El Yunque Quarter Three Coin Set

Today, February 7, 2012 at 12:00 Noon ET, the United States Mint began sales of the 2012 America the Beautiful Quarters Three Coin Set featuring El Yunque National Forest. The product type has undergone two changes for the latest release.

As in the past, the product includes one uncirculated quarter from the Philadelphia Mint, one uncirculated quarter from the Denver Mint, and one proof quarter from the San Francisco Mint. These three coins are mounted onto a plastic card containing a brief description of the coins and the site on the back of the card, along with a certificate of authenticity.

Representing a change from the past releases, the plastic card features a full color illustration of the National Forest on the front of the card. For the first ten releases, this space was blank.

The El Yunque Quarter Three Coin Sets are priced at $9.95 each. This represents a reduction of $5 from the price charged for the product type last year. There are no ordering limits or stated product limits in place.

The previous ten America the Beautiful Three Coin Sets remain available for sale on the US Mint’s website. The pricing for each set remains at $14.95 each. As of the latest sales report issued today, sales for this product type have ranged from a high of 20,436 for the Yellowstone set to a low of 12,162 for the most recently released Chickasaw set.

Facebook Twitter Email

Comments

  1. simon says

    I like the pictorial format. Here’s one good candidate for a young collector.
    P.S. Glad we’re back to USMint offerings!

  2. Brad says

    I wish the Mint would go back and print up new cards using this new format for the first ten releases. I know it’ll never happen, but it sure would be nice. I realize though that if that did happen, the early buyers of the bland versions would be furious.

  3. T1 browserman says

    @Brad
    I would not be furious.

    I’ve collected the first 6 of the series with the bland version and noticed a litte evolution of the series in progresss. The 2010 series carry the newer mint logo on the top right portion of the cardboard COA with the older logo on the right side, slightly smaller than usual and was protected by a plastic bag which used the older logo as well on the top right, slightly larger. In 2011 we see the same ‘bland’ cardboard design but we see the outer bag reflecting the newer logo on the top right.

    The question is this….will there be a protective outer bag at all or was this the $5.00 production cost now lost to the series and why all previous issues remain at $14.95?

    From the offering you see the newer logo on top right and the name in white against black background (nice contrast) with I’m sure the smaller older logo printed on the back of the COA.

    I shall find out if this is the case when it is ordered with the final 2011 Chickasaw 5 oz offering and keep all in the ‘know’.

    Change is good (pun intended).
    period I would have to make ~17 $1 notes @ 6.2 cents/note or a total of $1.02 cents.

  4. says

    “The question is this….will there be a protective outer bag at all or was this the $5.00 production cost now lost to the series and why all previous issues remain at $14.95?”

    I think it’s a simple case of overcharging. The Mint has reduced prices on basically all their clad products including the two coin rolls and the 100 coin bags, and I don’t think they did anything to reduce the costs of producing, say, El Yunque quarters vs. the Chickasaw or Vicksburg quarters. More likely, they are simply declining to cut prices on the older clad products.

    One quick note, when the 2012 Kennedies are introduced I expect the prices for those to fall too.

  5. DCDave says

    Silver over $34/oz…think we will make it to Thursday with the 5oz Chickasaw at $204? Numismatic coins at bullion prices!

  6. Zaz says

    Awesome product, really jazzed up the product line and made the 3-coin card set that much more collectible. Agree with Brad, the US Mint should go back and redo the first 10 sets with appropriate pictures for the sake of continuity…wouldn’t be mad at all if the plain went off sale, as ignored as they are now, and the plain white cards become scarce and rare…

  7. Tom says

    Sounds like a great way to pay off the Debt $9.95 + $5
    or $6 shipping for a buck fifty of some nice clean metal.
    Hey whynot.

  8. says

    DCDave,

    I do think we’re going to make it with no price increase, yes. There is some evidence that the Mint is treating the older AtBs and the 2011-W ASE as clearance items. Silver has closed over $34 several times now with no price increase from the Mint. Furthermore, just before it hit $34 for the first time, the Mint sent out an email encouraging people to come buy the 2011-W ASEs.

