Lately I have noticed more and more Lunar coins poping up that have scratches and milk spots ..... but these coins are out of untouch rolls Would you still pay a premium for a lunar coin that has a mint defect.... At the end of the day, I understand that its always going to be easier to re-sell a perfect coin...... but with the rareity of some of the larger demomination...do you still consider a lunar coin with mint defects to be collectable and still worth a premium or Would you only pay spot
If you are referring to the Perth mint Lunar coins, it depends on the year . The series 1 and early series 2 are very well struck and mostly free from any defects , but remember these are bullion coins. Scratches sound more like they have been opened, I have never seen these with fine scratches from mint rolls. For the most part these from mint rolls will grade a MS 69 with some 68s and maybe a 70. So to answer your question it depends on the defect , I have seen some PM lunars scratched to hell , I would not at all pay spot for.
I recently auctioned a 5oz lunar here on SS. It was advertised as scratched and had shiteloads of hairlines and other scratches which were photographed and openly shown in the auction thread. Still achieved about 15% above spot.
Hi SS, Thanks for your reply. Yes , I'm referring to the Perth Mint. And also agree that the earlier series two releases appear to have less flaws. The problem appears to begin with the tiger. In relation to the scratches....the type of scratch that I'm referring to I believe is definately a mint defect, as you need to hold the coin on a curtain angle to see the scratch. I was actually present when a friend opened his roll......so coins hadn't been handled .... Would the majority of you still pay a premium for a defected perth mint lunar coin ?
... the frustrating thing is that Perth Mint arent interested in hearing about unless you bought it directly from them. Turtling ridiculous to say Lunars are just a bullion product when they charge the premiums they do.
I dont have the coins , so pics aren't available. I will try an obtain a pic of the coin showing the scratch marks that I'm talking about as for milk spots, I'm sure we all know what they look like Basically , I didn't purchase the coins due to the flaws. All I'm seeking is the general opinion of other lunar collectors........ would you touch a lunar coin that had imperfections, caused by the mint......
Hi Au... There have been several post on stackers recently on how frustrated people are with several mints producing coins with milk spots .....but are they still prepared to pay a premium for lunars...... Although a bullion product, they still carry a numismatic collector premium.......demand dictates....but to what extent are mint defects still considered acceptable ??? My views are similar to BB and my main concern is re-sale. Here's a senario for you.......based on the scarcity of the 2oz mouse....would you still pay $300+ if the coin had milk spots
Couple month ago I bought 2 2oz rabbit that been taken out from capsules for awhile, so the coins are badly scratch and toned. I paid spot...and it just sit at the bottom of the stack. I reckon once coin is not in a mint/good/decent condition, it loses its premium....little or a lot....it's depends on the condition. I bought coins with scratch or milk spot with less premium. Ie Maples at spot+$2, which is less premium than 3 1966 50cent premium.
Since when is a coin with milk spots or scratches considered an error rather then lesser quality? In my opinion I don't think it should command an extra premium regardless of the coin, instead it should lower its value
I tend to agree - mint faults may be seen as rare and therefore desirable (not for me, but others maybe) But imo milk spots / stains are just plain ugly ... and detract from the coins desirability/value, rather than enhance it.
Ic Imo, i wouldnt buy the lunar coins with the marks for my personal collection. If i have to pay $300 for the Scratched 2oz mouse, I would rather buy other bullion coins.
