Best Of

@U1chicago said:

@JBK said:
The attempts to twist around the poster's greed comment is a distraction. If you don't like the word "greed" then replace it with "lust" or "commitment" etc. A relentless drive for an admirable goal is the point being made.

As for the SF Mint, it was already closed once before as previously mentioned. Other mints have been closed over the past 150 years. If people want to preserve the building as an historical landmark then they can buy it or lobby the city/state to buy it.

Maybe it should just stay as is - an active mint. That's the purpose of the review. I'd be sorry to see it go if it closed but my personal nostalgia about it really shouldn't be a deciding factor.

I don’t even think there is any greed, I just figured it was a good chance to use a famous quote.

Some things make sense to keep even if there is a loss involved but to blindly react with emotion is a big issue. There should be a reasonable review of anything that can perform better, especially when all of our hard earned money is funding it.

That's what I figured. I was surprised so many others couldn't figure it out.

@Maywood said:
I will leave one last thought because the entire premise of the thread tippy toes into the political realm. Greed in all it's forms is based on one things, fear. More to the point, fear of not having that thing which greed drives us to hoarding. And make no mistake about it, if you believe the point of all this DOGE business, up to and including the sale of the Old San Francisco Mint, is about saving America money, then you aren't paying attention.

Oh I'm paying plenty of attention. I am well aware of some of the unthinkable waste that has been uncovered so far. Let's hope the SF Mint doesn't end up in that category

The Sn Francisco Mint should be saved, it is a historical building of great importance. That most Americans don't understand that does not make it unimportant.

So, if it turns out that the SF Mint is a waste of taxpayers' money, it should still be kept open because of its history? That might be a reason to preserve the building, but not necessarily the minting operations.

Once again, I'd be very happy if it survives as a Mint, but it should be for the right reasons.

Northeast...great people, friendly, and fast service. Love buying there.

@Maywood said:
What is the admirable goal being driven for??

The poster gave all sorts of examples: life, money, love, knowledge. I'll add freedom to that list. Our forefathers' and our veterans' commitment to it was so great that they risked or even gave their lives for it.

In the case of the SF Mint review the goal is cost cutting and efficiency. Since it's our money the government is spending I'm pretty pleased that for once they are focusing on such things.

I'd be very happy if they found reasons to keep it open but a blind desire to maintain the status quo is not a sound policy. Let the SF Mint earn it's continuation, which hopefully it can do.

Thanks to a member here, I'm now the owner of this beauty and no longer need the "spotted" one in the original post.

@renomedphys said:
I’m not complaining. Love it when stuff like this happens. A few weeks ago this coin’s 1958 twin sold for $55k hammer. And let’s pray the underbidder never loses interest 😂

When I see something like this, I'm reminded of the guy who paid a fortune for a 1953 S MS 66 Full Bell Franklin Half, which was the finest known of it's date and mint at the time, only to have another one made a year or 18 months later. He wound up selling it for half of what he paid for it. I hope the auction houses involved with this coin sent him a Christmas card.

Bob is my photographer of choice for several years now. I appreciate the care he takes to provide various shots and involves the owner in ensuring an accurate representation of the coin. Plus, he's such a nice guy to boot! Someday, I'll meet him and express my appreciation in person.