Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;buyingsilvers, post: 1312973, member: 18821&quot;]5 ounces is an odd size, would have been better off as 1 ouncers.&nbsp; 5 ounces costs 5x more per puck, not to mention you have to buy 5 of them every year if you want the series.&nbsp; Then you consider that there&#039;s also the &quot;P&quot; mintmarked series.&nbsp; By the time you buy 1 coin, there&#039;s another coin or two coming out and you&#039;re sinking hundreds again into them, rinse repeat.&nbsp; Compare that to the ASEs where you may be buying the unc, proof, and w (normally) yearly.&nbsp; A lot of small collectors can handle buying 3 ounces a year. 25-50 ounces will price a lot of people out</p><p><br /></p><p>then there was the fiasco when these things were first offered that really turned people off...</p><p><br /></p><p>low demand, seen little more as bullion (as with normal SAEs), except a lot more people actually collect SAEs.&nbsp; Mostly due to the factors mentioned above.</p><p><br /></p><p>not the first failed US commemorative either.&nbsp; JMO but would have been far better if the coins would be 1 ounce, then released 2 coins at a time, bullion and proof.&nbsp; Special collector sets could include both in a box similar to the proof ASE box, but otherwise sold separately and only 2 different designs sold in a year.&nbsp; That way, people could collect the raw coins or buy the collector set to have graded for the label or whatever. </p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;If they wanted to do something special with the format of the coin, they could either offer it in a smaller diameter high relief or large diameter low relief.&nbsp; That way initial collector interest should be in the hundreds of thousands versus tens of thousands (and declining) as it is currently.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>just my .02[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in