Topic: 1989 3.3 oz silver god of war and wealth varieties discovered by reiboy of CCF

[badon]

Something smell here.  Take a look at this same NGC 3452783-010.

http://www.rarecoincollector.net/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=36&products_id=5841
* According to their "mix" pictures and description, it is a Super.

http://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/CertResults.aspx?CertNumber=3452783-010
* According to NGC pictures, it is a Clear.

They're using stock photos:

http://china-mint.info/forum/index.php?topic=2734.0

[Pandaguy]

They're using stock photos:

http://china-mint.info/forum/index.php?topic=2734.0

Badon, thanks for the link to my topic. In addition to using stock photos, they send the wrong coins and do not make good on their mistake; especially when they mistakenly sell a coin too low. In my case, they simply did not send me the proper coin and then sold the proper coin for a higher price to a different buyer. I will NEVER buy from them again! As I have mentioned about this seller: BUYER BEWARE!!!!!

[PandaOrLunar]

Oh yes, I know you're getting your info from public sources. I just don't want to count the same coin twice.

Here is my NGC data.  Hope we can keep it update online.  The last 2 (2764099-012 clear, 2764117-053 clear) are the latest.

[badon]

Found some more: NGC-3493608, 025 to 034.

025 PF 68 UC clouded
026 PF 67 UC clouded
027 PF 69 UC clear
028 PF 68 UC clear
029 PF 69 UC clear
030 PF 69 UC clear
031 PF 69 UC clear
032 PF 68 UC clouded
033 PF 69 UC clouded
034 PF 69 UC clouded

totals

69 clouded: 2
68 clouded: 2
67 clouded: 1

69 clear: 4
68 clear: 1

[badon]

* 35 from NGC (Census Total Graded 99:  two graded 65, eight 66, thirteen 67, twenty-two 68, fifty-four 69)
  > clear:    one 67, four 68, seventeen 69
  > clouded:  one 66, one 68, one 69
  > super:    five 68, five 69

Please double check these numbers. I'm quite sure this isn't right somewhere, either in the calculations, or in the coin counts. I'm not sure what all the numbers mean.

Part of the uncertainty comes from not knowing which coins each of these are. I think ungraded coins are included in the figures, which is probably skewing results somehow. We should probably redo the numbers with only graded coins, so we don't double count anything. We can work off of unique serial numbers, so we know what's what.

I will revisit this later when I've got more time. I may use this project as a test for the coin compendium, to see if it can automatically generate these numbers for us, without needing to do it manually.

These numbers should be considered to be off by a little bit until I take the time to verify each coin, or make the coin compendium do it for me.

* 45 from NGC (Census Total Graded 137:  two graded 65, eight 66, fourteen 67, twenty-eight 68, eighty-five 69)
  > clear:    one 67, five 68, twenty-one 69
  > clouded:  one 66, one 67, three 68, three 69
  > super:    five 68, five 69

clear mintage estimate, all grades: 27/59 = 45.8% (was 26/49 = 53.1%)
* For total mintage 2500 = 1144 (was 1327)
* For total mintage 2430 = 1112 (was 1289)
* For total mintage 2000 = 915 (was 1061)

clear population estimate in 69 grade: 21/27 = 77.8% (was 17/22 = 77.3%)
* For mintage estimate of 1144 X 77.8% = 890 (was 1025)
* For mintage estimate of 1112 X 77.8% = 865 (was 996)
* For mintage estimate of 915 X 77.8% = 712 (was 820)

clouded mintage estimate, all grades: 8/59 = 13.6% (was 11/49 = 22.4%)
* For total mintage 2500 = 339 (was 561)
* For total mintage 2430 = 329 (was 546)
* For total mintage 2000 = 271 (was 449)

clouded population estimate in 69 grade: 3/8 = 37.5% (was 1/3 = 33.3%)
* For mintage estimate of 339 = 127 (was 187)
* For mintage estimate of 329 = 123 (was 182)
* For mintage estimate of 271 = 102 (was 150)

super mintage estimate, all grades:  10/59 = 16.9% (was 12/49 = 24.5%)
* For total mintage 2500 = 424 (was 612)
* For total mintage 2430 = 412 (was 595)
* For total mintage 2000 = 339 (was 490)

super population estimate in 69 grade: 5/10 = 50%
* For mintage estimate of 424 = 212 (was 306)
* For mintage estimate of 412 = 206 (was 298)
* For mintage estimate of 339 = 170 (was 245)

[Pandora]

I count total:

6 Clouded PF69s
5 Super Clouded PF69s

So super clouded seems to be the rarest in mintage and high grade as well.

