Author Topic: Actual mintages  (Read 98171 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SANDAC

  • Supporter
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+8)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2265
  • Karma: 118
Re: Actual mintages
« Reply #75 on: July 09, 2011, 10:31:21 PM »
I specifically looked for restrike of 1989 and 1992 Historical Figures.  But there are no mention of them.  The author indicated that restrikes occurred during 2003, 2004, and 2005 only, and that future restrikes are theoretically possible, but improbable.  Since all my Kublai Khan were purchased from Southland Coin before 2003 and I'm able to corroborate all your observation mentioned in your LBC investment #56 from my collection.  Another words, the Kublai Khan purchased recently have the same range of variabilities as Kublai Khan puchased around 2000.  Actually, my set has greater range of variabilities, recall the thread about "big army vs small army"

http://china-mint.info/forum/index.php?topic=3043

I have not heard anyone mentioned that they have the "small army", and I've not observed any "small army" on recent Ebay auctions.  So while the data set is tiny, it supports the notion of no restrike for Kublai Khan.

Offline badon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4487
  • Karma: -81
Re: Actual mintages
« Reply #76 on: July 09, 2011, 10:36:25 PM »
That's excellent information, thanks for sharing. That means that the coins I identified as possible restrikes are actually just varieties. The good news is that the coins are as rare or rarer than we thought they were, and there's several varieties of them.

Offline SANDAC

  • Supporter
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+8)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2265
  • Karma: 118
Re: Actual mintages
« Reply #77 on: July 09, 2011, 10:44:32 PM »
Also, there is the mystery of the perfectly legible 1992 Cai Wenji recently auctioned off for $285.  My initial thought was that it is a restrike to correct the flaw of the original, but since no 1992 restrike was mentioned in the article, could it be an example of an early strike which is perfect and then flaw was introduced later in the minting process?  Or perhaps it is produced by a different die? 

Offline badon

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4487
  • Karma: -81
Re: Actual mintages
« Reply #78 on: July 09, 2011, 11:36:34 PM »
I would have to examine the coin closely to answer that question, and even then, I may not be able to find evidence that can tell us. However, I think it is most likely that it is a different die.

Coinslinger

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Actual mintages
« Reply #79 on: September 03, 2011, 06:50:27 AM »
Here is what I've been able to confirm on my last couple of visits to China(I have an associate there now).....

The approximate mintage for the 2000 10Y 1 oz. Silver Mirrored Panda is <2500....probably less according to several former Mint officials/employees.  The coin is really nothing more than an experimental Pattern that was later used to give to Dignitaries both Foriegn and Domestic.  I know that some other folks believe the mintage to be 15,000-ish which is absurd.  The info is out there for anyone willing to go to China.

Also, the best and most reliable figure I could get for the 1995 10Y 1 oz. Silver Proof is <6,000..... roughly.  That one is tough because there is conflicting data coming from various former Mint officials.

Here are a few sleepers that have surprising low LISTED mintages and shockingly low actual mintages along with poor survivability rates:

1. 2006 200Y 1/2 oz. Gold Panda... Listed mintage; 25,600. Revised/actual mintage; 13,770.  Also, for whatever reason these didn't survive well and a large quantity were melted in India, which is what has happened to a lot of Chinese Gold issues such as the 1995 100Y 1 oz. Sm. Date and the 1997 100Y 1 oz. Sm. and Lg. Date issues.

2. 2003, 2004, 2005 50Y 5 oz. Silver Proof Pandas.  China only sold about 3500 of each and they too have not survived well.

3. 1990 100Y 1 oz. Gold Proof.  Check the pop. reports on these and then try finding one in 69.

Of Note:  Some folks have brought an interesting and valid question; If a revised mintage of a certain Proof coin reflects a lesser amount than that of the original mintage, then why do some COA #'s contradict those new figures?  For example, "I have a 1994 10Y 1 oz. Silver Panda Proof with a COA # higher than what the revised mintage says it is,  how can than be?".... Here's your answer, because when CGCC distributes the coins, they do so randomly.  They do not start with COA # 1 and work their way up in order.  So you could be the first person to receive a certain issue and wind up with COA # 2,374..... Conversely, you could be the last person to receive a certain issue and get COA # 00003.  What typically happens is the mint makes their allotted mintage and when they don't sell all of them, they melt the remaining coins back down to ingots for future use.  The Mexican Mint is notorious for this as well.  So if you have a COA # that seems to be too high for the revised mintage..... It's not.  It has nothing to do with the actual mintage/population of that particular issue.