    Past Chickasaw, I won’t make any predictions. But I think it’s unlikely there will be price increases for any of the remaining 2011 silver products. Still, if you are waiting around, I recommend you buy now instead of leaving these things to chance.

    I’m pretty confident, though, by the time that we hit the El Yunque numismatic coin (assuming no massive price collapse in silver), we’ll probably be back at $229.

  9. ClevelandRocks says

    Random question: why do the 1995W Silver Eagles with a mintage of 30k get a much higher % premium than other lower mintage items such as the 2006 reverse gold proof with only a 10k mintage?
    Could the 95w proof ASE go the way the 1999 silver sets did once people realize they weren’t so rare after all?

  10. says

    Cleveland, I think it has to do with series popularity more than anything. The silver eagle is one of the world’s most popular coins. There are probably more people collecting them than there are collecting “coin X” (in this case the reverse gold proof). Since there are not enough 1995-Ws to fill the holes in everyone’s collection, it necessitates a high premium.

    That would be my guess.

  11. Zaz says

    Re: 1995W ASE proof.
    Cleveland,
    The Mint more or less created this rarity, and heavily promoted the 1995 10th Anniversary set @ $999.95 for a set of 4 gold coins and the “bonus” proof silver ASE. If you can find an original set in OGP, it easily sells for $6,500-$7,000. Seems as though the 20th Anniversary gold sets were hardly promoted, and the reverse proof sells for the same as the ’95W ASE, but has a third of the mintage. Sometimes when there are fewer coins available, newer collectors have no idea they exist, so prices stagnate. There needs to be a certain number in the pool of coins at any given time for prices to accelerate, given the popularity of a “key” date, and it’s perceived rarity. Given the choice between the ’95W ASE and the 2006 RP gold 1oz, I’d take the gold coin for my $3K.

  12. Zaz says

    Speaking of specialty commemorative gold, I’d love to see the fractional Buffaloes make a reappearance next year, particularly the 22mm 1/4 oz. offered in conjunction with a Buffalo nickel dated 2013 for the Buffalo nickel’s 100th anniversary. This I think could be the next A25…

  13. EvilFlipper says

    I’d like to see an Ultra High relief of the Buffalo or an Ultra high relief 1oz. Standing liberty one ounce silver. Or an ultra high relief 10$ gold Indian done in one ounce gold format.

  14. fosnock says

    Another random question, I was going to break up a 2000 silver proof set to get the quarters for a collection. The sets is obviously suffering from oxidation (the same pattern is on all the coin’s obverse). I figured that they are worthless than a pristine mint set but before I break it up I wanted to confirm that bad minting does not equal a mint error.

  15. fosnock says

    EvilFlipper

    As I collect Peace dollars and can not afford gold at the current price I would love for the mint to do another silver high relief preferably a ASE.

  16. Jeremy says

    @ClevelandRocks, I’d like to offer my theory in which Captain Overkill, essentially, may be correct. However, although the silver eagles are a more popular product offered by the US Mint, perhaps the cause as to why this is the case is necessary in understanding how/why the price disparity between the two products has occurred.

    I believe most would agree that the market, which is simply made up of people, ultimately dictates or controls prices of products and services. Therefore, the amount of people and the funds they may have available to apply towards the purchase of a particular product or service will determine the price. I believe there is more of a market, meaning a larger population, with an interest in Silver Eagles compared to that of Gold Eagles. I can only theorize that this is due to price since silver is much less expensive. The lower cost offers more of an opportunity for those with “limited” funds and an interest in collecting all the issues of a particular program more of a possibility to do so. Given the larger “market”, greater population, hence more funds are then being applied towards the purchase of the 1995W Silver Eagle rather than the 2006 Reverse Proof Gold Eagle. I suppose it may be safe to say, the larger the market the greater chance of appreciation. However, I’m not sure if such a statement applies to those with unlimited funds. Something else to ponder 🙂

    Thank you for pointing this out ClevelandRocks, I learned another new thing today 🙂

  17. says

    Pursuant to EvilFlipper’s suggestion, I wouldn’t mind seeing an ultra high relief version of the old quarter/half eagle either. The only problem would be raising the funds to buy it!

