• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Silver American Eagles posted by Texan's Coins

6 posts in this topic

  • Member: Seasoned Veteran

An outsider's point of view


First, I do not currently collect SAE's so I did not have a "horse in the race" for last week's debacle.


Second, I just read the journal written by DennyJW. His letter from the mint states that they are working to review the process for future orders.


It seems to me that the mint would want to cater to its long term customers. The speculators will be out of the picture when the economy improves and the price of silver goes back down. The true collectors will be in for the long haul.


What would seem to be fair would be to offer customers with a SAE subscription a one day presale window to order something like this. I don't know if the subscribers have some sort of subscription number, but if so, that would be required to participate in this one day presale. Set the limit at one set per subscription number per household.


After that point, you can open it up to casual collectors and the public (AKA Speculators). If I were running the mint, I would want to appease the people who order from me year after year, not just when they think they can make a quick buck.


Again, I do not collect SAEs, but that is my opinion as to a fair way to distribute.


I hope everyone has a great collecting week!




See more journals by Texan's Coins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcus that is another very good idea, and it seems like about 99 percent of the real collectors feel the same way, its always that word greed and in this case the mint opened the door wide open for it by allowing 5 sets instead of one, someone just wasnt thinking on this one, I was reading the paper here this morning and I see that now congress is getting involved, so they can fix this real quick and just make the limit one per customer who is eligible, and the problem is solved, I ordered one set as I could foresee what was gone to happen, and why should I take away from someone else who also has been collecting them since the beginning. A lesson was learned from this one, but their is still time to fix it, the mint director needs to just admit a mistake was made and its being corrected. No harm no foul and no coins have been distributed yet. Lets do it and make it right for the whole country not just the few with the wrong intentions in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how having a subscription and getting a pre-sale option will fix anything.


All I would have to do is put in my subscription for SAEs so I can be on the special pre-sale list. And when my subscriptions come in...just send them right back to the mint...and have family members do the same.


In my opinion the US Mint did just fine. The sale of the 25th Anniversary SAEs was not a suprise to anyone. We all knew it was coming and it was going to be crazy. Every single person had the exact same chance of getting an order in.


I do believe they need to upgrade their phone/on-line ordering process but I have no problem with the limit amount. If it is 1 or 5 makes no difference to me. But on the whole, I think they did just fine.


And on "flipping"...well, that is the free market we have in this country. If I have something that others want, I will let the market dictate the price.







Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is surprising to see the reactions to the percieved error that the US Mint or anyone else should have forced upon them some restriction as to the number of orders per customer. While it is no longer shocking that maybe half of the American People possess a mindset that readily accepts restrictions on the property rights of others. Since when did Capitalism require there be be imposed restrictions on doing whatever and in whatever amount one wishes to do with one's own property?


Free markets function most efficiently when the free exercise of decision making pertaining to the exercise of one's Right to Life, Liberty and Property? I know, I know, the actual verbage is "Pursuit of Happiness" but that phrase as applied within the context of the time in history when it was written was just another way of saying "Property" - the Theory being that in order for one to ever even have a chance of Pursuing Happiness" one would have to own Property. American case law is replete with examples explaiing how the two prhases/word are interchangeable in their meanings.


Why shouldn't the mint be able to mint as many bullion coins as it wishes and to also sell as many as whomever is willing to buy them wishes to buy? Then, given these results, the Free Market will work efficiently and Constitutionally.


If all this whining about the limit per customer is based on anything, it is envy and some kind of delusional belief that one is entitled to have whatever they want and pay for it whatever they want. And, if they don't get their way, then no one else should be able to do whatever they want to do. This is supposed to be a Free Country. And, despite the last 3 years demonstrating an alarming trend among the population that things in life should "just be fair", as far as I can tell, this Nation has not yet amended it's Constitution such that is complies with communial psychoses most asuredly is infecting the "Occupy Wall Street" loons.


Just because one does't get to buy some mass produced bullion coin or if they do, they would have to pay more than they want to pay then that means that there is something wrong with the seling policies of the US Mint is patently absurd. In a Free Country in which economic transactions occur within the context of Free Markets, it is the Right of the owner to decide on how many widgets he/she wishes to produce and how many to sell to each customer. If those decisions lead to a successful transaction with a willing buyer or buyers then that is exactly what ought to happen.


