First Spouse Coins

[HistoryStudent]

I was out looking about today and saw a Jefferson Liberty and was priced at a little under $1k. Take your pick about being either proof or uncirculated with the uncirculated being a wee bit cheaper. Both were ungraded an in original packaging. However, I couldn't afford to pick it up right now.

I can just hope that either coin is available in a couple of weeks because that's my next buying opportunity. The guy behind the counter suggested that if I had an anniversary set we could make a swap. He wanted the set and cash. Told him I was tempted but didn't have the trading material.

Resisted temptation. But it was hard.

Go current go to the mint. Those Jefferson's were only $420 new.

Buy close as you can to spot dated on/after 2008.

[cpthnsolo]

I guess I'm looking for a bone fide reason to pick a more expensive copy of a coin over a cheaper good looking coin. I don't want to buy a graded coin because there is something about the mint packaging that I admire. So if I purchase either copy I'll be keeping the coin in the appropriate packaging.

You should definitely buy what makes you happy, but at the same time the mintage levels in this collection matter more than most series IMO. That's because very few people are actually going to collect the entire set. I see many people acquiring the beautiful Liberty subset, but after that 99% of gold coin collectors will probably just buy one example for a type set. Therefore since it's clear the MS numbers are typically much lower than proof numbers, I'm buying the MS coins. Shrewd buyers though are able to score these for not much more than a half ounce AGE so in that case buying either the proof or MS is a win.

Sometimes you can get slabbed 69's for cheaper than the mint cost. Here's a good MCM deal right now IMO for a non-ugly especially:
2010-W Buchanan's Liberty $10 First Spouse Gold NGC PF69 UC Proof 69 Ultra Cameo

That's a smoking deal for the coin that has the lowest proof mintage of that sub-series. On some level it's strange to me that the PR Buchanan hasn't risen in price towards the Jackson or VB. Both of those have come down over the last few months, but I was expecting the Buchanan to creep up a bit as well and so far that hasn't happened. Clearly that sub-series is going to take time to develop, but Olds is on target with his assessment of the PR Buch. Buy it for now folks if you haven't already .

So, what we have here is a trend where the spoils go to the contrarian, the one who turns the eyes away from aesthetics and instead fixes on the goal of profits. What to do? There are many arguments to be made...

Unless you're watching the weekly mint sales and checking the mint's site daily to see when a coin is no longer available, than I don't think buying spouse coins for flipping is a good idea. Sure all of the post-2007 coins have been winners to varying degrees, but quickly flipping $1000 coins for an extra 5 to 20% doesn't seem worth it to me. I think the spouse coins are largely a longer term play. Like I said though paying close attention to them could certainly earn you an immediate profit as it did for the folks who listened to mintnewsblog the week before JTyler sold out, but for the most part these are coins you're buying for the distant future.

[cpthnsolo]

HEADS UP to my friends here in the FS thread who also have the sickness ! If any of you have a PCGS First Strike 70 Louisa Adams (either the ms or dcam), than now is THE time to sell. I guess prices could go higher, but boy howdy it's crazy that folks are paying $3K for these things now ! Sell *NOW* if you have one of these and turn that one half ounce of gold into nearly two ounces for crying out loud !

2008 W Louisa Adams Gold Spouse PCGS MS70 ULTRA RARE FIRST STRIKE!! (Nov 20, 2011 -- Winning bid: US $3,058.95)

2008 W First Spouse GOLD Louisa Adams FIRST STRIKE LOW MINT PCGS MS 70 (Nov 11, 2011 -- Winning bid: US $2,609.99)

2008 W First Spouse GOLD Louisa Adams FIRST STRIKE LOW MINT PCGS PR 70 (Nov 11, 2011 -- Winning bid: US $2,609.99)

Most of the recent closed auctions on eBay from NGC are unsold examples. Here's the only recently closed 70 coin
2008-W Louisa Adams First Spouse $10 Gold NGC MS 70 (Nov 20, 2011 -- Winning bid for the NGC: US $1,083.99) = the crazy prices are for FS70 pcgs coins only.

[HistoryStudent]

Week from tomorrow GARFIELD spouse releases from the US MINT.

He was "the" hard MONEY president.



Wonder what the GOLD price will be?

GOLD (print this)

* MAJOR ONE up from $256 to $1,015
(actually 4 times the $255 low)
= FINISHED


*MAJOR TWO down from $1,015 to $699
(a decline of 31% Fibonacci)
= FINISHED


* MAJOR THREE up from $700 to $4,500
(a Fibonacci 6 ½ times the $700 low prior)
with two 13% minor corrections
= IN PROGRESS NOW!