  18. stephen m. says

    ClevelandRocks: $12,500 for a 1995W proof70 silver eagle? $3,500 for a 2006 reverse proof70 gold eagle? The gold is the better buy at the present time but both, at these prices, are bargains compared to future prices for them. I’ve been waiting for extra funds and or cheaper prices on the 95 4 piece gold set w/95W proof silver eagle in OGP but it has been an unattainable goal for me so far. S.S. did give us a raise this year and at that rate of savings i’ll croak first. I’ll “Never Give Up”.

  19. Brad says

    Stephen M.,

    Maybe you have some coins in your collection that you could bring yourself to part with to raise the funds for a 1995 10th Anniversary Set?

    By the way, why didn’t the Mint issue that set in 1996? Essentially it was a “9th Anniversary Set”!

  20. DCDave says

    Wow, $3500 for a 2006 gold reverse proof PF70 for an item with 10,000 total mintage seems like a great deal (for those with the $$$). Less than twice melt value! If no one told me the current price, I’d guess the opposite for the rev. gold v. 95w silver pf70s. (I’m taking Stephen M’s word on the pricing).

    I understand the popularity of the silver eagles (myself included), but can’t see the monsterous mark-up on an item that as far as I know has 3X the sales of the reverse gold proof. I personally think either the gold with go way up, or the silver will go way down.

    Still a bit stunned that the 5oz ATBs are selling for basically bullion prices. Hope to grab the Chickasaw at $204 tomorrow.

  21. Hidalgo says

    @Brad – The US Mint erred in saying that the 1995 ASE was an “anniversary” set. What they really meant was that in 1995, the 10th coin in the annual ASE series was issued.

    Think of weddings/marriages.. after your first year of marriage, you celebrate your first anniversary. A year must pass by before you celebrate an anniversary. So the 10th anniversary of the ASE program should have taken place in 1996 — 10 full years AFTER the 1986 ASE was introduced.

  22. says

    DCDave,

    Given that silver is unlikely to pass $35 today, you have nothing to worry about. Even if it did, I find it unlikely the Mint would suspend the silver products and raise prices.

  23. Brad says

    Yeah, the pricing will undoubedly hold for the Chickasaw numismatic coin tomorrow. The only drag for those who waited to buy all five 2011 coins at once is that Chickasaw will probably be “backordered” for a month or more, and will end up getting shipped separately from the other four. For those who wanted to leave the set in a sealed box of five, it won’t work out for early Chickasaw orders.

  24. Samuel says

    I would like to know how many people will keep the set in the sealed box? Considering the quality issue, I think you better open it up and check it out.

  25. Brad says

    Yeah, me too. Some choose to keep them sealed in the box, though. I don’t do that, I’ve seen too many errors and quality control problems to be comfortable with that. I was just pointing out that anyone who DOES want to keep a set of 2011’s in a sealed box will have to wait awhile longer before ordering, unless the lengthy backorder that happened with Vicksburg doesn’t happen again with Chickasaw.

  26. Jeremy says

    @Samuel & Brad, What you guys might consider “quality control” issues may be an error coin, especially with all the variations these days, that becomes worth a bazillion $$$s. 😉

  27. Louis says

    Fosnock,

    Oxidation is a big problem with both clad and silver proof sets. That is not a Mint error. I would suggest storing your sets in an inert environment. I like to use the white proof set storage boxes made by Intercept shield which various supply companies sell for $10 or so. They will hold a lot of sets.

  28. fosnock says

    Louis
    They came that way when I bought them,which caused me to buy multiple sets. they are still sealed in the mint provided clear plastic lens, and I store them in a mint sold Multi-Lens Collector’s Box I have had no other issues with any of my other sets. As stated by Jeremy “What you guys might consider “quality control” issues may be an error coin.” Just trying to confirm

  29. VA Bob says

    Fosnock – Toned moderns can command a premium. There is a whole collector base for them, especially ASE’s. The problem is Artificially Toned (AT) coins on the market, so buyer beware. IMO some look nice, while others look horrible. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *