2013 Two-Coin American Silver Eagle West Point Set

LOL. I ain't heard that terminology (ranking on) since Junior HS. That's a long time ago, though we used the term 'rank out'.......

But I don't think this thread has quite degraded to that point yet. I'm enjoying a spirited discussion........

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

And it's kinda a love-hate with the mint as well, since we know how good their stuff can be, when they really try. 2011 set was an ordering fiasco, but the coins had good QC. 2012 had bad QC and worse CS. I wasn't collecting back in 2006, but I wish the mint would go back to that BEAUTIFUL finish, as opposed to the snow-frosted cameo currently used on proofs, which basically washes out detail (look at the obverse on a Wash quarter.

So maybe like a coffee klatsch moaning about the kids underperforming

 

Amen Brother.........

 

That is due do it's value. If silver was worthless and I needed 99 SAE's to buy a Coke, I wouldn't bother to pick them up off the ground either.

 

Clint, I think I'm the only guy left on earth who likes the laser etching.

 

See? Spoken like a younger person. If you'd have grown up when I did you would't be saying that. We made it a practice to never throw money away. To this day I'm never too proud to stoop down and pick a coin up off of the ground...cent included. And no, I didn't grow up during the 'depression'........

 

I didn't claim that the Mint said anything! You did.

 

Hasn't anyone else ever fought with their brothers? We not only don't hate each other, we respect each other, right SQG?

 

To which I provided example at the bottom of the prior page, in case anyone missed it...

 

I saw it, Clint. I don't know if that's the Mint saying that they said anything but rather that they apologized for "a lack of communication". I figured that I'd rather not beat a dead horse anymore.

I don't think that the Mint ever said that the coins would both be exclusive to this set, but rather may have alluded to it. Then, as a good public relations minded seller will do, they apologized when people got mad. Note that they didn't admit to saying anything, but rather apologized for not saying the right thing.

Get mad if you want, I just think that if you got the set that you purchased and had an opportunity to return or cancel your order (which over 26,000 people did) then you weren't harmed as you had originally claimed, but rather were disappointed at the loss of an opportunity to flip.

 

For some reason the original articles aren't coming up on Google. Kinda strange how no CW articles appear before the mint apology, although numerous other sources state both coins are exclusive to the set.

So, it would require one to spend time searching CW. Most read the article(s), so let's just stipulate to the fact that the article(s) exists. The articles that Clint cited show that the mint knows it screwed up (AGAIN), even though the apology didn’t go far enough. They apologized for “Lack of communication”, failing to acknowledge their lack of communication caused CW to publish erroneous facts. Why didn’t the mint notify CW that the article was not correct, rather than sit back and reap the benefits of the erroneous article?

 

Of course.

 

Did you guys even read my post (#58)? It was in the news, albeit, not the mainstream.........

 

Funny the continuing flip talk. All I wanted were beautiful sets for each of the kids. The hullabaloo over whether or not the coins were unique is solely a matter of principle to me. I do teach principles to the youngins, too...

HOWEVER I will admit a large part of my concern is due to poor QC, AND both top TPGs grading as "70" numerous RPs (I saw 5 in hand, so who knows how many total) with the frosted fields full of shiny specks. If the mint doesn't do a better job in 2013, I can see a quicker conversion away from moderns, and a lesser retention of new collectors.

So, I will be much better informed in 2013. I will have eyes wide open and ready to return unsatisfactory sets. And I won't take info at face value, nor multiply it ... Fair enough?

 

In all of the argument here, no one has shown anything published by the mint that states that both of the coins issued in the 2012 SF Anniversary set were exclusive to the set. Screen shots. Scans of printed material. Just show us that and you will win the argument.

 

There’s no winning here, when it comes to the mint, the best you can do is not lose.

Your point is well taken, if the mint didn’t put it in writing, it doesn’t exist, regardless of what their reps say to the numismatic media. And even then, the rules may change.

 

I have written many letters to Congressmen/women in my day and I have worked grassroots in the past for both political parties. I hold a BA in Political Science from a California State University... But in all fairness; the US Postal Service will be poof; gone within the next 10 years; all part of the plan brother. Electronic email systems is what they want, cause that is what they can keep safe for when they need it without having to gather paper-trails Trust me when I say; the President of The United States of America could care less about coin-collectors or coin-flippers; flat out, 100%; period. I feel your frustration on this SF 2-coin set, I pretty much side with you on this issue... But having admitted that here; like the other side stated; a gamble is a gamble, you win some and lose most. I am a collector of coins and many other things, but also feel that any collector should always want to make a profit if he/she needs to liquidate any of their collections... Or else they would just be hoarders of junk, and who in their right mind wants to hoard junk? I collect (what i feel to be valuable and mostly tangible items) to control my impulses caused by OCD; but I thank God I am educated, or else I would just be a bum who hoards things that my wife and child would have to pay to be removed from my stash if I left this earth earlier than expected. I bought 7 sets of this issue and inherited 10 sets from my Gramps who just recently passed. Of the 34 coins sent into PCGS for grading, I got a total of 5 PR70's, zero RP70's, with the rest being 69's, 68's and two 67's. I was way more disappointed in the QC than any misinformation that the US Mint may or may not have issued. I mean the San Francisco Mint has specialized in proof coins for 40+ years, and they slept-in on these issues. But in the end, I don't blame anyone, not even myself. I love cointalk.com, and all you guys/gals who contribute; this place is progressive in furthering my education on Numismatics, and I Respect all of you for that :hail:

Erik

 

Well said sir and unfortunately the sad state of affairs in this country today.

 

I just got the December 31st, 2012 Coin World and on the bottom half of page 48' starting on the 9th paragraph of this article written by Paul Gilkes (Coin World Staff), it states:

"Collectors initially were given the impression by Mint officials that both coins in the set were exclusive to the set. U.S. Mint officials later announced that only the Reverse Proof was a set exclusive."

sounds to me that indeed "Mint officials" misled collectors from the start... I don't really care either way, but here it is, right on my lap, in the new Coin World. Don't have access to a scanner and couldn't find the article online yet.

 

is this a money maker?