Offline bigtc

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Karma: 0
Re: Actual mintages
« Reply #80 on: September 03, 2011, 09:06:48 AM »
Very good information, Coinslinger.  This helps to clarify some things for me and is a good example of what makes this forum so interesting.

Also, very nice coins on your other post.

Offline PandaCollector

  • Supporter
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2598
  • Karma: 82
  • Gender: Male
    • Pandacollector.com
Re: Actual mintages
« Reply #81 on: September 03, 2011, 06:38:27 PM »
Here is what I've been able to confirm on my last couple of visits to China(I have an associate there now).....

The approximate mintage for the 2000 10Y 1 oz. Silver Mirrored Panda is <2500....probably less according to several former Mint officials/employees.  The coin is really nothing more than an experimental Pattern that was later used to give to Dignitaries both Foriegn and Domestic.  I know that some other folks believe the mintage to be 15,000-ish which is absurd.  The info is out there for anyone willing to go to China.

Someone who allegedly knows someone in China started telling a story a couple of months ago that only 275 silver mirrors were minted and that those were given as gifts to VIPs. This claim ran up against the fact that NGC and PCGS have already graded 250 of them, so unless that 90% of a domestic Chinese coin has already gone through the TPGs the story was a non-starter.

The idea that the coins were VIP gifts also has the defect that (as far as I know) the Chinese Mint never distributes official gifts to important people in plain pouches without boxes and other goodies. No box, or COA or any special treatment accompanies the 2000 mirror coins. The coins weren't patterns but rather a test run for wider distribution in subsequent years. Therefore they didn't receive any special handling.

Since the last time I heard this story the quantity has grown to 2,500 silver mirrors. Given that the 2000 mirror coins were meant for a domestic Chinese market, it is dubious (to me, at least) that nearly 10% have been slabbed so far. The <15,000 figure that is mentioned is based on actual sales of the coins prior to the publication of a certain book on Pandas that spilled the beans on the scarcity of these 2000 varieties. These sales figures were compiled at a time when there was no hoarding of the coins because barely anyone paid any attention to them (Larry Dreher, excepted ;)).

I don't know for sure where this story originates from but it appears that something got garbled in the translation. It is everyone's right to buy or sell coins based upon any population figure they choose. The figures in the Gold and Silver Panda Coin Buyer's Guide book are founded on thousands and thousands of actual sales and research into the markets for Pandas in China, North America and Europe – not on what anyone said. I will continue to rely on that.

Best wishes,
Peter Anthony
www.pandacollector.com

Coinslinger

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Actual mintages
« Reply #82 on: September 03, 2011, 07:19:17 PM »
Mr. P. Anthony,  that person might have been me who e-mailed you the "story" about the silver 2000 mirrored pandas.  I'm not sure where you got 275 from(unless I typo-ed and meant 2750-ish...?)  Now, I was informed that roughly 200-300 of these were given out to so-called 'Dignitaries' and that a number of these were sent to Germany for some unknown reason.  I'm only as good as the data I compile and have to rely on the honesty of these fine Gentlemen who have provided me with this info.  They simply have NO reason to make any of this up......why would they....?  I can only tell you that they are adamant about the fact that the 15,000 figure is absolutely false.  Now a few of these Guys believe that fewer than a 1,000 of these were made while the consensus amongst these Gentlemen is closer to 2500.  here's something I know for sure, of the 221-ish coins that have been graded by NGC, at least 45 of those are resubs that NGC has yet to account for.... so take at least 45 of those coins off of the total pop. report for NGC.

These coins have the value that they do for a reason and I challenge ANYONE to show me more than a group of 50 of these(GENUINE).  Of course I'm just setting anyone up who attempts this for failure.... I already know the outcome. I'm open to anyone finding out more about this subject.....if there are more, then I will gladly accept that, but sometimes you just have to take what the research gives you.


