Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;krispy, post: 1665548, member: 19065&quot;]The collector marketed &quot;numismatic&quot; ASEs <i>never</i> lacked a profit for the Mint. They&#039;ve always sold them for far more than intrinsic value of the metal. </p><p><br /></p><p>This series has steadily declined from a solid annual Proof coin collected by many to a series of coin<u>s</u> now dependent on annual marketing gimmicks.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Ever since they could start exploiting anniversaries, starting with the 20th in 2006, when they introduced a Reverse Proof, then adding &quot;W&quot; mintmarks to otherwise uncirculated versions, expanding the product line and began this trend of inserting the coin in various presentation packaging and grouped with other coins, like the recent boxed sets or combined with paper money in still other sets, has this series become problematic and questionable between collectors. </p><p><br /></p><p>Clearly the Mint has always made a profit on ASEs and fully intends to double, triple, quadrule the profitability every year now that they can exploit the brand loyalty of this product and ride on the accepted market factors of rising PM costs. The Mints dependency on these sales tactics are the root of what causes division among collectors deciding whether they buy into this or not, and why some feel the Mint are shooting themselves in the foot. For the first 20 years of the series, everyone&nbsp; who collected ASE, did so and were vastly satisfied with the silver eagle offerings. That sort of &#039;equality&#039; amongst collectors doesn&#039;t currently exist, and can&#039;t what with the expansive number of products across all product lines that simply overwhelm individual collectors. Now that there are so many variations to &quot;collect&quot; it&#039;s ever more impossible to &quot;satisfy everyone&quot;.[/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