Home U.S. Coin Forum

Mint PR: "Mint and Warner Bros. DGCP Announce Coin and Medal Series Celebrating Comic Art.........

2»

Comments

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 23,066 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Not the anticipated look…. And I will stop here in the interest of what should matter

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • emeraldATVemeraldATV Posts: 4,543 ✭✭✭✭✭

    What a quewinkiedink doc.

  • CRHer700CRHer700 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 10, 2024 1:45PM

    M.M.M.M.M. (More Modern Memorable Mint Mistakes)

    God bless all who believe in him. Do unto others what you expect to be done to you. Dubbed a "Committee Secret Agent" by @mr1931S on 7/23/24. Founding member of CU Anti-Troll League since 9/24/24.

  • GoldbullyGoldbully Posts: 17,234 ✭✭✭✭✭
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK5DUPZs3A0

    Fox 32 Chicago.

    The reporter is overly hyped for this interview with Mint Director Gibson and Mint Chief Engraver Menna.

    Looks like the Mint's promotion team is loading both barrels, and it's full guns blazing!

  • johnny9434johnny9434 Posts: 28,276 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Round and round we go, when it stops will never know 😵‍💫

  • cheezhedcheezhed Posts: 5,803 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I’m actually disappointed the Mint is going in this direction. Cheapens the brand imo. Premiums will be obscene if the current price adjustment is any indication.

    Many happy BST transactions
  • MetroDMetroD Posts: 2,174 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NJCoin said:

    Speculation, but not crazy. As long as they are opening this door, there is no reason not to go all the way. People liking this stuff are not the same traditionalists who don't like color.

    Agreed.

    Like it or not, these are happening. And I am hoping for a colorized variant.

    Have a couple of comic devotees in the 'friends/family' circle that 'fall' into your non-traditional category. Know from past experience that they like comic-themed coins, especially the colorized versions. These would make excellent 'stocking stuffers' for X-Mas 2025. :)

  • GoldminersGoldminers Posts: 3,917 ✭✭✭✭✭

    They already did colorized coins so I would not be surprised to see them create a red, yellow, and blue superman for one of the design options.

  • Some_of_itSome_of_it Posts: 133 ✭✭✭

    I am withhold judgment until I see the products and mintages. Solid maybe. Congress does not seem concerned that the mint is creating products that compete with mandated commemorative programs or private mints.

  • dcarrdcarr Posts: 8,422 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 11, 2024 6:42PM

    The Mint will have to pay royalties to Warner Brothers. The Mint has never paid any royalties previously (that I am aware of) and they have gone out of their way to avoid copyright issues and infringements.

    You have to wonder if anyone in the government involved with this has a connection to, or partial ownership of, Warner Brothers.

    I don't think the Mint should be using "tax dollars" to pay royalties when there is a government staff of artists who could come up with something original and royalty free,

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 12, 2024 8:39AM

    @Some_of_it said:
    I am withhold judgment until I see the products and mintages. Solid maybe. Congress does not seem concerned that the mint is creating products that compete with mandated commemorative programs or private mints.

    Nor should they be. This is nothing more than a revenue opportunity for the Mint, and the Mint has been given free reign to pursue such opportunities. The market for these is distinct from the market for Harriet Tubman or Greatest Generation commemoratives, and the professionals at the Mint know a lot more about this stuff than rando congresspeople with constituents with agendas.

    That's why this was taken out of Congress' hands in the first place. They decide on circulating coinage. The Mint decides on the revenue producing numismatic items.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 33,927 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dcarr said:
    The Mint will have to pay royalties to Warner Brothers. The Mint has never paid any royalties previously (that I am aware of) and they have gone out of their way to avoid copyright issues and infringements.

    You have to wonder if anyone in the government involved with this has a connection to, or partial ownership of, Warner Brothers.

    I don't think the Mint should be using "tax dollars" to pay royalties when there is a government staff of artists who could come up with something original and royalty free,

    But the person why wants a Superman coin because it is Superman is not going to buy a Mint created Superhero coin.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 33,927 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NJCoin said:

    @Some_of_it said:
    I am withhold judgment until I see the products and mintages. Solid maybe. Congress does not seem concerned that the mint is creating products that compete with mandated commemorative programs or private mints.

