What's the deal with the 2000 Millenium Set SAE?

[Revenant]

Okay, I know that it was in the Millenium coin and currency sets (of which only 75,000 were made). So that makes it a (dubious) rarity. But why is it that this coin is given it's own slot in the SAE registry set? From everything I've seen and heard so far this is just a packaging/labeling issue. Why does this coin get a spot when one isn't given to the 20th Anniversary coins (Note: I don't want that coin to get it's own spot)? I just shelled out a nice bit of money to get one for my set and I wish I knew what the big freakin deal is that runs this version of the 2000 SAE to $100+. Is the finish supposed to be different? Was it minted at another place?

[Conder101]

No difference in the finish and all of the 2000 SAE's were struck at West Point. There is absolutely nothing special about the coin in any way, just a labeling gimmick like the first strike/early release garbage.

[ant]

i think it should not have a spot cause that is forcing us to get 2 of 1 and make sure 1 has a different label. HUGE ploy! everytime they add a weird coin like that it makes collecting less funn.

 

next they are going to have a slot for the infamous gaudens no 1 can own

[Revenant]

next they are going to have a slot for the infamous gaudens no 1 can own

 

That would just be a slap in the face.

[jgrinz]

Just a LABEL and nothing else ... If I was NGC I would rethink this designation.

 

I had a gripe when a REVERSE "PROOF" was not in proof sets but this is a Coin STRIKE difference. This SHOULD NOT be recognised as there is NOTHING different between this coin and a normal strike coin ...

 

 

NGC ARE YOU LISTENING !

 

 

[ant]

[Revenant]

Ah well. They can leave it in now. I've aready got the coin on order. (Hopefully it should arrive today)

[awb]

So you bought a coin you didn't really want, because NGC lists it in the registry, and if it hadn't been listed in the registry, you wouldn't have bought it. Is that right? Doesn't that seem way out of whack?

[World Colonial]

No, a mintage of 75,000 would make these as common as the sand on the beach.

[Revenant]

So you bought a coin you didn't really want, because NGC lists it in the registry, and if it hadn't been listed in the registry, you wouldn't have bought it. Is that right? Doesn't that seem way out of whack?

 

Depends on how I define what I want and what assumptions I'm operating under.

 

What I want is a complete set of SAEs and I bought the coin under the belief/assumption (and apparently wrongly) that there was something that separates this coin from a "normal" 2000 SAE (why else would it get its own slot? ).

 

I don't dislike the coin, but I've long had problems understanding why:

1) It was considered separate from the "normal" 2000?

2) Why the hell do people charge $135 for it? (Other than stupidity)

I've never found a good answer to either of those which has long led to this certain level of frustration with the coin/situation.

 

Now that I know, , like I said, I just wanted to know if there was a reason why. Apparently the answer is 1) To promote a gimick and 2) charging a $70-100 premium for a gimick label. It doesn't make much sense but I can live with. Besides, it might look nicer than the 2000 currently in the set (which might get replaced).

[bochiman]

Get ready for the same thing with the 2007 dollar set.

Same 2007-W that was sold separately but now is part of a dollar set. If the TPGs decide to slab the ones from that packaging, separately, the same issue will arise.

 

I agree with you as I did the same thing 6 years ago when I restarted collecting. Thought there was something else special about them...I learned there wasn't.

[Revenant]

Get ready for the same thing with the 2007 dollar set.

Same 2007-W that was sold separately but now is part of a dollar set. If the TPGs decide to slab the ones from that packaging, separately, the same issue will arise.

 

I agree with you as I did the same thing 6 years ago when I restarted collecting. Thought there was something else special about them...I learned there wasn't.

 

Well, as long as no one tries to charge me $100+ for it you won't hear me grumble too loudly. Like I said, my main problem with this coin is I could never find a straight answer on why it was "different" and why it was so expensive.

[Observer44]

It's just a way to get us to spend more. But I'm not complaning I got one for 37.25 MS-67 PL. I still haven't bought a regular 2000D, but to finish the set I will have to. John

[Observer44]

I forgot to add that what really bugs me are the SMS coins in the set. They should be a separate set like the Pres. coins. JMHO. John

[Revenant]

I forgot to add that what really bugs me are the SMS coins in the set. They should be a separate set like the Pres. coins. JMHO. John

 

Observer, SAE = Silver American Eagle. I wasn't really talking about the Sacagawea (though I guess the same applies).