* MAJOR FOUR down from $4,500 to $3,200
( a 29% decline)
= LATER


*MAJOR FIVE up from $3,200 to $12,800
(also a four fold increase, same as ONE)
= SUPER LATER


http://www.jsmineset.com/2011/11/14/...-by-alf-field/

[namwalker]

Thought that I'd post the latest 1st spouse sales figures for the period ending November 21, 2011

Product Sales Change


Eliza Johnson Proof (2011) 3,588 24

Eliza Johnson Uncirculated 2,595 10

Julia Grant Proof (2011) 3,663 32

Julia Grant Uncirculated 2,367 12

Lucy Hayes Proof (2011) 2,598 46

Lucy Hayes Uncirculated 1,711 20

The 1st spouse continues on their low selling ways. The Lucy Hayes coins seem to in the running for low selling queens, but there is still new issues being released so that may be subject to change.

Just for grins I think that I'll include the sales figures for the commerative coins.


2011 ARMY COMMEMORATIVE COINS

$5 Gold Proof 16,689 76

$5 Gold Uncirculated 7,227 27

$1 Silver Proof 114,528 823

$1 Silver Uncirculated 42,533 200

50 Cent Clad Proof 65,650 500

50 Cent Clad Uncirc 37,309 353

2011 MEDAL OF HONOR COMMEMORATIVE COINS

$5 Gold Proof 17,367 78

$5 Gold Uncirculated 7,597 28

$1 Silver Proof 105,356 2,576

$1 Silver Uncirculated 40,527 172


By the way, after 850,000 coins the 2011 AMERICAN EAGLE SILVER PROOF COIN officially sold out this week. At that count, everyone here should have enought to satisfy their needs. I've seen these things selling for over $60 in local lcs. This is not much of an increase over what they were selling for at the mint.

[louisianagold]

picked up 3 2010 Buchanan Liberty PCGS 69PF and 3 2010 Pierce PCGS 69PF for $850 each.

Happy with the purchase.

[cpthnsolo]

picked up 3 2010 Buchanan Liberty PCGS 69PF and 3 2010 Pierce PCGS 69PF for $850 each.

Happy with the purchase.

Yoda man doode ! Buying those six potential heavy hitters for freak'n melt is unreal. If you ever see deals like that and have to pass, would you please PM me (seriously ) ?

[HistoryStudent]

Can't COMPLAIN about these coins.

Of the 40 coins issued to date MS & PF...

Drum ROLL please....


26 are or will be under 6,000 minted total each.

MOSTLY in MS (16 from 2008-2011) but PF (8 scattered)

Of the coins issued by the US mint over the last 218 years these are all in the top (numerically lowest)
50 coins each one.

Let's just say they are a total of 24 KEY coins out of 40 issued.

N'fuf said.


I shoulda woulda coulda grabbed duplicates throughout...

[HistoryStudent]

It's a shame we lost the monster spouse thread, since this has been covered before.
The spouses will probably not produce a low mintage key, rather there will be a slew of MS coins in the low-3000 range, proofs low 5000.
For example the two Tyler coins are on pace to end within 100 coins of each other, maybe 3100-3200. Should that happen, down the line I do not see one commanding a signif. premium over the other or even the Harrison. In that manner they are like the 06-08W Plat. eagles, lots of low mintages, no clear key.
But they will all fetch a high premium because they simply will not be available, like the situation today except the series will be over and there will not be any more coming down the pike to speculate on. The mint is trying to move away from low-mintage issues, they would rather divert it to their profitable bullion stuff, they turned a record profit on it last year and are beating last years pace this year.

WELL SAID above many many many moons ago. Thanks again.

True rarity is absence of coin(s) available.

The POOR MINT is stuck with coins by law no matter HOW low they sell and as the price of GOLD
BOOMS these will sell less and less.

I expect this 2012 to really be a difficult year economically (the worst since the French and Indian Wars
when old George Washington was starting to go up the ranks).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War

[hernancortes]

Well it's looking like I got some of that right but I was wrong about the Tylers, the Julia carries a big premium over the Letitia even though they are, according to Jordan's latest mintage numbers, within 150 coins of each other.

[HistoryStudent]

Well it's looking like I got some of that right but I was wrong about the Tylers, the Julia carries a big premium over the Letitia even though they are, according to Jordan's latest mintage numbers, within 150 coins of each other.

Yeah, BUT excuse my French - BUT DAMN you're good.

