Mint News Blog

News, Information, and Commentary on US Mint Products

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Boy Scouts Silver Dollar Sales at 89%, Prices Increase Tomorrow


The latest US Mint sales report shows the 2010 Boy Scouts of America Centennial Silver Dollars at 89% of the maximum authorized mintage. However, with introductory pricing ending tomorrow, the pace of sales will likely slow, delaying the widely anticipated sell out.

Through April 18, 2010, the United States Mint has recorded sales of 211,333 proof coins and 101,320 uncirculated coins. This makes for a combined total of 312,653 coins, representing 89.32% of the maximum authorized mintage of 350,000.

In the latest week, the US Mint sold a combined 22,261 coins, which is down only slightly from the prior week's sales of 23,875. If the pace of sales remained at the current pace of around 20,000 per week, a projected sell out date would be only two weeks out. However, I think the pace of sales will likely decline from this level, pushing the anticipated sell out date further into the future.

Tomorrow, on April 21, 2010 at 5:00 PM ET, the introductory pricing period for the Boy Scouts Silver Dollars will come to an end. The price of the proof coin will be increased form $39.95 to $43.95 and the price of the uncirculated coin will be increased from $33.95 to $35.95. Because the introductory pricing period is well established, most buyers make their commemorative coin purchases within the first month of sales at the lower prices. After "regular pricing" goes into effect, the pace of sales usually falls to much lower levels.

After the introductory pricing ended for this year's American Veterans Disabled for Life Silver Dollars, the pace of sales dropped from around 12,000-14,000 coins per week to sales of 7,010 and 3,427 coins for the two weekly periods following the price increase.

If the general pattern holds for the Boy Scouts Silver Dollars, a sell out probably will not occur for another month or more.

View the full weekly US Mint sales report on Coin Update News.

Labels:

33 Comments:

At April 20, 2010 at 6:06 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

would the unc's command more of a premium in the future because of the lower mintage numbers?

 
At April 20, 2010 at 7:40 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on, no one really thinks the Boy Scout/ Girl Scout coin will ever demand much premium.

The coin is supposed to be a 100 year commemorative of BSA, so having a girl on the coin is just another example of our PC government ignoring true history.

The rejected designs would have been great.

I understand the co-ed "Venturer Program" is co-ed, still primarily boys with less numbers than any other subgroup of scouts. Even the 6 year old "Tiger cubs" subgroup (that has been around since our grandfathers were kids) has more numbers than the Venturer program. The Venture program didn't even exist until the late 1990s! Who is responsibe for this travisty of the 100 year commemorative "double speak" big-brother coin?

Someone jokingly bloged we will replace all of the obverses on our coinage with a generic "presidents" coin (like combining GW and Abe Linc. for Presdents Day). I would not be surprised to see this!

Where are the silver eagles????
Oh, the Eagle may not be PC enough?

 
At April 20, 2010 at 8:58 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Buy the Scout coin because you like the coin, like silver coins, support the scouting program, or as a gift to a scout. If you buy either the proof or unc for large profit then good luck. Low mintage never guarantees appreciation in value. There usually must be demand much greater than mintage for appreciation to occur. However, I do think they will increase in value because the mint appears to be heading away from precious metal collector coins plus coming high inflation. How much? Time will tell. I think the commems will be clad in a few years. Just my opinion only.

 
At April 21, 2010 at 12:02 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only the mint would charge more for the returned reject coins others sent back.

 
At April 21, 2010 at 6:23 AM , Anonymous Tim said...

I am in need of an education, please help.
The 2006 w burnished ase has a mintage of 470,000. 250,000 were issued in the 20th anniversary set. This leaves 220,000 others sold as singles.
Why is a ms-69 20th ann. worth doulble what an ms-69 early release is worth, when there is less of them?
Tim

 
At April 21, 2010 at 6:55 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tim,

It's because there were restrictions in getting the coins included as part of the 20th Anniversary sets GRADED as "20th Anniversary." The sets had to be shipped to the grading company in the original, sealed Mint shipping carton. It was the only way the grading company could be assured that no coin-switching had occurred, and the coins they were calling "20th Anniversary" truly WERE included as part of the sets and not sold as singles that could have been later switched out.

While there were more coins SOLD as part of the sets than as singles, there were not as many GRADED as "20th Anniversary" set coins as many sets had already been opened up, thus disqualifying them from getting the special designation. Hence, the difference in value.

 
At April 21, 2010 at 7:27 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

This brings up a big question for me:

Ultimately, if two coins come out of the same die and are virtual duplicates of each other, why would a label by a grading company make a difference? For example, a first strike/early release PF70 versus a regular PF70 coin graded by the same company should have the same value. Why is there appreciation based on the label?

Don't get me wrong...I do recognize the benefits of grading (theoretically an unbiased source providing potential buyers the condition of the coin); however, a purist would say that two identical coins graded to the same level should have the same value.