Restricting limits of units per customer is an excellent marketing ploy. It creates a sense that there is some kind of special urgency involved and that usually produces a much more excited group of buyers. It's actually quite brillant to convince consumers that whatever you are selling is very significant and very rare, when in fact it is almost as common as dirt and is of almost no real value. But, such decisions are for the Seller to make. The market's reaction will answer the question as to whether the decision was a correct one; not the silly complaints of buyers who don't have the money or the desire to spend the amount of money that the marketplace sets as the FMV


When did legal profitteering become a bad thing. Why is there a need to curb proioteering in a Free Country with Free Markets? Isn't that the whole idea in our Capitalism based economy? Aren't we supposed to work toward making profits for ourselves and our famillies? Being able to sell something for more than you paid for it is a very good thing - not something to be viewed as somehow a crime or corruption or, God forbid, "unfair" - aw, boo-hoo.


I bet those who are whining also believe that they get a "TAX REFUND" or that "corporations" pay taxes. There is no such thing as a tax refund check - if onoe gets a check from the goverment every year, then all that means is that they are making an interest free loan to the government for about 14-15 months and that is just plain stupid. And, the only entities on this planet that pay taxes are Human Beings. A Corporation is merely a legal entity that serves as a method for the owners( Shareholders) to implement the business model. Only Humans pay taxes, it is only smoke and mirrors to hold the belief that a thing such as a corporation pays taxes. Only people pay taxes! Geez...The Founder are rolling over in their graves at what the Country is becoming.


buyers who let their emotions run up fair market prices have only themselves to blame. It is not the seller's responsibility to make a buyer "feel fairness" or anything else.


And, this thing about Grading bullion coins is another brilliant marketing ploy that has served those who concocted it quite well. It is completely absurd to grade bullion and iIt really killed the credibility of the Industry leaders in the area of grading coinage, It is difficult to take seriously the grading system and integrety of NGC and PCGS when they decided to start grading bullion, but who can blame them. The marketplace demanded it and so why not provide it, especailly if it will produce heafty profits, which is does? Blessed be the Freedom Lover Capitalist! But, c'mon? If you buy a bullion round punched out by the Mint and are willing to pay however much the grading fee is should have every right to do so. It is just comical reading and overhearing all this drama about MS-69 and 70 slabbed bullion rounds. I mean, you buy diret from the Mint and take delivery of the round enclased in plastic or some pretty little box and send it off for grading and then are so happy and xcited and just dying of anticipation for when it comes back a 70. My questions is why would one not fully expect to get a 70 on a bullion round that has essentially been shipped from the mint to the grader. Why wouldn't all of the rounds be 69 or 70's?


And, these things are bullion rounds minted by the bahgillions every year merely to serve as a profit center for the sale of bullion. These ASE are not cons and should not be equated with real coinage. There is absolutely no comparison between a genuine 150 year old $5 Gold Liberty that is slabbed by PCGS at MS 70, even a 61, and some mass produced measure of mere bullion; such as a round weighing 1 Toz with a nice and shinny design die punched into the planchet. Then machined wrapped into massive sheets of plastic which are then routed through to the grader by the buyer who gets all excited and acts surprised when his $30 grading fee got him a Slabbed bullion round with "MS70" or "MS69" hovering over it.


ASE and coins are two totally differnent things and should not be adjudged as if they are. If the market demands a grading protocal for these bullion rounds, that is cool with me, but it need to have its own such protocal and not use the same one applicable to numismastic artifacts such as real coinage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a 1986 PF69 (Slabbed in 2009) that is has a purely natural crescent moon toning.... peach to iridescent blue.... in the mid lunar cycle. Freakishly beautiful! When I look at it, it screams pure legal tender to me. Bullion Humbug!

Proof Coin Majesty Sitting in Pure Au!

Bullion Shumillion! I love these coins.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with alot of what you say there SSIMAN, but I do disagree that the ASE's may be considered bullion but ther are also coins. They say ONE DOLLAR on them. That actually makes them legal tender my friend!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites