Free Money!

I think the goal is to destroy as few as possible and make sales. Destroying them is unprofitable, wasteful and an embarrassment to management.

They also don't want to reprice them up only to have to reprice them down again. It would lead to returns.

It's already awkward because of the two prices (2010 & 2011) and the time required to reprice.

So they'll sell the 2011 at current price as long as possible. In the meantime they'll wait a couple days on the 2010 to see if they need to reprice them equal to 2011. Or they could raise both (like you said), but that could hurt 2011 sales.

It also depends on how many 2010 sets they still have available. If they don't have many then there is no hurry to act.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Excellent points! I hadn't considered the Mint raising the 2010 price to equal the 2011 price. I think (as you say) they priced them the way they did so they wouldn't have any 2010 left to destroy. If they reprice the 2010s to equal the 2011s, that might signal the 2010s are nearing an end.

Based on low First Spouse mintages at the end of 2010, I thought the 2010 mintage for the Silver Proof set may have been similarly small (relative to other years). An early 2010 sellout could boost sales of the 2011 sets. The 2010 Silver Proof set has already been on sale over a year...they could sell out at any time.

My gut feeling is that they must have made at least 600,000 of the 2010 sets. Given current sales trends (and repricing suspensions), I seriously doubt they'll reach 600,000 sets by Christmas...(imho).

EDIT: It looks like $43.25.Oz is the weekend price...until Asian trading resumes on Monday.

 

First post here just wanted to say thanks for this post. I found this site late last night while googling and read this thread and picked up a 2010 set really early this morning before they suspended them.

 

SWEET!! That's why we're here. :cheers:

 

I heard back from PCGS: they can't give an opinion on whether or not the coin is damaged without having it in hand. Which means I need to pay for grading to find out if it is damaged.

 

If it were mine, I would keep it, but I wouldn't pay to have it graded. I think more info will come out about "texturing" errors in the next few years...it's pretty new right now. In Post #95 (above), I reference a Coin World article about "laser doubling". I sure would like to find a coin like that!

 

2010 United States Mint Silver Proof Set™ (SV3)

Price: $64.95

This product is temporarily unavailable. UGHOHHHHHH!!!!!!

 

Silver came down to 41.83 from it's high this weekend. Maybe if it doesn't jump up the mint will put the 2010 back up for sale.

 

I don't have access to Coin World, so I can't see the doubling you are talking about.

I don't think the streaking is all that rare, so I'm interested in flipping mine before people realize how common it is.

I can see selling it on eBay and having the buyer return a different proof set, claiming it isn't as described. Kind of hard to disprove. I can also see someone buying it, not holding it properly, being unable to see the streaks, and returning it. If I can get it slabbed by a grading company as a variety of some type, most of those issues go away.

It looks like I get to go to the Long Beach Coin Show - both PCGS and ANACS will have graders there.

Uh - anyone know the best way to maximize the premium when selling a variation?

 

My guess is that this isn't rare at all. I can see it on my 2010 and 2011 quarter obverses. Strangely it isn't the same on each coin with variation in degree from almost invisible to not too hard to see, but does seem to occur more so on certain ones. I thought maybe the protective lens was the source of it, but one of my sets has a couple of the quarters turned 90 degrees from normal (great QC...not) and, sure enough, the streaks faithfully follow the coin orientation.

 

I bought two batches of the 2010 quarters - one batch around April, which doesn't seem to show the streaking, and one batch a few weeks ago (when yakpoo started talking about the proof set) which shows it in most of the sets. I didn't notice it in the 2011's, but I wasn't looking for it, either.

That is three people in this thread who have samples. Time to flip 'em. I suspect that Yakpoo is right about not grading them, though. I started toting up costs and, unless someone thinks this is a rarity, I'll be spending too much to get it graded.

 

I don't think anyone knows how just how rare these new die varieties are. The most famous one to date is the 2007 "Frosted FREEDOM" varitiey of the $100 American Platinum Eagle. The pre-strike artist renderings depict the word "FREEDOM" as textured (frosted), but a design change was made before the coins were struck which left the word "FREEDOM" polished so it would stand out from the background.

Apparently, one guy at the Mint didn't get the memo because there has been at least one (1) coin found with the word "FREEDOM" frosted. The Mint may have caught and destroyed the others...maybe they didn't. This is the only one that's surfaced to date.

I think the entire Numismatic community is still trying to wrap their collective minds around "frosting" as a die variety. "Senior" collectors were introduced to proof frosting when it was incidental to the minting process; only seen on first strike coins. They don't think of cameo variations as an error, per se. However, modern proofs are purposefully textured and the texturing is supposed to be consistent and accurate. Beginning in 2004, laser texturing was introduced on a limited basis. By 2006 it was used on all Mint proof issues...so it's a relatively recent innovation.

Lesser variations (like the streaked quarters) are probably more common and less collectible...but interesting none the less. I wish I could post a picture of the Coin World error. It's as dramatic (and surely more rare) than the 1955 DDO. It may take quite some time before laser texturing errors develop a collector base. If you find any dramatic laser frosting errors, I wouldn't send them back to the Mint...just as I wouldn't send back a 1955 DDO.

 

Returning sets to mint?

I got my 2010 sets (4) and my Lincoln Presidential First Day Envelopes (2) yesterday. Yay!

But I have a question. Some of the coins have brownish spots or streaks on them, IMO (don't know if its on coins or in holders now). Do I have to return my entire order above in order to "correct for some", or just some and in your opinions, is it worth my spending the money to do so, along with insurance to try to get cleaner sets --- which won't be guaranteed to be any better. I don't know if in the future I would sell for the silver content or for the collectability of this, and I don't know how much impact it would have if I sold to someone who returned to me for poor quality.

I would appreciate any and all (quickly, that 7 day timeframe is counting down) answers to this.

 

Grab a decent magnifying glass - the odds are that the brown stuff is from the coin holder and isn't actually on the coin.

You need to return each bad set.

 

So if I only have 2 sets that are bad, just return those --- with me keeping the others?

 

Yes.

 

You have to return all of them, the US Mint does not allow partial returns. It sucks, might want to order 2 sets more and then return them. The hassle of it is why I just don't care, I'm planning to flip them if they turn into key dates or silver goes up high. I don't even bother to look at them since I'm more of a stacker then collector.

https://answers.usmint.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/62/kw/Returns/session/L3NpZC9DblBXVnZEaw==

 

That's what I thought, and I just don't see that I will do any better the next time, maybe worse, so I like your Idea of ordering more, just enough to cover the bad ones. Think I will do that.

 

I believe this means that you cannot return part of a proof set. For example, you can't return the quarters from the set and keep the other coins. However, you can return a single full set even if you ordered 10. Can anyone who has returned products to the mint verify this?

 

Am I also thinking that the returns (regardless of reason) get put back in the line-up to be sent out to the new orders?