Perth Mint mintage policy

Jislizard said:
Perth Mint doesn't make any money on the secondry market so what do they care?

If people sell Perth Mint products, like the Old Kooks, on the secondry market the Perth Mint does not get a cut of the action.
Click to expand...

As I was trying to argue above, the Perth Mint benefits massively from the secondary market. The higher the prices on the secondary market, the more people will want to buy new coins in the hope of eventually making a large profit on them in the secondary market. Why do you think there is a buying frenzy every September and the Perth Mint servers are crashing. This is ONLY because of the prices of the Lunar coins on the secondary market, for NO OTHER reason.

By ruining the secondary market, people will not buy new coins anymore. Why would they if there is no profit to be made.
 
I just had an idea why does the PM and Australia Post remint the 5 shilling sydney harbour bridge stamp. I hear that will sell well....
 
Posted on The Perth Mint blog today: http://blog.perthmint.com.au/2012/11/22/perth-mint-declares/

Perth Mint Declares

I am pleased to announce we've started the process of declaring the mintage figures for numismatic coins issued since 1986.

As of today, production is officially closed-off for all 1986 to 2002-dated numismatic coins that have not sold their maximum mintage.

The declared mintage information will shortly be confirmed in the relevant tables of numismatic mintages on our collectables website - http://www.perthmint.com.au/numismatic-mintages.aspx

This action provides 100% certainty that no more of these coins will be released by the Mint, thereby preserving their current rarity forever.

Designed for collectors, Perth Mint numismatic coins feature proof and specimen quality finishes (see Mintage Policy Glossary of Terms for more information - http://www.perthmint.com.au/mintage_policy.aspx.

They come in presentation packaging accompanied by a numbered Certificate of Authenticity, unlike our bullion quality coins which are mass produced for investors seeking exposure to the price of gold and silver.

Looking ahead, we will declare mintages for 2003 to 2011-dated numismatic coins that are not sold out following our annual review of year-dates in early 2013.

Shortly thereafter, these mintage declarations will be formally announced and confirmed in the relevant tables of numismatic mintages.
 
I do applaud this Ron Currie for trying , he must have a tough job, but this just sounds like a bunch of BS , to little too late, collectors are already screwed by the Perth mint shenanigans and he has been told to try to save face , maybe they will be able to salvage their reputation but I think it will take years of actually doing the right thing to prove it. I wonder if it was worth it for them to make an instant profit verses the loss of many long time customers and a tarnished reputation. Sorry if anyone is offended by my post but I call it as I see it, A bunch of crap!! I wont be buying any Perth Mint high premium coins in the future and from the post here I think many others agree ...
 
Perth Mint is very good at biting the hand that feeds it.

Over the past 8 months I have bought nearly $10K of silver coins from the PM and I can assure everyone that
I will never deal with the PM again!

This is a very sad time for reputations here all due to some FW in a high chair!

Not happy Ron!
 
Quote "As of today, production is officially closed-off for all 1986 to 2002-dated numismatic coins that have not sold their maximum mintage."

I suppose we should be Thankful for your generosity (not you personally Ron) in letting us know in 2012 that you will not be minting any more 1986 coins...
 
silverstar1 said:
Quote "As of today, production is officially closed-off for all 1986 to 2002-dated numismatic coins that have not sold their maximum mintage."

I suppose we should be Thankful for your generosity (not you personally Ron) in letting us know in 2012 that you will not be minting any more 1986 coins...
Click to expand...

Well they have given us what we asked for, granted it was an unwise decision in the first place but mintages are now going to be clearly stated and they aren't going to remint any of the older coins. I would say that is a bit of a win for the consumer.
 
Jislizard said:
silverstar1 said:
Quote "As of today, production is officially closed-off for all 1986 to 2002-dated numismatic coins that have not sold their maximum mintage."

I suppose we should be Thankful for your generosity (not you personally Ron) in letting us know in 2012 that you will not be minting any more 1986 coins...
Click to expand...

