Why is the 2000 MOR $1 worth so much?
The mintage isn't much less than 2004,
but it's worth 10x the amount.
I had about 300 of them tried to sell them many times, couldn't even get $1.50 for 1 so I banked the lot and any I get now only get a look for mule coin, if not mule off to the bank with the rest.
Youre not going to get much for circulated examples but UNC ones are much harder to come by.
The mintages from the RAM page are:
2000 MOR 7.6 million
2001 Fed 27.9 million
2001 Volunteers 6 million
Not sure whether anyone else has noticed but the 2000 MOR seems to 'dent' / wear much more than the 2001's. (Either of them).
Likewise too the 1999 older persons obverse seems to be hard to find without a lot of major bag marks.
Is it something to do with the size of the queen on the obverse? I think the 1999 & 2000 might be larger than the others.
Quote from: 'Unicorn' pid='46295' dateline='1397211314'The mintages from the RAM page are:
2000 MOR 7.6 million
2001 Fed 27.9 million
2001 Volunteers 6 million
Not sure whether anyone else has noticed but the 2000 MOR seems to 'dent' / wear much more than the 2001's. (Either of them).
Likewise too the 1999 older persons obverse seems to be hard to find without a lot of major bag marks.
Is it something to do with the size of the queen on the obverse? I think the 1999 & 2000 might be larger than the others.
Sorry Unicorn, I meant 2004, not 2001.
I have changed it in my original post.
I have noticed that the 2000 MOR is a very poor wearing coin, almost soft??
If you look at the 2000 $1 coins from the side you will notice how thin they are compared with other years. The strike was generally quite weak, resulting in lower rims and thus less protection from wear for the high points of the coin.
Quote from: 'Triggersmob' pid='46296' dateline='1397211459'Sorry Unicorn, I meant 2004, not 2001.
No worries Steve!
Still on the same track, I find the 2004 to be one of the best wearing MOR coins ...... (only because I keep them all ..... except shockers ..... because they usually have a misaligned die strike of some degree).
I think you're on the money there Feathers ...... the rim may be the cause.
Quote from: 'emu666' pid='46298' dateline='1397212523'If you look at the 2000 $1 coins from the side you will notice how thin they are compared with other years. The strike was generally quite weak, resulting in lower rims and thus less protection from wear for the high points of the coin.
Is the low profile rim due to the design of the coin or something to do with mint machinery (or the Korean supplier)?
Does it apply to all the 2000 $1 (die related fault)or is there a minority that don't have low rims (perhaps leftover blanks or a change in machinery)
I suspect it is due to the strike as the coins in the mint sets have normal profiles.
I think that it is also because everyone wants a mule.
This means that people are willing to buy a roll of $1 coins with the hope that inside it somewhere is that uncirculated mule coin. It is very hard to rind a roll of unopened $1 year 2000 coins for this reason.
With the price of a roll of coins quite high, it can push up the price of the single coins because everyone assumes that because rolls are expensive, individual coins are expensive.
If you had a roll - would you crack it open?
Quote from: 'WavyTwenty' pid='46314' dateline='1397243115'If you had a roll - would you crack it open?
Absolutely.