I remember reading this in 2010 and seeing the logic involved. Then the DW says, "they are all women and they'll really be something
down-the-road."

I did not need anymore convincing.




BUY ROCKY BUY!

HC you are my HERO!

[cpthnsolo]

Well it's looking like I got some of that right but I was wrong about the Tylers, the Julia carries a big premium over the Letitia even though they are, according to Jordan's latest mintage numbers, within 150 coins of each other.

Where did he post that information? I didn't see it in his thread on the PCGS forums. Does he have a blog or website that I should be following (I'm somewhat embarrassed to ask to be honest). If need be PM me, otherwise tell the group where to get the latest and greatest numbers if you can. As always, thanks HC!

[HistoryStudent]

Where did he post that information? I didn't see it in his thread on the PCGS forums. Does he have a blog or website that I should be following (I'm somewhat embarrassed to ask to be honest). If need be PM me, otherwise tell the group where to get the latest and greatest numbers if you can. As always, thanks HC!

are you a registered member of our secret club?

We're all BLOOD brothers.



Just kidding.


HC has always posted his thoughts as he walked me through his viewpoint of
Jordan's book which opened up my MODERN collecting in a huge way.



I was a USA stamp collector at 7 some 60 years ago so I HISTORICALLY understood things really fast.

[cpthnsolo]

are you a registered member of our secret club?

LOL I'm trying to be in the club. I swear if you guys teach me the secret handshake I won't tell anyone else !

[hernancortes]

Where did he post that information? I didn't see it in his thread on the PCGS forums. Does he have a blog or website that I should be following (I'm somewhat embarrassed to ask to be honest). If need be PM me, otherwise tell the group where to get the latest and greatest numbers if you can. As always, thanks HC!

Not really any new revelations, just the audited numbers from fall of 2010. They are somewhere way back in this thread. Posts 401, 406, 434. Based on what he speculated awhile ago, I am interested to see the finals for Pierce unc and Buch Proof. He claims a high scrap rate for the Buch PR and even a slight downward revision on the Pierce unc would put it perhaps scarcer than Letitia.

[cpthnsolo]

Thanks for the info HC. Honestly I think a major reason why the Letitia hasn't increased at all is due to the fact so many websites have the wrong statistics still. Heck, I collect FS coins and follow them more than 99% of the rest of the crowd and I was still under the impression that Julia Tyler was the only sub-3000 mintage coin in the series. Just take a look at http://firstspousecoinguide.com/firs...coin-mintages/ and you'll see they still have the old numbers. Until Eric's final numbers make their way to websites like the one above I think most collectors won't know about the mintage changes. The fact there is no longer a sub-3000 coin is fairly significant IMO. That gives one of the 2011 coins an even better shot at becoming the new key.

Here are the revised numbers again from nearly a year ago:
Van Buren PROOF 6807
A Harrison PROOF 6251
Letitia Tyler PROOF 5295
Julia Tyler PROOF 4844

Van Buren UNC 3826
A Harrsion UNC 3645
Letitia Tyler UNC 3240
Julia Tyler UNC 3143

[hernancortes]

I have no idea where Redbook "THE reference guide for US coins" gets their numbers for moderns. Just look what they've got for spouses in the 2012 edition. I browsed a Redbook the other day and it appears they FINALLY got the correct numbers for 2006-2008 AGE's, ASE's APE's and gold buffalos. Nearly 3 years after the numbers were posted on the mint's own website.
It may be seven or eight years before redbook catches up with spouses.

[Oldmansmith]

Here are the revised numbers again from nearly a year ago:
Van Buren PROOF 6807
A Harrison PROOF 6251
Letitia Tyler PROOF 5295
Julia Tyler PROOF 4844

Van Buren UNC 3826
A Harrsion UNC 3645
Letitia Tyler UNC 3240
Julia Tyler UNC 3143

And if you think any of the lower mintage uglies are better than the Van Burens then God bless you.

I have a bunch of Van Burens and I am holding tight.

[hernancortes]

And if you think any of the lower mintage uglies are better than the Van Burens then God bless you.

I have a bunch of Van Burens and I am holding tight.

I think eventually the VB unc will command the highest price, with the Jackson unc not too far behind. Given that, I think the Buchanan is the one to buy on the cheap right now, greysheet has it at 1025 bid but apmex had them on sale for about $950 until yesterday. Much rather go with that than speculate on the newest low mintage ugly. Though other spouses may finish at lower mintage, Julia will always have some appeal because she is not ugly (on the coin that is).
I don't know how many VB uncs I have, several but whatever it is, not enough.

