The Mint needs to be stopped - now!

Jacques_Loungecoque

This is an abomination.

https://www.coinnews.net/2024/09/27/numismatic-themed-game-rewards-players-with-unique-u-s-mint-coins/

yosclimber

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsEvK_4GLU
Hmm, a mobile game where they ship you slabbed medals or now NCLT for game achievements.
A bit different than the usual "in game gold".
Sounds like the usual "Free to Play" / "Pay to Win" game.

coinbuf

How exactly is this the doing of the US mint?

Jacques_Loungecoque

@coinbuf said:
How exactly is this the doing of the US mint?

Well they’re producing the “privy marked” silver eagles for a private company now as part of a “partnership.” They’ve opened the door wide open to chaos now. Can’t wait to see the Pornhub privy mark, because to not do so will become a first amendment violation.

jmlanzaf

@coinbuf said:
How exactly is this the doing of the US mint?

If you read the article in the OP's post, the U.S. Mint is creating a privy marked coin that is unique to this game.

Edited to add: Sorry, this is redundant to the prior post posted while I was reading and commenting.

privatecoin

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

@coinbuf said:
How exactly is this the doing of the US mint?

Well they’re producing the “privy marked” silver eagles for a private company now as part of a “partnership.” They’ve opened the door wide open to chaos now. Can’t wait to see the Pornhub privy mark, because to not do so will become a first amendment violation.

Priceless commodities. 😆

coinbuf

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

@coinbuf said:
How exactly is this the doing of the US mint?

Well they’re producing the “privy marked” silver eagles for a private company now as part of a “partnership.” They’ve opened the door wide open to chaos now. Can’t wait to see the Pornhub privy mark, because to not do so will become a first amendment violation.

Everyone, well almost everyone, here is incensed over the mint still making cents at a loss, yet now you are also incensed at the mint partnering with a second party to sell something that they make money on, seems a bit hypocritical to me. And your first amendment bit is so over the top, it's the government, they can do what they want legal or not.

Edited to add: I cannot wait for these to be a special category in the PCGS registry.

Jacques_Loungecoque

@coinbuf said:

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

@coinbuf said:
How exactly is this the doing of the US mint?

Well they’re producing the “privy marked” silver eagles for a private company now as part of a “partnership.” They’ve opened the door wide open to chaos now. Can’t wait to see the Pornhub privy mark, because to not do so will become a first amendment violation.

Everyone, well almost everyone, here is incensed over the mint still making cents at a loss, yet now you are also incensed at the mint partnering with a second party to sell something that they make money on, seems a bit hypocritical to me. And your first amendment bit is so over the top, it's the government, they can do what they want legal or not.

With respect, you’re conflating two totally different t issues. The mint doesn’t make money because it is inefficient. From excess wages, to a top heavy bureaucracy, to outdated manufacturing capabilities, and on and on.

Now we have a second issue. The mint has partnered with a private company. Albeit one completely unknown to me, and probably most people, which screams sketchy. I doubt sincerely this was an outreach from the mint to this company and was quite the opposite. The flood gates are open now. I would also bet the mint will invariable also lose money on these too.

CaptHenway

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:
This is an abomination.

https://www.coinnews.net/2024/09/27/numismatic-themed-game-rewards-players-with-unique-u-s-mint-coins/

U.S. Mint Credibility.

1793-2024

R.I.P.

BillJones

I am glad that my interests in modern coins are very limited. As a collector, I don’t need this nonsense.

jmlanzaf

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

@coinbuf said:

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

@coinbuf said:
How exactly is this the doing of the US mint?

Well they’re producing the “privy marked” silver eagles for a private company now as part of a “partnership.” They’ve opened the door wide open to chaos now. Can’t wait to see the Pornhub privy mark, because to not do so will become a first amendment violation.

Everyone, well almost everyone, here is incensed over the mint still making cents at a loss, yet now you are also incensed at the mint partnering with a second party to sell something that they make money on, seems a bit hypocritical to me. And your first amendment bit is so over the top, it's the government, they can do what they want legal or not.

With respect, you’re conflating two totally different t issues. The mint doesn’t make money because it is inefficient. From excess wages, to a top heavy bureaucracy, to outdated manufacturing capabilities, and on and on.