    Nor should they be. This is nothing more than a revenue opportunity for the Mint, and the Mint has been given free reign to pursue such opportunities. The market for these is distinct from the market for Harriet Tubman or Greatest Generation commemoratives, and the professionals at the Mint knows a lot more about this stuff than rando congresspeople with constituents with agendas.

    That's why this was taken out of Congress' hands in the first place. They decide on circulating coinage. The Mint decides on the revenue producing numismatic items.

    It's funny how many people hate free markets, isn't it? They want tight government control of anything they don't like and generous support for things they do. So, the Mint should sell the coins I want for less money so I can make a profit, but they should stop the production of coins of which I don't approve.

    I suppose it had never dawned on them that there is at least some disapproval of EVERY Mint issue, including circulating designs. We do, after all, have two slave owners on corculating coins.

  • Manifest_DestinyManifest_Destiny Posts: 6,896 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 12, 2024 3:23AM

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @Some_of_it said:
    I am withhold judgment until I see the products and mintages. Solid maybe. Congress does not seem concerned that the mint is creating products that compete with mandated commemorative programs or private mints.

    Nor should they be. This is nothing more than a revenue opportunity for the Mint, and the Mint has been given free reign to pursue such opportunities. The market for these is distinct from the market for Harriet Tubman or Greatest Generation commemoratives, and the professionals at the Mint knows a lot more about this stuff than rando congresspeople with constituents with agendas.

    That's why this was taken out of Congress' hands in the first place. They decide on circulating coinage. The Mint decides on the revenue producing numismatic items.

    It's funny how many people hate free markets, isn't it? They want tight government control of anything they don't like and generous support for things they do. So, the Mint should sell the coins I want for less money so I can make a profit, but they should stop the production of coins of which I don't approve.

    I suppose it had never dawned on them that there is at least some disapproval of EVERY Mint issue, including circulating designs. We do, after all, have two slave owners on corculating coins.

    Anything the government is involved in isn't a free market.

  • olympicsosolympicsos Posts: 767 ✭✭✭✭

    The coins will likely> @dcarr said:

    The Mint will have to pay royalties to Warner Brothers. The Mint has never paid any royalties previously (that I am aware of) and they have gone out of their way to avoid copyright issues and infringements.

    You have to wonder if anyone in the government involved with this has a connection to, or partial ownership of, Warner Brothers.

    I don't think the Mint should be using "tax dollars" to pay royalties when there is a government staff of artists who could come up with something original and royalty free,

    The US Mint does not receive public funds and has a private enterprise fund. Tiffany and Company design a commemorative Silver Dollar before

  • olympicsosolympicsos Posts: 767 ✭✭✭✭

    @NJCoin said:

    @Some_of_it said:
    I am withhold judgment until I see the products and mintages. Solid maybe. Congress does not seem concerned that the mint is creating products that compete with mandated commemorative programs or private mints.

    Nor should they be. This is nothing more than a revenue opportunity for the Mint, and the Mint has been given free reign to pursue such opportunities. The market for these is distinct from the market for Harriet Tubman or Greatest Generation commemoratives, and the professionals at the Mint knows a lot more about this stuff than rando congresspeople with constituents with agendas.

    That's why this was taken out of Congress' hands in the first place. They decide on circulating coinage. The Mint decides on the revenue producing numismatic items.

    They only decide on gold and platinum coins

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 33,927 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @Some_of_it said:
    I am withhold judgment until I see the products and mintages. Solid maybe. Congress does not seem concerned that the mint is creating products that compete with mandated commemorative programs or private mints.

    Nor should they be. This is nothing more than a revenue opportunity for the Mint, and the Mint has been given free reign to pursue such opportunities. The market for these is distinct from the market for Harriet Tubman or Greatest Generation commemoratives, and the professionals at the Mint knows a lot more about this stuff than rando congresspeople with constituents with agendas.

    That's why this was taken out of Congress' hands in the first place. They decide on circulating coinage. The Mint decides on the revenue producing numismatic items.

    It's funny how many people hate free markets, isn't it? They want tight government control of anything they don't like and generous support for things they do. So, the Mint should sell the coins I want for less money so I can make a profit, but they should stop the production of coins of which I don't approve.

    I suppose it had never dawned on them that there is at least some disapproval of EVERY Mint issue, including circulating designs. We do, after all, have two slave owners on corculating coins.

    Anything the government is involved in isn't a free market.

    Not purely, no. But they have been making market choices with commemoratives and pricing lately.