[Oldmansmith]

Go with what you like. I have a few each of the Jacksons, but only one each of the Buchanans so far. If I buy more I will be buying Buchanans for sure, despite the lower mintages on some of the recent uglies.

I plan on selling the extra liberties at some point, but keeping a full set of the liberty series for myself, because I like them. I don't plan on keeping any of the uglies for myself. For me, that tells me all I need to know about the low mintage uglies.

Frankly I'm flabbergasted that you can get (or could get) a Buchannan for $950. I'm going internet shopping.

[cpthnsolo]

I have a bunch of Van Burens and I am holding tight.

Well now I don't feel as bad about beating you to Apmex for a couple back when they still had them priced at melt plus some percentage . We both got an e-mail notification on them IIRC and since I was at work I was able to buy them in seconds... I too have multiples of the Jackson and Van Buren MS coins, but I never picked up their proof counterparts and I regret that now on some level as my proof Buchanans look quite lonely .

I think eventually the VB unc will command the highest price, with the Jackson unc not too far behind. Given that, I think the Buchanan is the one to buy on the cheap right now, greysheet has it at 1025 bid but apmex had them on sale for about $950 until yesterday. Much rather go with that than speculate on the newest low mintage ugly. Though other spouses may finish at lower mintage, Julia will always have some appeal because she is not ugly (on the coin that is).
I don't know how many VB uncs I have, several but whatever it is, not enough.

You're probably right about the VB, but I have to admit that I'm partial to the Jackson coin and can see it possibly being the FS coin one day. What's not to love about it? It has an awesome classic obverse, with a fantastic manly reverse of Old Hickory on a horse. It really is the only spouse coin in my eyes that has both a pleasing obverse and reverse. The Jefferson reverse is blah, and the VB and Buchanan reverses are just plain awful IMO. Collectors are funny creatures though so who knows what will be sought after in 20 years. As for speculating on the new spouses I think you're right and potentially wrong on some level HC (mostly right though ). I foresee most of the 2011 coins ending with mintages from 2500 - 3200 so the fact we won't have a clear key will certainly hurt the lowest mintage coin. However surely there are enough key collectors out there and registry nutz who want the "key" for their type set to push the price of whatever the key is much higher than we would expect. I don't have enough money to speculate on buying multiples of every spouse coin, but I'm definitely buying one of each in MS form this year except for Grant. I'll add Grant to the stack at some point maybe, but I only have so much money unfortunately so she's way down on the priority list.

Lastly, I think the image of Letitia is actually more attractive than Julia, but I know I'm in the minority with that opinion. Overall the Julia coin is by far the prettiest of the ladies simply due to the fact her reverse is actually quite pleasing. Too bad I totally missed the Julia coin . I had to take a break from the hobby for a while and totally missed it. I was fortunate enough to pick up the Letitia MS and PR coins this year for a very reasonable price, but I'm not about to chase the Julia coin.

[louisianagold]

Sold, thank you!!!

as posted above, i just purchased a few 1st spouse for great prices. i am putting these up for sale as recommended by a fellow member here.


(2) 1/2 OZ 2010 1ST Spouse Jane Pierce (total mintage 8,176) PCGS 69PF DCAM: $925 shipped.

(2) 1/2 Oz 2010 1st Spouse James Buchanan Liberty (total mintage 12,652) PCGS 69PF DCAM 1st Strike: $925 Shipped.

willing to give a discount if multiple are purchased.

money orders.

Have done well over 100 trades at Bullionstacker

Have done over 100 trades at Kitco.

let me know if anyone is interested. i placed them in the Buy/sell thread also.

thanks.

mods: please forgive if this is inappropriate.

[HistoryStudent]

Everybody should read JORDAN'S BOOK on gold hitting $3000 ounce: and the economy being bad.

I expect a lot higher and a lot worse in the economy coming.

Read what he says is the best to do THEN.


Do NOT think so much about the present. Have a future plan.

[Master_Ho]

Everybody should read JORDAN'S BOOK on gold hitting $3000 ounce: and the economy being bad.

I expect a lot higher and a lot worse in the economy coming.

Read what he says is the best to do THEN.


Do NOT think so much about the present. Have a future plan.

You and I have been talking about this for years........

It economic - its political........

Its coming and I said in 2006 "it will make the last great deprssion seem like a tea-party............look at Germany 1918-1923........its all there!"

Amen.

[lightcycler]

Everybody should read JORDAN'S BOOK on gold hitting $3000 ounce: and the economy being bad.

I expect a lot higher and a lot worse in the economy coming.