-CS

Offline adamc4

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 616
  • Karma: 2
Re: Actual mintages
« Reply #83 on: September 03, 2011, 07:39:46 PM »
"Peter's initial assessment was that roughly 15,000 were struck, we now know better.....the fact is that when all the red tape cleared and the Chinese Gov. released the definitive Mintage figures for ALL Pandas(just a few short months ago), it was revealed that only a 'whopping' 272 SILVER MIRRORED Pandas were released(compared to 758 of the Gold version)......14,877 were actually struck, but the majority of the Mintage was melted back down, presumably for future use. The 272 that survived were initially given to Dignitaries both foreign and domestic. The mystery is over.... The 2000 Silver 10Y Mirrored Panda is WITHOUT question, not only the KEY to the entire series, it is by far and away, the RAREST.....and moreover, it has become the key to not only the Silver series, but the key to ALL 1oz Panda types; Gold, Platinum, Palladium, etc..... GAME OVER."

A crazy message I received in the summer from someone who flaked out on buying a coin from me (which actually happened to be a 1 Oz. gold mirrored).

Offline PandaCollector

  • Supporter
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2598
  • Karma: 82
  • Gender: Male
    • Pandacollector.com
Re: Actual mintages
« Reply #84 on: September 03, 2011, 07:56:55 PM »
Here's what I know: there are people with a couple of dozen or so of these apiece who acquired them largely by accident. 10 years ago these buyers were just ordering 2000 silver Pandas and the mirrors came along with the frosted ones. That is not the way truly rare coins usually come into collector's hands – and especially not in quantity.  That is also not the situation for the gold coins. I can't think of a single person in America who (before June 2010) didn't have to acquire their gold mirror fractionals directly from China. As far as I know, a small group of mirror gold 1 oz. coins made it the the States on their own, but none of the smaller sizes.

The sales figures for the coins that date from before June 2010 (when the book was published) show the silver mirror coins freely trading for under $300. It is difficult for me to believe that if there was some "secret" to these coins they wouldn't all have been spoken for by those in-the-know between 2000 and 2010. There was just not much demand for them until the book was published. While the book may have created new demand it wasn't responsible for the low supplies that disappeared as soon as the news got out. 15,000 or 10,000 are pretty small numbers for a crown-size silver Panda; look at how much the 1983-85 coins sell for. Do you know anyone with 50 of any of those? Anyway, 2,500 doesn't square with the availability of the 2000 mirror coin prior to June 2010.

I also have to add that I have yet to see any 2000 silver mirrors for sale anywhere that comes with the sort of packaging that indicates it is something special. And if the silver coins were VIP gifts, why not the much rarer gold coins, too?

However it came about, I believe the people who gave you your information erred for some reason, or something got lost in the translation. It would benefit me, too, if there were only 2,500 silver mirror Pandas but I just don't see how that can be.

Best wishes,
Peter Anthony
www.pandacollector.com

Offline peng_you

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
  • Karma: -1
Re: Actual mintages
« Reply #85 on: September 03, 2011, 08:11:12 PM »
Mr. P. Anthony,  that person might have been me who e-mailed you the "story" about the silver 2000 mirrored pandas.  I'm not sure where you got 275 from(unless I typo-ed and meant 2750-ish...?)  Now, I was informed that roughly 200-300 of these were given out to so-called 'Dignitaries' and that a number of these were sent to Germany for some unknown reason.  I'm only as good as the data I compile and have to rely on the honesty of these fine Gentlemen who have provided me with this info.  They simply have NO reason to make any of this up......why would they....?  I can only tell you that they are adamant about the fact that the 15,000 figure is absolutely false.  Now a few of these Guys believe that fewer than a 1,000 of these were made while the consensus amongst these Gentlemen is closer to 2500.  here's something I know for sure, of the 221-ish coins that have been graded by NGC, at least 45 of those are resubs that NGC has yet to account for.... so take at least 45 of those coins off of the total pop. report for NGC.

These coins have the value that they do for a reason and I challenge ANYONE to show me more than a group of 50 of these(GENUINE).  Of course I'm just setting anyone up who attempts this for failure.... I already know the outcome. I'm open to anyone finding out more about this subject.....if there are more, then I will gladly accept that, but sometimes you just have to take what the research gives you.


