Pole Question ?

[dogman55-migration]

On the new 2012 S-Mint 2-coin Silver eagle set, Do you think it could or should also Qualify on the Label as a "First Year of Issue" Label ? It is the first time for a 2-coin S-Mint mark set. Just my thought's , what do you think ?

[cpm9ball]

Absolutely not! There is already enough cr@p on the inserts with First Strike, Early Releases, blah, blah, blah. It adds nothing to the provenance or value of the coin. If someone can't figure out that it is the first time that an SAE has been issued by San Francisco, then they should go back to CC101.

 

Chris

[coinman_23885]

Absolutely not! There is already enough cr@p on the inserts with First Strike, Early Releases, blah, blah, blah. It adds nothing to the provenance or value of the coin. If someone can't figure out that it is the first time that an SAE has been issued by San Francisco, then they should go back to CC101.

 

Chris

 

San Francisco made the early proof versions if I'm not mistaken.

[wheat'swheats]

I think they should have a label which says that you have $56 dollars worth of silver and you paid way too much.

wheat

[19Lyds]

In one single short word...................NO.

[19Lyds]

I think they should have a label which says that you have $56 dollars worth of silver and you paid way too much.

wheat

If only this were actually true.

[cpm9ball]

Absolutely not! There is already enough cr@p on the inserts with First Strike, Early Releases, blah, blah, blah. It adds nothing to the provenance or value of the coin. If someone can't figure out that it is the first time that an SAE has been issued by San Francisco, then they should go back to CC101.

 

Chris

 

San Francisco made the early proof versions if I'm not mistaken.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe any of those early proofs had the SF mintmark.

 

Chris

[cpm9ball]

I think they should have a label which says that you have $56 dollars worth of silver and you paid way too much.

wheat

If only this were actually true.

 

Either that, or include a disclaimer which states... FOR ACTUAL VALUE, PLEASE REFER TO PRECIOUS METALS INDEX

 

Chris

[Conder101]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe any of those early proofs had the SF mintmark.

You are wrong, the early proofs struck in San Francisco DID have S mintmarks.

[benjmurts]

I think they should have a label which says that you have $56 dollars worth of silver and you paid way too much.

wheat

 

+1

[Ed J]

From 1986 to 1992, proof Silver Eagle coins were minted at San Francisco and these coins bear the "S" mintmark. But what about the reverse proof? None mint at the SF Mint. The only First Year of Issue" Label for the ASE is 1986. Just because it was minted at another mint does not make it a first year issue.

 

 

No matter the coin is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

 

Happy Collecting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Crohnos01]

I think they should have a label which says that you have $56 dollars worth of silver and you paid way too much.

wheat

 

... Now there is a truth if ever there was one.....

 

I always find myself thinking about the fact that I am sending a check to the US Treasury everytime I order from the mint, just like the check I send with my tax return.... Kind of a self imposed tax isn't it?

[halfpint]

 

...i think we should take a poll.