Read what he says is the best to do THEN.


Do NOT think so much about the present. Have a future plan.

Page 73 since I just re read that part

Buy close to melt and your fine!

[HistoryStudent]

GARFIELD released today by the MINT.

He was the first hard money president.

[cpthnsolo]

GARFIELD released today by the MINT.

As much as I want to order one and leave it sealed in the box (so it's pcgs FS eligible), there's simply no way in the world I can afford her right now :\. Between buying those medal of honor coins yesterday, the MS army commens in a week, and hopefully cherrypicking 25th set deals this month there's no way to justify money on a louse right now. Heck, I may even sell a few louses to buy more ASE sets if prices keep falling .

[Milanion]

Just a heads up, I'm seeing replica coins in the original mint packaging for the 2007 coins listed on eBay. Don't know how long they've been there, my filtering normally hides the low-priced stuff.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2007-REPLICA...item19c97ec2a3

Hard to tell from the screenshot if the coins have "copy" on them, they don't look like the bronze medals.

[HistoryStudent]

Just a heads up, I'm seeing replica coins in the original mint packaging for the 2007 coins listed on eBay. Don't know how long they've been there, my filtering normally hides the low-priced stuff.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2007-REPLICA...item19c97ec2a3

Hard to tell from the screenshot if the coins have "copy" on them, they don't look like the bronze medals.

The JERKS found a use for the gold box once they submit the coin for grading. $45 for the box and $5 for the Chinese coin.

[Master_Ho]

GARFIELD released today by the MINT.

He was the first hard money president.

Yeah team!!!!

[HistoryStudent]

Yeah team!!!!

YOU are BAD!

Trying to give me a heart ATTACK!

[Master_Ho]

YOU are BAD!

Trying to give me a heart ATTACK!

*rotf*

You know how long I've waited till we got to the right Presidential spouse to post that?!?

[platinum]

Get the ungraded coins!

[HistoryStudent]

FIRST SPOUSE GOLD COINS
Eliza Johnson Proof (2011) 3,629 26
Eliza Johnson Uncirculated (2011) 2,617 18
Julia Grant Proof (2011) 3,728 38
Julia Grant Uncirculated (2011) 2,396 26
Lucy Hayes Proof (2011) 2,719 93
Lucy Hayes Uncirculated (2011) 1,771 45
Lucretia Garfield Proof (2011) 1,478 1,478
Lucretia Garfield Uncirculated (2011) 874 874

so far this week.

[HistoryStudent]

Later in the week on December 1, 2011, the Lucretia Garfield First Spouse Gold Coins
went on sale. So far, customer orders have been received for 1,478 proofs and 874 uncirculated coins,

for a combined total of 2,352.

The other three releases of the series for this year had debut sales of 2,108 (Eliza Johnson), 2,598 (Julia Grant), and 2,122 (Lucy Hayes).


http://news.coinupdate.com/us-mint-s...ts-debut-1097/

~ HS = Watch the Johnson and Hayes coins

[cpthnsolo]

~ HS = Watch the Johnson and Hayes coins

I agree, but honestly at this point I think all of the 2011 uglies are going to end at 3000 or less so I wonder how that will effect pricing later. After all if you have a series where a half dozen or so coins have very close mintages will the key show any real strength?

I have a Hayes coin and will buy the Johnson shortly, but I'm more interested in that 1oz burnished AGE right now. The numbers for it were revised down this past week to 7,791. The rarest AGE to date (excluding the 99W coins) is the $10 '08-W at 8,883 so it seems like this coin has a legitimate chance at becoming the rarest gold eagle to date ! However with the 1oz proof singles being sold out I expect they'll sell quite a few over the next couple weeks for Christmas so we'll see if the numbers stay low on it. It will still be a significant coin worth buying if it stays under the 10,000, but if it can stay under the 2008-W $50 Buffalo (9,074) and the '08W quarter eagle it will be a home run. We'll see...

Back on topic -- Here's an awesome FS pic I saw online:

[lightcycler]

The numbers for it were revised down this past week to 7,791. The rarest AGE to date (excluding the 99W coins) is the $10 '08-W at 8,883 so it seems like this coin has a legitimate chance at becoming the rarest gold eagle to date ! However with the 1oz proof singles being sold out I expect they'll sell quite a few over the next couple weeks for Christmas so we'll see if the numbers stay low on it. It will still be a significant coin worth buying if it stays under the 10,000, but if it can stay under the 2008-W $50 Buffalo (9,074) and the '08W quarter eagle it will be a home run. We'll see...

