We are so excited that everyone is starting to get there Steem rounds and happy with the COA numbers being issued the way they are. We are huge collectors and stackers and really have a passion for this and we approach every project with that in mind and make sure it's what we would have wanted.

That's why we ended up ensuring that everyone's order included 1 low COA numbers. We had 91 unique orders including the international group buys who will also be receiving a low COA number for each buying represented by those groups.

I just want to explain a bit how we ended up assigning numbers for full transparency.

We assigned the first 91 numbers based on the order that your order was received and size of your order. So many of the guys who were first to commit to the project on @Sevinwilsons's first post received their numbers's first. When they looked at how many coins where ordered and people that placed larger orders were bumped up the list as well. We had debated about breaking it up between the first batch of 1000 and second batch of 500, but in the end, decided to give every order a sub 100 number. There were a few people that placed multiple orders during the sale period and I do think that 2-3 members will have received 2 coins sub 100. This wasn't really our intention but when we exported the data that's how it was sorted, once the numbers were assigned it became far too difficult to reassign numbers and that is why you may see a couple people with 2 numbers. The only person that got a special request for there COA # was @bearone and I'm sure we can all agree that her amazing design deserves it.

@raybrockman's coin (ps for sale if you got deep pockets)

The possible option now that everyone has a sub 92# is we could potentially hold those numbers for subsequent years so people could have a set with matching COA numbers. This is something we would be willing to do for the sub 92 numbers but not something we would be able to commit to for all the numbers. This would also add significant value to those sub 92 coins.

We are have also kept track of the COA numbers issued from our end when we fulfilled the orders, this resulted in a bit of extra work but during the preorder process @mattclarke presented this exciting idea HERE about potentially making the coins "claimable" using some sort of block chain technology. A lot of the discussion still eludes my meager understanding of blockchain technology, but he caught my interest when he told this analogy here about building a title office.

It's the Wild West, you're sitting at a table in the saloon, and someone walks up and offers you a key.

This is for that homestead up the next bend in the river. I need money, how much will you give me for it?

You offer him a dollar, just in case, but you're not confident he actually owns the place.
He pulls out a deed and points to the name - Jeffrey Example.

It comes with a deed in my name, I'll sign it over to you and it's all yours. What will you give me for the key and the deed?

You offer him $10. It's a big property, and you're a bit more confident that it may be legitimately for sale, although you're still not sure. He may not even be Jeffrey Example.

Come over to the registry office with me. They'll identify me, and change the registered owner of the property from me to you, and I'll throw in the key and the deed. How much will you give me for all that?

You offer him $100, because the Titles office will only record one owner at a time, and you know this.
He may have an accurate key, and an official looking document, but there could be dozens of identical keys and documents claiming to bestow ownership over that homestead, while each property only has one owner recorded in the Titles office, and you know that's going to give you the best claim to exclusive use of the homestead.

If there wasn't a Titles office, just the deed and the key, the property would only be worth $10.
It's only worth what people will pay for it, and they'll discount their estimate substantially in the face of uncertainty.
(Even attending the homestead in person wouldn't offer definitive proof. The real owner might be away.)
Building a Titles office would therefore add a massive amount of wealth to the community, driving up the price of registered land, and even increasing the value of the remaining unregistered land.
Maybe the homesteader who lives on the unregistered land doesn't want his name in the office; but he'd be glad, when the time comes, to sell to somebody who does.
The buyer, knowing he can establish himself definitively as the first, registered owner of the land will happily pay more, knowing he'll have the option to sell for more.

We don't actually know how much the uncertainty around counterfeiting (both of coins and certificates) has depressed the value of silver coins, because there's never been a Titles office.

Although I still don't really understand this it really excites me and wanted to reopen the discussion, if others are interested

If this isn't something people are interested in then next year we will likely not track the over 100 COA numbers. If we do continue to track the greater than 100 numbers we will likely end up looking at something slightly different when it comes to assigning them.

I see so much opportunity for the stacking community and the crypto community to be working together and join forces and I feel so many of our ideas and ideals are the same

Anyways keep all the great posts coming and it's exciting to see so many happy stackers! Our #steemsilvergold tag is certainly busy today (and it's only monday)