Well they have given us what we asked for, granted it was an unwise decision in the first place but mintages are now going to be clearly stated and they aren't going to remint any of the older coins. I would say that is a bit of a win for the consumer.
Click to expand...
While I certainly do not want anyones feelings to get hurt over this whole thing, and I agree it is a nice gesture to let us know they will not be minting any more 1986-2002 coins and they are working on the rest, it just may not sit well with people who have invested alot of money in these and have the rules change halfway through the game.
 
silverstar1 said:
Jislizard said:
silverstar1 said:
Quote "As of today, production is officially closed-off for all 1986 to 2002-dated numismatic coins that have not sold their maximum mintage."

I suppose we should be Thankful for your generosity (not you personally Ron) in letting us know in 2012 that you will not be minting any more 1986 coins...
Click to expand...

Well they have given us what we asked for, granted it was an unwise decision in the first place but mintages are now going to be clearly stated and they aren't going to remint any of the older coins. I would say that is a bit of a win for the consumer.
Click to expand...
While I certainly do not want anyones feelings to get hurt over this whole thing, and I agree it is a nice gesture to let us know they will not be minting any more 1986-2002 coins and they are working on the rest, it just may not sit well with people who have invested alot of money in these and have the rules change halfway through the game.
Click to expand...

That I grant you!

No one is trying to excuse the orignal decisions and the ramifications of them will hurt a lot of collectors. This is just a small step but at least it is in the right direction.
 
I suppose it's how you view things, there is a saying that goes something like this, "just because it's legal does not make it right" . Sure the Perth Mint had the legal right to remint all these coins but what about all the collectors and their rights. Sorry, but what the Perth Mint did was just plain WRONG, it was legal but it was so far from the right thing to do. I have lost all faith in them, sad to say I will not be buying from them ever again. Saying sorry now is a waste of time, you can't uncrack the egg. Trust has been destroyed and all for the sake of the bottom line. Only a fool who did not understand his clients ( aka us collectors) would have made such a decision.
 
I'm not sure if anyone has suggested this as yet (I've not fully read the thread) but wouldn't a different mintmark on the restrikes clear up at least SOME of the confusion?
+1 for at least trying to sort the matter and setting maximum mintage numbers that PM actually adhere to will provide some clarity but packaging variations don't seem to be a sufficient assurance for investors...it's well known that capsules, boxes & COA's can be purchased minus the coin itself.
Wouldn't a different mintmark on the said variations make the whole topic of maximum mintage on certain coins clearer & more transparent?
I completely understand that The Perth Mint is a company & as such has a right & responsibility to make as much profit as possible. At least with the 2013 Kooks you've plainly stated that mintage will now double.
Lastly: I thought the entire concept of Perth Mints set mintage numbers was to create a premium product which would continue to gather value as time progressed. Personally I would've thought that it would be more prudent to keep the current mintage numbers of previous years strikes intact and meet the increased demand for bullion products by simply producing more of the mints "Mint To Order" products (i.e. 1/2, 2, 10oz & 1Kg kooks/lunar and Koalas).
In my opinion, the mint has done itself a disservice by reminting past releases & increasing the mintage of its premium lines.
Regarding "Privy Marks": I'm not sure what all the fuss is about....
At least the coin itself is visually different to the actual main products. It's then up to the market to decide whether or not it views the Privy Marked coins as being more or less valuable than the Non-Privy version. That's my whole point about a mintmark variation on the restrikes: The coin then plainly shows in an unchangeable way that it differs from the original strike.
Let's face facts folks, the demand is obviously there for the mint to bother reminting the coins and I can assure you, if we don't buy them, there'll be another 10,000 other buyers that will!
 
Jislizard said:
grinners said:
If I had a large amount of old year kooks and their value was instantly halved by the mint, I would be going straight to a small claims tribunal.
Click to expand...

I don't think you would get far, it appears to be their stated policy and I am sure they will tell you they don't fix the price on the secondry market.

