We need to calm a little - and yes I've lost money in this so I'm peeved as well. HOWEVER - PM cannot just start minting other series. There are legal requirements on some coins/series. Lunar series 1 is closed by law. It cannot be reminted. Previous years Koals cannot be reminted as they are closed at the end of the mintage year. Other size coins cannot be reminted (eg 2 oz, 5 oz etc) as they are closed off at the end of the year of mintage. Only coins with mintage numbers limits (1 oz kooks, 1 oz lunars until that series has finished etc) can they go back and remint. malachii
IF we believe the Perth Mint line that "oh Kookaburras are just bullion, they arent numismatic coins at all" then what motivated them to re-mint a coin from 1992? If its bullion they want, pump out the Koalas from 2012 as much as you like, why go back and re-strike a 20 year old coin? Because the Perth Mint knows they have collector (numismatic) value and as such will sell strongly. Seems very two-faced of the Perth Mint indeed. Who's to blame? The Perth Mint management OR the WA Government who management claim set the mint's direction and charter. Who knows which one for sure but the name and products of "Perth Mint" aren't what they were 12 months ago. As a consumer (cash is king!) I'll be cutting back probably by more than 50% my purchases of Perth Mint coins. There's literally millions of possible investments for your cash out there, with Perth Mint coins being just one competing for your dollar.
NO it's really simple ,a German dealer asked for them ,so they made them for that dealer , And sold the rest to other dealers , 20 years ago how many coin collectors were there around compared to now, They couldn't sell that many coins back than ,as the years went on they began selling more & more of them & the numbers being produced went up
This thread is the reason i have mainly bars : You guys decided to be coin collectors instead of stackers ....its the chance you take . Its in black & white that they could do it & they did . In saying that i have to agree with honest coins about the size of mintages they will always have a premium . Stop freaking yourselves out & put it down to experience.
Hi, i agree with what you are saying and will take your advice.. just dont buy the line "Kookaburra is bullion" as they have the Koala 2012 as bullion or the lunar dragons.. but will accept what has happend and take due actions. Nuff said. 1for1
I am sorry but I only picked the thread up this morning. I have no problem with the mint re- minting kooks. My problem is why did they attempt to hide this fact. I specifically asked Ron Currie about the 92 kook. I told him dealers including BB were selling and there were rumors that these coins were remints. That he denied. He did admit that "small lots" were reminted from time to time within the 300,000 maximum mintage for collectors in Europe. He specifically denied the 92 remint. Let me repeat that so everyone is crystal clear. When I asked him did the PM remint the 92 kook he replied that he had no knowledge of any remint of the 92. GP's letter leaves me speachless! I expect better from the PM don't you ?
Ok yes thay can remint Kooks but my problem as a newish stacker is where was that information when I started collecting and looked up mintage figures to aid in assesing the value or potential value of a purchace. When I looked at the numbers it stated MINTAGE not MINTAGE SO FAR UNTILL WE PRODUCE SOME MORE 20 YEARS OR SO DOWN THE TRACK. Where was the asterxi on the mintage figures that would point me to the link that said, 'at any time the mint may restrike these coins untill maximum mintage is acheived.' IT WASN'T THERE!!! As far as I'm aware the definition of misleading conduct is it there is the INTENTION to mislead or deceive, and in this instance hiding the fact that the 92 kook among others were reminted clearley shows intention on the part of the Perth Mint to withhold information and mislead the buying public. If they did not intend to hide the fact then it would have been part of their regular communications. Now thru poking and prodding we find out that not only is it the 92 but 'others' as well. How many others, when and what distrbutors? Time for some honest communication and to stop misleading the public, most of whom are proberley still unaware at what the mint has done. As for me my Kook collection activities are dead in the water, and I'd only been at it for 6 months.