    And your response misses the point. Everyone wants the government to put their finger on the scale. The only difference is which scale and which direction.

  • Manifest_DestinyManifest_Destiny Posts: 6,896 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @Some_of_it said:
    I am withhold judgment until I see the products and mintages. Solid maybe. Congress does not seem concerned that the mint is creating products that compete with mandated commemorative programs or private mints.

    Nor should they be. This is nothing more than a revenue opportunity for the Mint, and the Mint has been given free reign to pursue such opportunities. The market for these is distinct from the market for Harriet Tubman or Greatest Generation commemoratives, and the professionals at the Mint knows a lot more about this stuff than rando congresspeople with constituents with agendas.

    That's why this was taken out of Congress' hands in the first place. They decide on circulating coinage. The Mint decides on the revenue producing numismatic items.

    It's funny how many people hate free markets, isn't it? They want tight government control of anything they don't like and generous support for things they do. So, the Mint should sell the coins I want for less money so I can make a profit, but they should stop the production of coins of which I don't approve.

    I suppose it had never dawned on them that there is at least some disapproval of EVERY Mint issue, including circulating designs. We do, after all, have two slave owners on corculating coins.

    Anything the government is involved in isn't a free market.

    Not purely, no. But they have been making market choices with commemoratives and pricing lately.

    And your response misses the point. Everyone wants the government to put their finger on the scale. The only difference is which scale and which direction.

    Bad marketing choices. The mint doesn't understand and doesn't like their actual customer base.

    Not everyone.

  • NewEnglandNotesNewEnglandNotes Posts: 278 ✭✭✭

    A whole new meaning to "modern crap"

  • NJCoinNJCoin Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 13, 2024 7:52AM

    @NewEnglandNotes said:
    A whole new meaning to "modern crap"

    Not so new. Other world mints have been doing it for at least a decade. As with many other things, the US Mint is just late to the game.

    There is a market, and there is money to be made. Things like this have nothing to do with circulating pocket change. These are uniquely American cultural icons.

    There is no reason to leave all the money to be made by manufacturing and selling these things to mints in Australia, Canada, etc. So the Mint is finally waking up to the opportunity.

    It does not cheapen classic US coins, or any more traditional modern issues. People who think it is crap can simply ignore it and stick with what they like. It really, really, really hurts no one, and helps the US taxpayer to the extent the Mint can generate some incremental profit with these.

    And they most certainly will. Licensed goods have been making gobs of money for manufacturers ever since Mickey Mouse appeared on the first pencil tablet in 1930. The Mint is pretty conservative, and seemingly takes forever to do anything. Trust me -- they have lots of data from Canada and Australia to indicate what they are going to make from this, and they have decided that it's worth doing. This is not just a transfer of wealth from the US Treasury to Warner Brothers Discovery.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 33,927 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @Some_of_it said:
    I am withhold judgment until I see the products and mintages. Solid maybe. Congress does not seem concerned that the mint is creating products that compete with mandated commemorative programs or private mints.

    Nor should they be. This is nothing more than a revenue opportunity for the Mint, and the Mint has been given free reign to pursue such opportunities. The market for these is distinct from the market for Harriet Tubman or Greatest Generation commemoratives, and the professionals at the Mint knows a lot more about this stuff than rando congresspeople with constituents with agendas.

    That's why this was taken out of Congress' hands in the first place. They decide on circulating coinage. The Mint decides on the revenue producing numismatic items.

    It's funny how many people hate free markets, isn't it? They want tight government control of anything they don't like and generous support for things they do. So, the Mint should sell the coins I want for less money so I can make a profit, but they should stop the production of coins of which I don't approve.

    I suppose it had never dawned on them that there is at least some disapproval of EVERY Mint issue, including circulating designs. We do, after all, have two slave owners on corculating coins.

    Anything the government is involved in isn't a free market.

    Not purely, no. But they have been making market choices with commemoratives and pricing lately.

    And your response misses the point. Everyone wants the government to put their finger on the scale. The only difference is which scale and which direction.

    Bad marketing choices. The mint doesn't understand and doesn't like their actual customer base.

    Not everyone.

    Oh, if we wanted to probe, I bet we could find something for just about everyone. But I'd rather not get into politics

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 33,927 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @NJCoin said:

    @NewEnglandNotes said:
    A whole new meaning to "modern crap"

    Not so new. Other world mints have been doing it for at least a decade. As with many other things, the US Mint is just late to the game.