If I had a large amount of old year kooks and their value was instantly halved by the mint, I would be going straight to a different Mint to buy future coins.
Click to expand...

I don't remember there being an unambiguous mintage policy before this issue of re-strikes came up.

I do remember there being a published table of mintages which a reasonable person would assume to be a clear statement of the total number of coins that were "out there, somewhere". Given that some bullion issues were marked "TBA" (the 1kg Lunar II coins) and others had a number stated next to them, the mint was obviously capable of saying which mintages were still open and which had been closed.

The Perth Mint might not "fix" the price of the secondary market but they do have a huge influence on it (how could they not influence it when they have a monopoly on production?). If they were going to release mintage data, it would have been appropriate to put a great big huge disclaimer in 72 point type stating THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY. THE MINTAGE FIGURES ARE PROVIDED SIMPLY TO FILL IN SPACE IN THE LAST COLUMN AND IN NO WAY REFLECT THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF COINS THAT HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE RELEASED.

What is the purposes of having a stated mintage is it isn't to meant to be used to determine the rarity of the coin?
 
The Perth Mint could just clear this whole thing up (well part of it) by stating that they promise to from now on disclose the mintage of the different packaging they will release for each coin.
 
Why Perth Mint does not try to look for a solution that could make both sides happy with the remint issue?
One solution is to make all remints with the current year privy mark and issue them in limited yearly bases until the maximum mintage limit is reached. In that case Perth Mint would get the bonus for the renewed old coin popularity, but the old coins value wouldn't change. For the collectors the new privy could be potentially separate collectors item years to come and may increase in value, but independently from the originally dated issue.
 
What do you do when the privies are 'rarer' than the originals as they will probably have lower mintages?

Edit: assuming rarity = more value
 
There is a limited parallel with currency inflation here, at least in my mind. There is a certain amount of struck coins with a certain value ($ in circulation). The mint (like a Reserve Bank) remints (prints) more, and the increased amount in circulation decreases the value of the existing coins. The worst effects are felt by the collectors (bank depositors), who have studiously saved them.

Does anyone else see it like that?
 
Ok I'm probably going to offend a few of you here but this thread is starting to sound like a bunch of winging poms.

Yip sure some of you paid good money for pretty little collectible coins. There's always going to be risk in paying numi prices for modern coins. Sure when you're talking coins a couple of years old what's rare, valuable and desirable is a bit more stable then.

There are always going to be factors outside your control that affect the price of numi or semi numi coins you own. Similar to fake pandas etc.

Perth mint have acknowledged they pissed a few of you off who are probably holding coins you bought on the second hand market and are trying to make policies clearer for future reference.

The way things were is the less of the coin they were able to flog in year of issue the bigger premium it ended up developing....... Isn't this just putting a premium on 2nd hand ugly?

If they state they intend to for fill their stated max montages in future releases, will people not now value the coins on popularity instead? Thus a coin becomes valuable because of how huch higher demand is than mintage?

Obviously the world wide interest in Perth mint coins has increased as of late. Why is this? I'd say the mints management and marketing has had a little bit to do with this? How much of the big old premium on these coins do you attribute to this? I think in the long run even in reminted coins the montages are small compared to pandas etc. the quality is excellent and this reputation has not been compromised. Will more of these coins in stacks around the world decrease the value?

I hardly see this like QE AU, if the ratio of minted coins to interested investors is unchanged the price should not change? I'll trust the pros who make some bloody nice coins, watch the increase in interest in these coins from foreigners and trust that the coins I hold are not being devalued in the long run.

How stable is the silver market? How stable is the numi collectors market? Safe as houses? I guess everyone has the right to be annoyed if the price ever decreases since these kinda things only ever go up?
 
Winging poms? Lol!
Sounds like the rational of a cuckold husband to me.
If you have no problem having your relationship rules changed mid-stream and original intentions violated fine, to each their own.
 
me, just glad they are letting us know whats going on, like it or loath it, i now can make an informed choice on how i choose to invest in future PM products.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top