They went on sale in May. When will they end? THe AGE W burnished that is.

[cpthnsolo]

They went on sale in May. When will they end? THe AGE W burnished that is.

That's the million dollar question . Seriously though if I were to guess, and it's only a wild guess, I would guess that they're done sometime in late January/early February. We're talking about the US mint though so no one knows for sure. I think it all boils down to how many they struck during their last run. After Jan 1st I certainly don't think they'll mint more, but if they're sitting on thousands of them they could very well sell many months into next year. HC or perhaps someone else may have a more educated opinion...

Anyone know someone at the mint who can check stock levels ?

[hernancortes]

I'm wondering why they bothered resurrecting the unc-w eagle in the 1st place. Its sales trends were down year over year for the 3 years they were offered. In '08 they sold fewer than 10,000 singles and since then the mint stated in one of their annual reports they wanted to depart from low-mintage issues where possible.
The 9,000-odd coins they sold singly in '08 should have informed them of the anticipated demand for the 2011-w. In other words they probably struck somewhere south of about 9,000. We're just left to guess at what they do basically.

[hernancortes]

Copied w/ permission: Final audited mintages for 2010 spouses
Proof First Spouse Gold
2010 Filmore 6130
2010 Pierce 4775
2010 Buchanan 7110
2010 Lincoln 6766

Mint State First Spouse Gold
2010 Filmore 3482
2010 Pierce 3338
2010 Buchanan 5162
2010 Lincoln 3695

[cpthnsolo]

Copied w/ permission: Final audited mintages for 2010 spouses
Proof First Spouse Gold
2010 Filmore 6130
2010 Pierce 4775
2010 Buchanan 7110
2010 Lincoln 6766

Mint State First Spouse Gold
2010 Filmore 3482
2010 Pierce 3338
2010 Buchanan 5162
2010 Lincoln 3695

Thanks HC! Interesting that Pierce is now the new proof key. Granted I bet most of the 2011 uglies sell even less, but it's still neat to see how the final adjustment on numbers can shuffle things around when the mintage numbers are so close for many of the coins in the series. It also puts the Buchanan proof in a slightly better position than before, but it's not the key for the proof subset.

[HistoryStudent]

http://www.coincollectingnews.org/fo...-sales/1016231


Johnson PROOF?

[HistoryStudent]

I have no idea where Redbook "THE reference guide for US coins" gets their numbers for moderns. Just look what they've got for spouses in the 2012 edition. I browsed a Redbook the other day and it appears they FINALLY got the correct numbers for 2006-2008 AGE's, ASE's APE's and gold buffalos. Nearly 3 years after the numbers were posted on the mint's own website.
It may be seven or eight years before redbook catches up with spouses.

SO true.

The Redbook is always 2 to 3 years behind in prices: 5 years for populations is probably normal.

Thanks


GARFIELD (Keep away Master Santa Claus HO HO HO) should be out soon from slabbers.

My guess is $1250 each MS70 NGC way more PCGS.

[Master_Ho]

SO true.

GARFIELD (Keep away Master Santa Claus HO HO HO)

No I already blew my wad (to use a phrase) of Garfiled jokes.

However - I am getting a lot of requests in PM for her phone number.......so appparently it blew their wad too.

I am going to go sit over there - *points* - and behave for 5 mins!

[HistoryStudent]

We now have an extra 29 TRILLION dollar wind BLOWING along the PRICES for the SPOUSES.

************************************************** ************************************

BERNANKE’S OBFUSCATION CONTINUES: The Fed’s $29 Trillion Bail-out of Wall Street

Author: L. Randall Wray · December 9th, 2011 ·

Since the global financial crisis began in 2007, Chairman Bernanke has striven to save Wall Street’s biggest banks while concealing his actions from Congress by a thick veil of secrecy. It literally took an act of Congress plus a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Bloomberg to get him to finally release much of the information surrounding the Fed’s actions. Since that release, there have been several reports that tallied up the Fed’s largess.

Most recently, Bloomberg provided an in-depth analysis of Fed lending to the biggest banks, reporting a sum of $7.77 trillion. On December 8, Bernanke struck back with a highly misleading and factually incorrect memo countering Bloomberg’s report. Bloomberg has—to my mind—completely vindicated its analysis; see here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-06/
bloomberg-news-responds-to-bernanke-criticism.html.

Any fair-minded reader would conclude that Bernanke’s memo to Senators Johnson and Shelby and Representatives Bachus and Frank is misleading. One could even conclude that it is not just a veil of secrecy, but rather a fog of deceit that the Fed is trying to throw over Congress.

