Hi, People seem to automatically assume that unlimited mintage means the issue will have a massive mintage, the two however do not go hand in hand. Unlimited really means that mintage reflects demand and that if demand is strong the mintage will grow (usually), that there is a potential for the mint to not be restricted to a pre-set number. What this dosent mean: - they are minted to infinity - they are less desirable - they will have a higher mintage than the issues with a set mintage. ie: the 2010 Koala had an unlimted mintage, the kook had 500k (EDIT) and the lunar 300 k yet the Koala had a lower mintage out of the three. Please bear this in mind when anticipating unlimited for your purchases and understand its an open ended book rather than a mintage that is likely to blow out to epic proportions. with the 2012 Koala and Dragons its safe to assume these are going to have a giant mintage given the kooks and dragons (1oz) are all gone but its NO GUARENTEE of this and if no-one buys the Koala could (potentially at least) have a lesser mintage than the Dragon and the Kook. More than meets the eye. 1for1
Mintage for 1 oz 2010 kooks 300k, 2011 onward 500k... unlimited mintage means "gamble" could be large could be small
I am curious with this actually. When a coin hasn't hit its mintage in the year (eg: Series 2 Lunar Mice 2008), the mint is still able to mint up to that amount in later years. Now my question is, as the mintage is unlimited for Koalas, does this then mean they can pickup production of 2010 Koalas in later years?
Well a honest and transparent mint should destroy the Die once it has been discontinued... i dont rate a mint that keeps dies around ont he off-chance they may want to bust a few out in coming years when they see fit. As far as i know PM is the only mint to do something like this.. (crapping where they eat), but i dont think they set a precedent for re-issuing out of year unlimited coinage, who knows id put nothing past them but think its dishonest as much for unlimited as it is to mint to the quota once the current year is no more. 1for1
Thats the Perth Mint and unlimited. apmex dragon rounds for example could continue to be pumped out until doomsday and the ASE's get minted in whatever numbers until the cash runs out.
I believe the PM said at the outset that the 300k limit was in place till the end of the lunar series (ie lasts for 12 years). So keeping the dye is quite appropriate in case it was required. It was well within their rights to mint more mice to bring it up to the limit. In the case of year limited mintages instead of series limited mintages I presume they would be disposed of appropriately. We have to remember that when the series first started with mouse and ox there was not a huge demand like now and it may have made perfect sense that people be able to get others in the series from time to time as they began their collections over the twelve years.
No they wouldn't remint the older koalas. Current year koalas are unlimited mintage, why would they bother to go back and mint the old ones.
Are they not unlimited for a year ie:2010 and then they move onto the next. So they couldn't mint the previosu years as they are only unlimited for that year eg: if someone ordered a million in the one year they would have to do it but when the year ends that is it.
Yes they did re-do the mice. In my post before this one above I was referring to the lunar series, but above only the koalas. Lunar series mintage is valid for the whole series ie: 12 years, so they could re-mint in a later year.
How do they calculate the mintage on the koalas? The reason I ask is that the mintage of the FUN set of 2009/2010 koalas was 1500. I have over 100 of the sets myself. Also there is a carded set of kook/koala. Are those 2010 koalas in sets included in the mintage number?
id assume they have some electronic device on the production line keeping a running total.. id say it would be a cumulitive total including all set variation of the specific type ie: one ounce bullion.. The Mintage can only be calculated when all stock has been sold off to suppliers and they discontinue production, because of this the mint really wont know totals as they cant perfectly gauge demand. 1for1
I agree with your facts and that Perth Mint proberbly has every right to go back and bring up the SET mintage product up to maximum, my contention was that its poor business accumen and to those who didnt study all of Perth Mints wavers that they found themselves very dissapointed, picture yourself buying a bunch of mice at $60 prior to the re-issue, yes information was out that Perth Mint could do the dirty but who imagined they would pull the trigger. Given how half there business is collectables a golden rule is NOT TO MESS WITH SUPPLY, i cant think of another case in collectables history where a RE-ISSUE has been indistinguishable to the original. EG: buy a Fleer (card producer) 1987 Michael Jordan rookie card for $1500 ... then Fleer reissues the same card at a fraction of the cost (in 1990) with no way of telling the two apart, the effect is plummeting prices, oversupply and collectors left reeling at what fleer has done to their collection. is it ok for Fleer to do this just cos there was Demand for Michael Jordan rookie cards.. A: No its madness.. cutting off your nose to spite your face.. its shooting yourself in the foot. I really hope for there own sake they chose not to re-issue limited product in later years.. the height of cheek OH... if you can name any other example in the history of the world let me know.. i love to be proven wrong There is an excellent reason why mints destroy dies.. so they maintain integrity and prevent them falling in the wrong hands.. ending up in china .. so how about it? Keep them around on the off chance people might want some lunar in a few years.. LOL course they will WANT but for the sake of investors they better not try it! 1for1
Welcome to the party... ok sure.. also the thalers.. im trying to think of why they are not a compariable example but im struggling so ill give you that but people do tend to know the 1915s are restrikes, do you know if people holding the originals got pissy cos they lost there numismatic value because this is what i am referring too, the fact you invest and then the re-issue takes you by surpirse and drives the price down? Cheers Big AD.. Whats your thoughts on unlimited? I agree with Silver Baron that chasing the pre-11 koalas is smart as we know Unlimited meant "very small mintage"..the 2011 Koala might surprise some people also possibly.. under one mill is my guess but who knows.. id say the 2012 will smash records (mintage not thugliest) 1for1
Let's not forget the Kooks, like S2 Mice got their numismatic value temporarily smacked by Perth Mint's actions.
I think a better term is "Mint-To-Order" (which seems to have been dropped in favor of "Unlimited") which better reflects the fact that they make as many [whatevers] as they receive orders for. I also think the rarity of the mintage is only going to be a significant factor if enough extra people start collecting bullion coins. I happen to collect bullion coins myself because I like hedging my bets between the spot price of the metal and the numismatic appeal, but that's still the middle ground between people who are just betting on spot going up and people who collect coins (of all sorts) as a hobby. I also only collect bullion coins (and bars) that I actually like myself and, personally, I'm not a huge fan of the 1oz Koalas. They're a ludicrous looking animal to begin with and they're obviously very difficult to present well in bass relief because, IMHO, the designs have been getting progressively worse since they started making them.