Well saying "he had no knowledge of any remint of the 92" is not denying they were remints, just admitting he doesn't have a clue what is going on. I would expect more from the sales and marketing director, yes. :/
I now realize this has been going on for quite a while. I have a set of 11 kooks made in 2000 for the Perth Mint centenary that contains all the kooks from 1990 to 2000. All these kooks are shiny and in round capsules. I had always assumed they were old stock that had been kept by the mint and repackaged, but now I realize they must have all been reminted at the time (2000) for the set. And a couple of years ago a 20 kook set appeared in Germany with all the kook coins, shiny new, except the 1990. The market price of 1990 kooks suddenly jumped quite high on ebay as those collectors that bought that set chased the one missing coin from their collection.
I know this sux but I think we still need to calm. Sure, prices short term will take a hit but once these are out in the system - prices will start to climb again. There were already 300 000 1990 kooks out there and look at the premium on one of those. I'll bet you don't see them crash too much. If you look at the lunar mouse they re minted - the price dropped initially but 12 months later it is starting to go back up again (now around the high 40s). Won't be long (maybe 12 more months) and we'll be back up to where it was. Yes - I know this is not ideal and none of us actually thought PM would re mint them but if we can all stop throwing the baby out with the bath water - in the longer term (which is what collectors are about) this will be a hiccup in the grand kookaburra scheme. Just in the interests of disclosure - I'm actually buying a stack of these kooks. Like the mice before them - I think that as an investment you can't go wrong. Almost bullion prices for something that will in time re gain at least a part of it's numismatic premium as well as any increase in the price of silver. I'd rather be buying these at $36-$38 each with the potential for them to go to the high $40s in 12-18 months without any silver price increase than 4 weeks ago when I would have paid in the $50s and they may have gone to the mid to high $50s in 12-18 months or a silver bar which is completely reliant on the silver market increasing. malachii EDIT: As a collective - the people on here are pretty small numbers when you compare them to the number of people who will buy these sort of products worldwide. These will be snapped up by overseas collectors (particularly Europe) pretty quick who wont care that the are a re mint. Witness how quickly the 300 000 dragons disappeared - most of which went to overseas dealers. O/S is the major market for the PM (over 80% from memory). These will disappear into the hands of collectors pretty quickly.
I think that the more pressure we place on the Perth Mint the better. As indeviduals we have no impact as a group we do. As a public forum we certainly do. I think if we create enough interest and internet noise that people shy away from PM products that will hit them in their pocket. I always believe repatriation of coins to Australia is the final driving force in the apreciation of coin value. If there is distrust of the PM by collectivly the largest local group of buyers that will have an impact. I think GP should follow this up with Ron. We cannot stop them reminting coins but we can demand honesty which is sorely lacking.
Ronnie, Ron Currie is the General Manager for Sales & Marketing - there are separate dedicated wholesale managers for international, and Australia/NZ. Now i'm speculating here, but the sensible thing to do from a a management perspective is to delegate authority and empower people to make decisions so one manager isn't being overloaded with every micro decision in a business - the mint is ON RECORD in 2010 saying that this type of reminting DOES occur, so why the expectation that when put on the spot about it, Ron would have absolute knowledge of a specific instance? Given it's mint policy to perform such reminting, it's probable that each request for restrikes doesn't make it to the top if authority to approve such requests has been delegated. I've worked in large corporate environments before, the best ones are the ones where middle management is actually empowered to do something without micromanagement from above. Ron is just the name most people know as he is one of the more public faces of the mint, but he's become a bit of a punching bag in this thread, and the guy isn't even at work to respond. If he didn't know about this specific instance, it's entirely probable he didn't - Gold Corporation isn't five blokes sharing an office, it is a decent sized corporation, and to assume that one person will always know what is going on when put on the spot during a phone call is a bit of a stretch. I have followed up with the mint (despite them already being on record, on their own website in Nov 2010, that 1oz Kookaburras are subject to minting up to their full 300,000 mintage limits), so I'm not sure what you're expecting. Funnily enough, the mint is fully aware of Silver Stackers, is aware of and reading this thread (hi guys), so this feedback is being heard - but it's about a policy the mint has already confirmed almost 18 months ago as factual.
