread, they see everyone still argueing about who's to blame.

I'm subscribed to the US Mint RSS feed, hoping that will be one of the first places to notify. Anyone know of any other notifications other than the bullion dealers?

 

These guys are pretty good Charles.....

http://coinupdate.com/

 

Thanks Ken, I appreciate that!

 

No bandaid is going to fix the problem at the mint or with the congressional act of this consequence. There are to many legal issues presented in this fiasco, to expect a release this year. Actually, I don't think we will see them, if at all before the end of the first quarter in 2011 . I think the public has done an outstanding job of expressing our displeasure .

 

I haven't forgotten anything. You simply are ignoring the rebuttal to your claim regarding the meaning of "prevailing market conditions" that I previously posted. And as far as looking things up, take your own advice...and start with the definition of the word "commitment" that appears further up in the very text you quoted.

The distinction between "public purchasers" and middlemen is not meaningless. Unlike the former, the latter are undertaking to extract a windfall profit by means of their status as members of an oligopoly of 11.

The National Park Service does not have a Right of First Refusal (it's YOU who needs to read the law). Its right is tantamount to a vested Option (you do know the difference between an Option and a Right of First Refusal, right, counselor?) with respect to the numismatic coins. It's axiomatic that there can be no Right of Second Refusal without a Right of First Refusal. Here again, you not only are incorrect, but you also are flailing at a non-issue.

I did not say that Apmex has been cut out; I said if the result is that Apmex is cut out. Here again, you're wrong.

I'll stick to reality, and you keep smoking (just remember, it's puff, puff, pass...not puff, puff, puff!).

 

....and we need a sense of humor too! I still like APMEX, bought and sold with them for years and gotten good service.

Looks like we'll have the chance to but these for a reasonable mark-up over the bullion price! Cheers if you're one of the lucky ones!

 

How could one not appreciate the tragic comedy of all this. But seriously, I have to laugh.

 

I'm ignoring it because you are injecting language which isn't there and isn't within the standard definition of the term "prevailing market conditions."

Middleman (n) -- an intermediary or agent between two parties; especially : a dealer, agent, or company intermediate between the producer of goods and the retailer or consumer.

So only the 11 distributors are the only middlemen on your planet? Or are you just continuing to make up non-standard definitions as you go along?

Since you're inventing non-standard definitions, I'm not sure I see the point, but here goes:

An option is a privilege, for which a person has paid consideration, that grants that person the right to purchase or sell an asset at an agreed time or at a time within an agreed period for a fixed price. If the buyer must meet certain prerequisites for that privilege, then the option vests when those conditions are met.

The law set no fixed price. It had no agreed expiration date; once the coins were sold to someone else the NPS lost all rights it had. There was no vesting period nor conditions set. The NPS paid no consideration for the right.

A right of refusal has no set exercise date or expiration date. Instead, it requires the seller make an offer to the option holder before selling to anyone else at those terms.
Unlike options, rights may be granted by law. The NPS had a right of refusal.

The Distributors could have either an option or a right of refusal. But they were definitely second in line, so they couldn't have a right of first refusal by any definition on my planet.