He argues that the sum total of the Fed’s lending was a mere $1.2 trillion, and that it was spread across financial and nonfinancial institutions of all sizes. Further, he asserts that the Fed never tried to hide the bail-outs from Congress. Both of these assertions fly in the face of the facts available (as the Bloomberg response makes clear).
As Bernanke notes, highly credible analyses of the bail-out variously put the total at $7.77 trillion (Bloomberg) to $16 trillion (GAO) or even $24 trillion (I think this is Senator Bernie Sanders’ figure). He argues that these reports make “egregious errors”, in particular because they sum lending over-time. He also claims that these high figures likely include Fed facilities that were never utilized. Finally, he asserts that the Fed’s bail-out bears no relation to government spending, such as that undertaken by Treasury.

All of these assertions are at best misleading. If he really believes the last claim, then he apparently does not understand the true risks to which he exposed the Treasury as the Fed made the commitments.

There are a number of issues that must be understood. First, the Fed quibbles about the differences among lending, guarantees, and spending. For the purposes of this blog I will accept these differences and call the sum across the three “commitments”. In spite of what Bernanke claims, these do commit “Uncle Sam” since Fed losses will be absorbed by the Treasury. (The Fed pays profits to Treasury, so if its profits are hurt by losses, payments to Treasury are reduced. If the Fed should go insolvent, the Treasury will almost certainly be forced to recapitalize it.) I do, however, agree with the Chairman that a tally should not include facilities that were created but not utilized (there were several of them, and the tally I present below does not include any facilities that were not used).

Second, there are (at least) three different ways to measure the Fed’s bail-out. One way would be to find the day on which the maximum outstanding Fed commitments was reached. According to the Fed, that appears to have been about $1.5 trillion sometime in December 2008. I’m willing to take Bernanke at his word. Another way would be to take the total of commitments made over a short period of time—say, a week or a month. That would be a measure of systemic distress and would help to identify the worst periods of the GFC (global financial crisis). Obviously, this will be a bigger number and will depend on the rate of turn-over of Fed loans. For example, many of the loans were very short-term but were renewed. Bernanke argues that it is misleading to add up across revolving loans. Let us say that a bank borrows $1 million over night each day for a week. The total would be $7 million for the week. In a period of particular distress, the peak weekly or monthly lending would spike as many institutions would be forced to continually borrow from the Fed. Bernanke argues we should look only at the lending at a peak instant of time.


Think about it this way. A half dozen drunken sailors are at the bar, and the bartender refills their shot glasses with whiskey each time a drink is taken. At any instant, the bar-keep has committed only six ounces of booze. That is a useful measure of whiskey outstanding. But it is not useful for telling us how much the drunks drank. Bernanke would like us to believe that if the Fed newly lent a trillion bucks every day for 3 years to all our drunken bankers that we should total that as only a trillion greenbacks committed. Yes, that provides some useful information but it does not really measure the necessary intervention by the Fed into financial markets to save Wall Street.

And that leads to the final way to measure the Fed’s commitments to propping up our drunks on Wall Street: add up every single damned loan, guarantee and asset purchase the Fed made to benefit banks, banksters, real Housewives on Wall Street, fraudsters, and their cousins, aunts and uncles. This gives us the cumulative Fed commitments.
The final important consideration is to separate “normal” Fed actions from the “extraordinary” or “emergency” interventions undertaken because of the crisis. That is easier than it sounds. After the crisis began, the Fed created a large alphabet soup of special facilities designed to deal with the crisis. We can thus take each facility and calculate the three measures of the Fed’s commitments for each, then sum up for all the special facilities.

And that is precisely what Nicola Matthews and James Felkerson have done. They are PhD students at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, working on a Ford Foundation grant under my direction, titled “A Research And Policy Dialogue Project On Improving Governance Of The Government Safety Net In Financial Crisis”. To my knowledge it is the most complete and accurate accounting of the Fed’s bail-out. Their results will be reported in a series of Working Papers at the Levy Economics Institute (www.levy.org). The first one will be posted soon, and is titled $29,000,000,000,000: A Detailed Look at the Fed’s Bail-out by Funding Facility and Recipient. Watch for it!

Here’s the shocker. The Fed’s bail-out was not $1.2 trillion, $7.77 trillion, $16 trillion, or even $24 trillion. It was $29 trillion. That is, of course, the cumulative total. But even the peak outstanding numbers are bigger than previously reported. I do not want to take any of their fire away—interested readers must read the full account. However, I will use their study as the source for a brief summary of total Fed commitments.

