2009w american eagle one ounce proof will come out on december 3. 2009. maximum mintage at 8,000. mintage consider to be a lot. price is between $1,692.00 to $1,792.00. limit 5 per family. currently the platinum price is $1,450.00. borderline for adjustment. will you buy it?. http://www.coinnews.net/2009/11/20/us-mint-offers-newly-designed-2009-platinum-eagle-coin/
i don't collect platinum. i rather buy gold. even we knew that the platinum can perform better. when gold reach $2,000.00. platinum might be $2, 800.00 to $3,200.00. another reason i don't buy. simply because i already bought all my cash in gold and stocks. no silver. why? no place to store them.
1997w - 20,851 1998w - 14,912 1999w - 12,363 2000w - 12,453 2001w --- 8,969 2002w --- 9,834 2003w --- 8,246 2004w --- 6,007 2005w --- 6,602 2006w --- 9,152 2007w --- 8,363 2008w --- 4,769 key date 2009w --- 8,000 max
Mintage figures don't manage a hoot if no ones going to collect these issues......might as well collect Franklin Mint products.
so far none of us wanted to buy. will the mintage fall below 4,769 (2008w). then that will be a very special coin.
There's some imbalance, shouldn't it be boy-girl-boy-girl? ...and the eagle is looking opposite the other portraits which seems odd for some reason, design-wise.
The girl on top is probably a guy in drag (can't leave anyone out). I have every other 2009 coin so I might as well complete the set.
2009w american platinum one ounce proof open up $1,792.00 each tomorrow. a mere $1.44 average different. or else it will cost us only at $1,692.00.
So true:crying: Long time Gold and Platium four coin mint set collector. My 1997 four coin Platium UNC set only had 2500 sets produced. Any of my four coin gold proof sets with much higher sets produced, will sell in same ball park price as my 1997 UNC platium set
Woul like one but just put a purchase agreement on a house ( which was accepted). No expensive ones for me for a while. Maybe a few cheap ones....
I was at the CCAC meeting that discussed this design and the "expert on American History" was particularly displeased with its implication that we're celebrating "a more perfect union" as if the "union" refers to a unification of peoples as opposed to the preamble's intent; forming a federal government with power to act directly upon citizens (instead of acting indirectly through the states). More than a few CCACs noticed that white man was left out. I think altering the eagle privy mark's direction was not an option... It's like having to design around "In God We Trust;" sometimes designers just wish they could put that on the side of a coin!