-CS
There are many different coins that you would have a hard time coming up with 50 examples of. If your information about these coins comes from Coin dealers, i would be very careful about how much credibility you give the data. I have heard the same story about how coins were given to special people or 'Dignitaries' and can say that recently was part of a transaction of 1 coin, in the 6 figure range,and was given the same story of where the coin came from. The coins did contain 20 oz of gold which back in 1989 would have been $7000-$8000. An $8000 gift forces me to atleast consider the story to be true but I have heard this line so many times, im starting to wonder if dealers just use this theory as a way to help sell their coins easier, or to help them sell at higher price levels. Even if these 'Dignitaries' were given complete sets of 2000 mirrored gold Pandas that would have been a whopping $500+- worth of gold which to me, raises credibility within this theory. One would think that 'Dignitaries' would recieve gifts worth more than $500.
Publishing actual mintage numbers, in my opinion, is very brave as i believe the market is too premature to have accumulated enough sales data to possibly even come close to numbers that could reflect accurate information. PA book is a good tool for marketing coins when selling them, but in regards to his actual mintage numbers and accepting them as legitimate, I would use caution. I do commend him for the bravery it took to publish these numbers, but it is merely just a guess. Obviously less coins than planned will be available due to melting etc.
 It has been no secret that the mirrored coins were made for domestic distribution only. Has anyone ever thought that maybe, just maybe, we havent seen many of these coins because they were not distributed for the Western market and as i suggested before, and are in the hands of those wealthy enough to afford these coins in China back in 2000? I would presume those same people, are not in need of money and still have the coins. Or is that explanation just too simple to accept? Nonetheless, whether there are 250 or 2500 or 15000, until they start to appear on the market or not, its pretty much going to be the case where you can name your own price and hope to land a buyer.
Peng_you

Offline PandaCollector

  • Supporter
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2598
  • Karma: 82
  • Gender: Male
    • Pandacollector.com
Re: Actual mintages
« Reply #86 on: September 03, 2011, 08:35:03 PM »
PA book is a good tool for marketing coins when selling them, but in regards to his actual mintage numbers and accepting them as legitimate, I would use caution. I do commend him for the bravery it took to publish these numbers, but it is merely just a guess. Obviously less coins than planned will be available due to melting etc.
Peng_you

I actually never provide estimates for mintage numbers. My book restricts itself to population estimates for BU/collector-grade coins (it also includes the published mintage figures, too). Population estimates attempt to take into account the melted and damaged coins. If a coin exists in MS-62, or 64 condition, or was mounted in jewelry, it would not make it into the population estimates for 1 oz. or smaller coins as it wouldn't be of interest to collectors.  Hopefully, Huang Rui Yong will be able to shed light on the mintage numbers at some time in the future.

Best wishes,
Peter Anthony
www.pandacollector.com

Offline peng_you

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
  • Karma: -1
Re: Actual mintages
« Reply #87 on: September 03, 2011, 08:44:56 PM »
Please use "population estimates," in the place where i use "actual mintage numbers" in my post. Sorry pandacollector.
Peng_you

Offline PandaCollector

  • Supporter
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2598
  • Karma: 82
  • Gender: Male
    • Pandacollector.com
Re: Actual mintages
« Reply #88 on: September 03, 2011, 09:05:17 PM »
Please use "population estimates," in the place where i use "actual mintage numbers" in my post. Sorry pandacollector.
Peng_you

No apology necessary, but thanks anyway. By the way, now that you have got me going, the population estimates are based on a mathematical formula. You can, if you want, still call the population estimates guesses, but they are not arbitrary and they are based on lots and lots of hard sales data.

Best wishes,
Peter Anthony
www.pandacollector.com

Offline peng_you

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
  • Karma: -1
Re: Actual mintages
« Reply #89 on: September 03, 2011, 09:29:18 PM »
i understand and am not saying that your population estimates are arbitrary. My main issue with population estimates is that i cannot see how sales data used for a period of lets say 5 years, is enough sales data for you to formulate population estimates in this premature Chinese coin market. Now if you use your population estimates and assign them to a certain period of time,ie. a disclaimer acknowleding the data you have used to form these estimates and time period of collected data that estimates pertain to, well i would have a different view. Otherwise, to use the population estimates as a general number that can be used to establish how many coins one may think exist, that are of good enough quality for a collector, is whether any of us like it or not, a guess. I may be wrong, but i am under the impression that this is only the beginning for the Chinese coin market and that 10x the data you used to formulate your estimates will be available over the next year or two.
Peng_you
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 09:37:14 PM by peng_you »