Here I am only going to focus on the final measure of the size of the bail-out: the cumulative total. This is not directly comparable to the Fed’s $1.2 trillion estimate, which is peak lending. It is closest to the $24 trillion figure that I believe Senator Sanders is using. The difference from that number is probably attributable to choice of facilities to include.
I will post more on the important research done as part of this Ford Foundation grant; in coming blogs I will also explain why all Americans should be horrified at the Fed’s actions, and by Bernanke’s continued attempt to cover-up what the Fed has done.

Summary of Total Cumulative Fed Commitments

When all individual transactions are summed across all facilities created to deal with the crisis, the Fed committed a total of $29,616.4 billion dollars. This includes direct lending plus asset purchases. Table 1 depicts the cumulative amounts for all facilities; any amount outstanding as of November 10, 2011 is in parentheses below the total in Table 1. Three facilities—CBLS, PDCF, and TAF—overshadow all other facilities, and make up 71.1 percent ($22,826.8 billion) of all assistance.
http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2...nke%E2%80%99s-
obfuscation-continues-the-fed%E2%80%99s-29-trillion-bail-out-of-wall-street/

[HistoryStudent]

Garfields

$1199 ish NGC70

$1299 ish NGC70


That $29 Trillion dollar NEWLY printed wind is blowing the prices NORTHWARD.


Next year they'll probably double.

[lightcycler]

What will be the mint price reset lower?

[HistoryStudent]

What will be the mint price reset lower?

A lot LOWER IMVHO.

The best dip I've seen in a while.

This is what scares the POOPOLA out of the sheeple these high % falls well broadcast
by the few that created them on their controlled media.

That's why you can talk until you are blue in the face and you get these washed over blank stares
in return.

Remember in 2007/2008 gold touched $1020 then DIPPED to $700 (about 31.5%)

http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/GD/M

Remember in 2011 gold touched $1920 and is now DIPPING under very similar
setups by the FED. Percentage wise worse case - use history.

Remember dishonest money creates dishonest markets.

[SirOzzyyzzO]

Just a tidbit here:
So, anyone who remembers my advice about PCGS & submitting to them (Way too much to get into again, right here & now) - I did it with 5 new Garfield's, however, with a slight twist... I normally order a decent amount of coins, then Cherry-pick the good ones & return the bad (I see the return fees as a small price to pay for a 70 First-Strike)... However, this time around, I had a client who wanted two 69's... I said, it is funny, I just got a box of Garfield's and most of them are 69's, but three are definitely 70's. I am returning all but the three (These were RAW of course and yet to be submitted). He said he take two - even if they were 69's.

Now, mind you - I am no professional grader, but I am good and................ based on my silly system - I said, I gotta submit these "Express" this time - to insure I grease the palms well - because it's my Reputation on the line.

5 went out RAW: Three came back MS-70's & Two MS-69's.... Grab em up boyz & girlzzzz..... These are low mintage, and at least the ones I returned are 69's maybe even one 68 (The coin came with what looked like a nice size "bag mark" in her Obverse field - I almost cried). My dealer buddy said he sifted threw 40 and returned 27 and he's really good - his all came back 70, but he is a dealer............... Saw it with my own two eyes this morning.

Anyway - just a heads-up. Great-Luck!

[HistoryStudent]

Just a tidbit here:
So, anyone who remembers my advice about PCGS & submitting to them (Way too much to get into again, right here & now) - I did it with 5 new Garfield's, however, with a slight twist... I normally order a decent amount of coins, then Cherry-pick the good ones & return the bad (I see the return fees as a small price to pay for a 70 First-Strike)... However, this time around, I had a client who wanted two 69's... I said, it is funny, I just got a box of Garfield's and most of them are 69's, but three are definitely 70's. I am returning all but the three (These were RAW of course and yet to be submitted). He said he take two - even if they were 69's.

Now, mind you - I am no professional grader, but I am good and................ based on my silly system - I said, I gotta submit these "Express" this time - to insure I grease the palms well - because it's my Reputation on the line.

5 went out RAW: Three came back MS-70's & Two MS-69's.... Grab em up boyz & girlzzzz..... These are low mintage, and at least the ones I returned are 69's maybe even one 68 (The coin came with what looked like a nice size "bag mark" in her Obverse field - I almost cried). My dealer buddy said he sifted threw 40 and returned 27 and he's really good - his all came back 70, but he is a dealer............... Saw it with my own two eyes this morning.

Anyway - just a heads-up. Great-Luck!

NEED you on the TEAM here.

To assist and help out an OLD DINOSAUR.