    There is a market, and there is money to be made. Things like this have nothing to do with circulating pocket change. These are uniquely American cultural topics.

    There is no reason to leave all the money to be made by manufacturing and selling these things to mints in Australia, Canada, etc. So the Mint is finally waking up to the opportunity.

    It does not cheapen classic US coins, or any more traditional modern issues. People who think it is crap can simply ignore it and stick with what they like. It really, really, really hurts no one, and helps the US taxpayer to the extent the Mint can generate some incremental profit with these.

    And they most certainly will. Licensed goods have been making gobs of money for manufacturers ever since Mickey Mouse appeared on the first pencil tablet in 1930. The Mint is pretty conservative, and seemingly takes forever to do anything. Trust me -- they have lots of data from Canada and Australia to indicate what they are going to make from this, and they have decided that it's worth doing. This is not just a transfer of wealth from the US Treasury to Warner Brothers Discovery.

    The US Post office already did this 20 years ago. Not sure why people care what other people buy.

  • Manifest_DestinyManifest_Destiny Posts: 6,896 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Manifest_Destiny said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @NJCoin said:

    @Some_of_it said:
    I am withhold judgment until I see the products and mintages. Solid maybe. Congress does not seem concerned that the mint is creating products that compete with mandated commemorative programs or private mints.

    Nor should they be. This is nothing more than a revenue opportunity for the Mint, and the Mint has been given free reign to pursue such opportunities. The market for these is distinct from the market for Harriet Tubman or Greatest Generation commemoratives, and the professionals at the Mint knows a lot more about this stuff than rando congresspeople with constituents with agendas.

    That's why this was taken out of Congress' hands in the first place. They decide on circulating coinage. The Mint decides on the revenue producing numismatic items.

    It's funny how many people hate free markets, isn't it? They want tight government control of anything they don't like and generous support for things they do. So, the Mint should sell the coins I want for less money so I can make a profit, but they should stop the production of coins of which I don't approve.

    I suppose it had never dawned on them that there is at least some disapproval of EVERY Mint issue, including circulating designs. We do, after all, have two slave owners on corculating coins.

    Anything the government is involved in isn't a free market.

    Not purely, no. But they have been making market choices with commemoratives and pricing lately.

    And your response misses the point. Everyone wants the government to put their finger on the scale. The only difference is which scale and which direction.

    Bad marketing choices. The mint doesn't understand and doesn't like their actual customer base.

    Not everyone.

    Oh, if we wanted to probe, I bet we could find something for just about everyone. But I'd rather not get into politics

    Well, I'll concede the point then because I'd like the government to regulate probes.

  • GoldbullyGoldbully Posts: 17,234 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 13, 2024 9:33AM

    @NJCoin said:

    @NewEnglandNotes said:
    A whole new meaning to "modern crap"

    There is no reason to leave all the money to be made by manufacturing and selling these things to mints in Australia, Canada, etc. So the Mint is finally waking up to the opportunity.

    It does not cheapen classic US coins, or any more traditional modern issues. People who think it is crap can simply ignore it and stick with what they like. It really, really, really hurts no one, and helps the US taxpayer to the extent the Mint can generate some incremental profit with these.


    Couldn’t agree with you more.

    Edited to add: Well said, @NJCoin.

  • goldbuffalogoldbuffalo Posts: 629 ✭✭✭

    Looks like they have a Superman design.

    Gold appears to be 1/2 oz

    https://www.usmint.gov/news/ccac-meetings/2025-comic-art-coin-and-medal-superman

  • PerryHallPerryHall Posts: 46,085 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 30, 2024 12:59AM

    @jmlanzaf said:
    US is about the 5th country to do this.

    Agree. These gimmick coins are now being shamelessly produced by many other third-world countries just to generate revenue.

    Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
    "Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
    "Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire

  • OnastoneOnastone Posts: 3,918 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Anyone take the Superheroes Poll?? Which DC characters made the cut?? I didn't even bother to look, but now
    if I had to choose nine....

    Superman
    Wonderwoman
    Batman
    Aquaman
    The Flash
    Green Arrow
    Aquaman
    Black Canary
    Batwoman

    But why not stand out from the other world mints and do something really new, like putting out nine Super Villain coins???

    The Joker
    Lex Luthor
    Two-Face
    Clayface
    Scarecrow
    Riddler
    Doomsday
    Penguin
    Mister Freeze

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file