[badon]

If you can get the NGC certification numbers for them, that would help a bunch. I'm going to have them entered into the Coin Compendium as a test, and hopefully that will be able to easily tell us which coin is the rarest.

[Pandora]

Badon, the count is from the NGC number from PandaOrLunar's post and your post above.

[badon]

Ah, I see. So, it looks like I'll need to go through PandaOrLunar's data. There's new stuff there that's not included in those calculations I just did.

[Pandora]

Looks like RareCoinCollector is pulling nearly 100% PF69 from their submissions.

NGC 3452783 - 5 out of 5 (100%)
NGC 3453498 - 6 out of 7 (86%)
NGC 3453499 - 7 out of 7 (100%)
NGC 3487417 - 2 out of 2 (100%)

Total - 20 out of 21 (95%)

[shuttlespace]

The official mintage 2500 of this coin makes absolutely no sense if you look at the frequency of this coin shown up in the market. The 1989 New York Expo coin which has a mintage of 4000 shows less frequent than this coin. I would guess that this coin has been restruct multiple times after 1989 and all varieties we are discussing here are the product of the restruct.
The actually mintage should be much higher than 5000 considering how frequent this coin is on the market.

[badon]

No, that is not right. Estimating mintages based on populations does not work over short term time scales. It is already known that the current market availability of these coins is coming from at least one hoard of them. I believe the actual surviving mintage is less than 2500, considering the fact that nearly all of the coins coming to the market are coins from the hoard.

This is a common mistake buyers make, when they assume plentiful availability will last long term, based on a short term observation. That's why PandaCollector's panda population estimates are based on many years of data collection.

[badon]

I should add that the coin was never popular. Just last year they were selling for only $160 each. I would be surprised to learn the coins have been restruck. I have not examined that possibility in detail, but so far I haven't seen any differences in the varieties that lead me to believe they were made at different times or using different methods.

I'll take a closer look at them when I get a chance to see a few different specimens side by side, but I don't think my opinion will change unless I discover something compelling about the dies used to make the coins.

[Underbidder]

As you know, I've been leaning towards Shuttlespace's position for a while now, not only because of the high numbers suddenly available, but because three varieties just doesn't seem to make sense for so small a run, we don't see it in other coins to this extent, do we? It would go a long way in explaining things.

[badon]

The reason why we see 3 varieties in a small mintage coin is because of its size. It takes a lot of striking pressure to mint a large size coin, which wears out the dies faster. I have seen evidence of die wear on all 3 varieties. The dies get replaced in order to keep the quality of the strike high.

In addition to that, it's possible all 3 dies were running coins simultaneously to speed up production. That means that the planned mintage may have been 2500, but fewer were made with the 3 dies already prepared for production. I believe this is actually what happened.

One reason why I think this is because of the difficulty in obtaining the clouded claw in high grades. If I remember correctly, only about 1 in 4 earns a 69 grade, compared to 3 out of 4 for the clear claw, and 1 in 2 for the super clouded claw. That indicates to me the possibility that 3 different people were operating preses for each die separately, and simultaneously, and they each had different experience, care and handling techniques, etc.

Since the clear claw is the most common variety, especially in high grades, I would guess that the most experienced press operator was producing the clear claw coins. He produced more of them, faster, and at higher quality than the other clouded and super clouded dies.

Of course, I'm just guessing. I don't know what equipment, employees, or operating schedule the mint was using in 1989, but I think my guess is reasonable.

There could be an even simpler explanation - the coins coming out of the clear claw die were closer to the press operator than the other 2 coin dies, so he didn't have to reach out for the coin and slide it around as much to get a grip on it after striking.

There are many possible explanations for what we're seeing, but so far I haven't been able to come up with an explanation that involves restrikes. Overminting could have occurred, but since we're only seeing 50 unsold coins that probably came from an original distributor, that pretty much rules out the idea that the mint would decide to make extra coins when they were already having trouble selling the ones they had.

Once all of these coins are in tight collector hands, you'll start to see how rare they truly are. Remember the 2000 gold mirror pandas? They used to be plentiful, and now you can't buy one unless somebody is kind enough to offer one to you. They're being tightly held.

There has been more than 1 hoard of the god of war & wealth come to the market, about 1 year apart in time, so that reinforces my belief that they did not sell well, and that the coins we're seeing are hoard coins. In between hoards coming to market, they appeared infrequently, just as would be expected for a low mintage coin.

In other words, today's availability of these coins at prices under $10,000 is a gift. Greeting it with unfounded suspicion is just going to cause you to miss out on this opportunity. Everyone who had a chance to buy them last year for $160 is kicking themselves now because you have to pay 10 times as much only one year later. That should be your indicator of how rare these are. When prices rise that dramatically, it's because once they're gone, they're hard to get.