So all that said, I just sent in a Van Buren Gold Spouse coin to NGC which came back graded as a PF70 BUT the label called it a Jackson Spouse...not a Van Buren Spouse. In the spirit of the comments above, would a labeling error make the coin "worth more" than an identical properly labeled coin? The error may be "rare", but the error may also call into question the ability of the grader to grade properly as well.

Comments?

 
At April 21, 2010 at 9:09 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

You bring up a very valid argument regarding grading labels and the value attached to them by collectors. It truly is a simple matter of collector perception why different labels make such a difference. In other words, it's all in their heads!

It's true that two coins graded as 70's should have identical value, but as long as buyers deem one version of a grading label more desirable over another one, the differences in value will continue.

I still fail to see the fascination with the so-called "First-Strike" or "Early Release" designations, but it seems enough collectors care about it that the value is pushed higher than the regular versions of the grading labels, sometimes by quite a large margin.

I personally could not care less, and even prefer to spend my collecting budget on raw coins so I can get more actual metal for the same money than spending so much on a simple LABEL. Besides, grading is a gamble because if you don't get a 70 grade on your coins, they will not sell for enough to allow you to recover your investment, especially after paying the grading fees and any selling fees associated with your sale. Coins graded at a 69 typically sell for around the level of raw specimens, and sometimes for even less. Think about it, a lot of collectors would rather spend their money on a raw coin that might be able to grade a 70 if they submit it themselves versus spending money on a coin that has already been deemed inferior or defective in some way.

In the case of your Van Buren Spouse coin, the label error you described would likely make the coin worth LESS than one that has the correct label. That type of error has no real value in many people's minds. If it were my coin they had messed up the label on, I would return it and request a re-slab with the correct label.

I hope all of this helps!

 
At April 21, 2010 at 10:14 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

All good points!

I do plan to get the coin regraded. I would also prefer to have raw coins; however, I have been hosed a couple times buying raw coins on eBay (which is about the only way for me to get coins without traveling long distances to get to coin shows).

The real value in graded coins is (on average) getting a relatively unbiased assessment of a coin. Those coins I received on eBay would not have passed muster at any grading firm worth their salt. At least with a graded coin, I know an PR70/PF70/MS70 probably won't have a gash across it.

But the gimmick labels (First Strike, Proof-like, etc.) really mean nothing. To NGC's credit, their label of "Early Release" doesn't imply anything beyond being one of the first coins shipped (NOT produced as PCGS implies with their First Strike label). Still, it (Early Release label) doesn't mean anything in the big scheme of things either.

 
At April 21, 2010 at 10:21 AM , Blogger Bowtie said...

Worst coin ever?

 
At April 21, 2010 at 10:51 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Susan B. Anthony dollar coin.

 
At April 21, 2010 at 10:52 AM , Blogger Bowtie said...

Nope, this one is the worst ever.

 
At April 21, 2010 at 10:57 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry about that Bowtie , I was lost in the haze of non interesting products list at the mint.

 
At April 21, 2010 at 10:59 AM , Blogger Bowtie said...

haha, you are right, most of them are pretty bad. I love the eagles and buffaloes. good thing that they are allegedly making 2010 buffaloes. I also loved the UHR and i have 2 of them. Wish i bought more.

 
At April 21, 2010 at 10:59 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only thing (this) coin has going for it is that it's got silver in it .

 
At April 21, 2010 at 11:05 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I only purchased 1 UHR from the mint , but I got the chance to buy another 1 on the cheap so to speak from a friend who decided he no longer wanted it!! Eagles and buffalo/bison are a can't miss designs I think .

 
At April 21, 2010 at 11:05 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

All in the name of "diversity". Have to admit, as a 'yout' I would have joined the boy scouts if girls had been allowed. ;-)

 
At April 21, 2010 at 1:24 PM , Blogger Lasloo said...

First Day of Issue and First Strike does up your registry score on PCGS's registry site! :-)
Though for modern circulating coins, I haven't seen too much of an increase in price on Ebay for this type of designation. Though, the silver stuff does seem to get a bit of a hike.

The only thing of this kind that I think has any merit are the first day coin covers that the Mint made (and are now only making the Presidential dollar coin FDCCs). On those covers, it specifically states that the coins were minted on the first day of mintage and it gives what that day was. And in addition, it's postmarked/canceled on the first day of issue.

If you TRULY TRULY care about something being TRULY first, that's about as close as you can come.

Otherwise, all those other designations are relatively meaningless.

 
At April 21, 2010 at 6:03 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have a couple first day of issue coin covers from coins from the 1970's. First question, are they worth anything? Second, would they be eligible for first day of issue labeling?

 
At April 21, 2010 at 9:23 PM , Blogger Lasloo said...

I'm assuming that the 70s coin covers were made by individuals... or at the very least not made by the U.S. Mint. While I don't know for sure... I think PCGS will only take those covers made by the Mint. The Mint and its products are known quantities.

Here's a link from PCGS where they state they do accept U.S. Mint Presidential FDCCs (but nothing about taking non-U.S. Mint covers):
http://www.pcgs.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=4940&universeid=313

I think the State Quarters series starting in 1999 was the first time the U.S. Mint made FDCCs. Or at least I haven't found reference to anything earlier than 1999 concerning first day coin covers made by the U.S. Mint.