Hi GP I have always recognised that the PM is a world class organisation with great products and we are lucky to have them here in Perth. That is why I hold them to such high standards. I can accept on a personal level that Ron may not have known about the remint. However, it is his job to know and disclose this when asked directly. If he was not told, he should find out why there was a breakdown in communication within the PM. I know he is on holiday and by the time he gets back much of this would have blown over, but it leaves us all wondering. Thank you for taking your time in getting to the bottom of this on our behalf. Best regards Ronnie
This is not the fist occurrence of restrike coin with the original date effecting existing numismatic value. (1925 British sovereign, 1915 Austrian corona, 1947 Mexican peso and some more.) What the different is the motivation, and the date chosen. In the past old circulating legal currency was chosen, for the solo purpose to supply the market with recognised mass produced bullion products. For this reason one single year needed. The consequence on the numismatic market was the side effect not the intention. Some of these restrike coins even had some other marking on them to distinguish the different. Silver bullion koala coins have no mintage limit so the objective of the Perth Mint today is not the supply of bullion coins, but to destroy the numismatic market for their own benefit by restriking once overpriced and for this reason lower minted coin as bullion product. The 92 kooks should sell $100 each if the same spot to premium percentage is maintained like it did in 92. Furthermore the Perth mint is not stoping with a single year, but doing it with every year. Once the proof version gain popularity and you think you investment payed off in years to come just be aware not all proof coins reached mintage limits. This is also the first time non circulating coins had been restruck without any date as the date written is part of the design and not the mintage date. I don't even know if this is legal to mint coins without date. The last few years of the lunar series 1 coin definitely needed current year of mintage on them as well. The 20th anniversary of the 20 coins 1 oz kook set also all had the 2009 mintage date on them. If mintage date not legally needed on legal tender coins why bother with them at all if they are meaningless, false, and deceptive anyway.
Here's just one example of why this is a little unfair and misleading... A customer review from Gainesvillecoins Outstanding! High quality tom Thursday, April 05, 2012 These look like the day they were minted and came in plastic capsules. http://www.gainesvillecoins.com/products/159797/1992-australian-kookaburra-1-oz-silver-coin.aspx Here's another from APMEX August 2011 jordan from New Mexico says Beautiful coin, case is brand new for being 20 years old! Proof-like finish and no scratches... MS 69+! Highly recommend buying one of these coins, thanks again APMEX! http://www.apmex.com/Product/10157/1992_Australian_Kookaburra_1_oz_Silver_Coin.aspx Little do these buyers know; they are freshly minted.
I think APMEX are misleading stating that these are a mintage of "198,356" Where in fact they know this is untrue.
What I like about this is there is some repercussion for the reminting of high premium coins after the year of issue and date stamp. The repercussion is to the image of the mint, because if they debauch their coinage they change their own image too - bahaha - it's apt, besmirch the coin, besmirch themselves in the public eye. Bit like Picture of Dorian Gray. Buyers of bullion are trying to escape dishonest money for the alternative of something honest - the silver is real but the declaration of the coin - a 1992 coin with an image associated with 1992 - isn't. It's a bit like degrading the coin with base metal. Also, another repercussion I devoutly hope for - won't resistance grow to the premium they charge for even their new coins? Currently they can sell the full mintage limit, but if demand for bullion goes down, no-one informed will buy a particular year on the basis of, "this might be relatively rare and in demand one day, it won't reach its limit". Doesn't every Kook, even the recent years of fully minted ones, enjoy some of the cachet of the premium of rarer years? So degrading the secondary market could affect their primary market one day. Anyway, in future I will be completely immune to messages like, 'get your 2013 Kooks because they going to run out'. I don't care how they have legalistically given themselves a sneak's way out - Mintage Limit, common sense-wise, means Mintage Limit during the year of issue. That is - we won't print more than this specified limit, this year, 1992. Then Actual Mintage should be utterly static after year end. The sense of having a date on a coin is that it names the year of mintage. Anything else is just cunning when you have new dies and designs for a new year anyway.