[Observer44]

I just figured that out looking at your Eagle set. It's late and I'm tired. John

[CHABSENTIA]

If people weren't willing to pay the price then there would be no market for it at that price.If most people that owned the coin were willing to sell it for a greater drop in price then the price would not hold at that price.

 

 

I am not sure but I think there is also a label for the first 50,000 SAE s in the year 2000.There is no spot for it in the Registry.NGC did not issue the Millinenium

set.I believe that it was issued with a paper currency etc as a set.

 

The 20th Anniversary set was issued with 3 coins . Two of them are not any different than the 2006 PF and the 2006 MS which is why you had to ship the unopened sets to get the black Anniversary label.

 

Unless I sent the Millineum set to NGC then there is no way that you could tell the 2000 SAE in the millieneum set for another 2000 SAE.

 

The U.S. Mint orginally packaged it as a Millineum set. All NGC did was note. that it came form a millineum set just like they did with the 2006 coins that are the same iby designating them with the black label although there is no difference..

 

While there is no difference between the regular 2000 Millenium coin SAE and the 2000 SAE. apparently there are people who are willing to pay $100.00 or more for a label that designates it came from a set and the owners of it are more than willing to sell it for that price.

[jgrinz]

What gets my dander flowing is when a seller states that there were ONLY 75,000 of this coin minted which is NOT TRUE - there were 75,000 Millenium sets made.

 

The silver eagle in these sets is one of 9 million minted (9,239,132)

[awb]

Depends on how I define what I want and what assumptions I'm operating under.

 

What I want is a complete set of SAEs and I bought the coin under the belief/assumption (and apparently wrongly) that there was something that separates this coin from a "normal" 2000 SAE (why else would it get its own slot? ).

 

Not to pick on you... It appears you defined what you want based on what NGC said belonged in a complete set. You have since discovered this coin is no variety, commands a premium for dubious reasons, yet you still purchased one, just because NGC said this coin was necessary for a complete set. Instead of collecting what you want, you're collecting what NGC says you want. That is unfortunate.

[RGT]

Depends on how I define what I want and what assumptions I'm operating under.

 

What I want is a complete set of SAEs and I bought the coin under the belief/assumption (and apparently wrongly) that there was something that separates this coin from a "normal" 2000 SAE (why else would it get its own slot? ).

 

Not to pick on you... It appears you defined what you want based on what NGC said belonged in a complete set. You have since discovered this coin is no variety, commands a premium for dubious reasons, yet you still purchased one, just because NGC said this coin was necessary for a complete set. Instead of collecting what you want, you're collecting what NGC says you want. That is unfortunate.

 

It is unfortunate, but it seems to be fairly normal in this hobby. Sets were previously defined by Whitman, Dansco, etc., and still are to some extent. Now some people let the TPGs tell them what to collect. I don't see much difference.

 

[CHABSENTIA]

It is hard to tell whether the Seller is ignorant of the facts or is deliberately terying to deceive the buyer.You are correct. The 75,000 are from the set but is merely one of 9 million.

 

There was another fluke in 2006 on the SAE. When NGC swittched from the First Strike Label to the Early label there were two different labels for the same coin so there were actually three as follows.

 

1. First Strike

2. Early release

3. Brown Label.

 

I guess you could say four because of the Anniversary Black Label. Each one is just a part of the overall issue.

 

 

[Revenant]

Not to pick on you... It appears you defined what you want based on what NGC said belonged in a complete set. You have since discovered this coin is no variety, commands a premium for dubious reasons, yet you still purchased one, just because NGC said this coin was necessary for a complete set. Instead of collecting what you want, you're collecting what NGC says you want. That is unfortunate.

 

I guess it's an issue of perspective:

1) I ordered the coin before I found out it "is no variety." I purchased it on the assumption that it had variety. I just don't choose to not let it bug me that much going forward. Since it was part of one of the Millenium coin and currency sets it does have a bit of a unique story behind it and it could make for a nice conversation piece. Take the positive.

2) NGC doesn't get to define what I call complete. I'm probably going to finish a Australian lunar dollar set, but that'll be the first lunar set. I don't agree with their decision to start tacking on the second lunar set to the first set. If I start the second Lunar set I'll probably start a second registry set and keep the coins separate. Why? I don't think they go together. I plan to collect some of the Modern Commemorative Silver Dollars, but only the ones I like. I could list more examples but I won't.

3) No body gets to tell me what I want.