Though with that said... first day coin covers could be worth a premium to many out there. Though, I'd look carefully to see what the postmarked date is REALLY suppose to mean. I've seen some that the postmark date means hardly anything... maybe that its the first day issue for the stamp, or maybe because its Jefferson's 230th birthday. The question here is... is that event worth something to a majority of people. I think some of the covers postmarked July 4th, 1976 might be worth something. I think a number of bicentennial stamps and medals and coins were released that year/day and could be worth something... but that's because the date relative to the product itself has a lot of meaning to a larger group of folks.

 
At April 21, 2010 at 11:45 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why aren't boys allowed in the girl scouts? I looked over the girl scout web site and not a mention or a picture of a boy.

 
At April 22, 2010 at 9:13 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because everyone seems to hate this coin, is the exact reason its going to go up in value. This is the exact scenario that catches us off guard. No one likes the coin, but it sells out and it leaves everyone wishing they had bought more. Just an opinion.

 
At April 23, 2010 at 2:09 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

THE UNC COIN HAS SOLD OUT!!!

 
At April 23, 2010 at 4:43 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Both the UNC and Proof are still available from the Mint!

 
At April 23, 2010 at 4:48 PM , Blogger Anonymous said...

There is now a waiting list for the UNC coin so it is effectively sold out

 
At April 23, 2010 at 5:09 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are right...I didn't look far enough to see that...thanks for pointing that out!

 
At April 23, 2010 at 9:34 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I spoke with a US Mint representative on 4/15/2010. She stated the last date (expiration date) at the introductory price was 4/21/2010 and did not state any cut off time. The standard with any business transaction anywhere for an expiration date for anything is always 12 midnight. The US Mint did not state verbally or in writing to the public that 5 p.m. was the cut off. I left a voice mail complaint with a Mrs. Fields listed in the press releases from their website. No return call has been received. The US Mint does not provide for or convey proper business etiquette to the public in this respect. I was forced to purchase a quantity on Ebay rather than pay the inflated price increase at US Mint. Their policy needs to be revised as to the cutoff date with the time being the standard 12 midnight. In the interest of good public relations due to the snafu by these numbskulls, the price increase should be rescinded for all coin sales. Your thoughts? Discussion please.

 
At April 24, 2010 at 10:17 AM , Blogger Michael said...

My post above includes the info that the prices would increase at 5:00 PM ET.

The US Mint's press release also includes the timing at 5:00 PM ET.

http://usmint.gov/pressroom/index.cfm?action=press_release&ID=1108

I believe the product pages also included the time.

It might not be the standard time to expire an offer, but it was stated in several places.

 
At April 25, 2010 at 8:57 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Michael...how's the new daddy doing? You all getting any sleep yet? I remember those days well.

 
At April 25, 2010 at 10:46 AM , Anonymous Ben said...

There's a lot of things to complain about regarding the Mint, but calling them numbskulls because they don't stay up till midnight to allow a minor discount on a coin is pretty lame. It's a government operation, they close at 5pm. Any business transaction anywhere is good till midnight? Try wandering around in the business district in your town at 11:59 pm and see what sort of business you can transact. The Mint gives you thirty days to buy the coin at a discount, who cares if it's 5pm or midnight on the 30th day? If you want the coin, buy it before the 30days are up and don't whine if it's 5pm or midnight. And save your complaints for something constructive.

 
At April 26, 2010 at 6:35 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Last year when I ordered the Lincoln Comm. dollars, I waited until the very last hour of the introductory price to place my order.

I just logged in to the US Mint website to check my order history to get the exact date and time which was: 03/16/2009 at 04:03 PM. I believe the price increase was set to increase at 5pm that day.


I purchased:

2009 LINCOLN PROOF SILVER DLR 3 $37.95 $113.85

2009 LINCOLN UNC SILVER DLR
2 $31.95 $63.90

2009 LINCOLN 2-ROLL SET "BIRTHPLACE" 2 $8.95 $17.90

The Lincoln Unc and Proof Silver dollars were actually $2 less before and after the 30 day introductory price period than the 2010 commemorative dollars.

I also believe when I placed my order this was just a few days before the Lincoln LP1's sold out. I wish I had bought more of all three coins at the time.

CG

 
At April 26, 2010 at 12:27 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Boy Scout UNCIRCULATED coins have sold out!

I sure am glad I ordered mine when they were first introduced.

Bowtie - when these coins (proof and uncirculated), guess who will have the last laugh?

HA! HA!

 
At April 26, 2010 at 1:16 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

2010 Boy Scouts of America Centennial Uncirculated Silver Dollar (BY2)

Waiting List Notice: The number of orders we have taken meets the maximum limit for the 2010 Boy Scouts of America Centennial Uncirculated Silver Dollar. You may still place an order for this product, which will go on a waiting list. If a product becomes available due to an order cancellation, we will fulfill orders from the waiting list on a first-come, first-serve basis. We cannot provide information about your position on the waiting list.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home