Now we have a second issue. The mint has partnered with a private company. Albeit one completely unknown to me, and probably most people, which screams sketchy. I doubt sincerely this was an outreach from the mint to this company and was quite the opposite. The flood gates are open now. I would also bet the mint will invariable also lose money on these too.

I'm not sure there is any harm. You can play or not play in this arena, like any other. As long as the Mint isn't losing money on these issues, I don't care if they issue 50 of them per year. I simply won't collect them.

jmlanzaf

P.S. I am willing to stop the Mint from making any more coins by going to a digital currency.

coinbuf

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

@coinbuf said:

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

@coinbuf said:
How exactly is this the doing of the US mint?

Well they’re producing the “privy marked” silver eagles for a private company now as part of a “partnership.” They’ve opened the door wide open to chaos now. Can’t wait to see the Pornhub privy mark, because to not do so will become a first amendment violation.

Everyone, well almost everyone, here is incensed over the mint still making cents at a loss, yet now you are also incensed at the mint partnering with a second party to sell something that they make money on, seems a bit hypocritical to me. And your first amendment bit is so over the top, it's the government, they can do what they want legal or not.

With respect, you’re conflating two totally different t issues. The mint doesn’t make money because it is inefficient. From excess wages, to a top heavy bureaucracy, to outdated manufacturing capabilities, and on and on.

Now we have a second issue. The mint has partnered with a private company. Albeit one completely unknown to me, and probably most people, which screams sketchy. I doubt sincerely this was an outreach from the mint to this company and was quite the opposite. The flood gates are open now. I would also bet the mint will invariable also lose money on these too.

You are making widely inaccurate and unsubstantiated accusations, if you read the very first part of the article you linked this is not the first time the mint has partnered with an outside firm in this way.

This is hardly groundbreaking, also you say that you expect the mint to lose money on this as well, where are your facts to back this up? Do you have data that shows the mint lost money on their previous collaboration with DC? Clearly this was a special run of a set amount of coins, neither you or I know how much the mint charged for this run of coins so there is no way you can know they will lose money on the deal. However, given the outrageous premium the mint has been charging for NLCT I see no reason that they would charge any less to this outside partner than they do when selling silver eagles

Jacques_Loungecoque

@coinbuf said:

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

@coinbuf said:

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

@coinbuf said:
How exactly is this the doing of the US mint?

Well they’re producing the “privy marked” silver eagles for a private company now as part of a “partnership.” They’ve opened the door wide open to chaos now. Can’t wait to see the Pornhub privy mark, because to not do so will become a first amendment violation.

Everyone, well almost everyone, here is incensed over the mint still making cents at a loss, yet now you are also incensed at the mint partnering with a second party to sell something that they make money on, seems a bit hypocritical to me. And your first amendment bit is so over the top, it's the government, they can do what they want legal or not.

With respect, you’re conflating two totally different t issues. The mint doesn’t make money because it is inefficient. From excess wages, to a top heavy bureaucracy, to outdated manufacturing capabilities, and on and on.

Now we have a second issue. The mint has partnered with a private company. Albeit one completely unknown to me, and probably most people, which screams sketchy. I doubt sincerely this was an outreach from the mint to this company and was quite the opposite. The flood gates are open now. I would also bet the mint will invariable also lose money on these too.

You are making widely inaccurate and unsubstantiated accusations, if you read the very first part of the article you linked this is not the first time the mint has partnered with an outside firm in this way.

This is hardly groundbreaking, also you say that you expect the mint to lose money on this as well, where are your facts to back this up? Do you have data that shows the mint lost money on their previous collaboration with DC? Clearly this was a special run of a set amount of coins, neither you or I know how much the mint charged for this run of coins so there is no way you can know they will lose money on the deal. However, given the outrageous premium the mint has been charging for NLCT I see no reason that they would charge any less to this outside partner than they do when selling silver eagles

It’s called common sense. But by all means, keep your head in the sand. 👍🏻

coinbuf

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

@coinbuf said:

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

@coinbuf said:

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

@coinbuf said:
How exactly is this the doing of the US mint?

Well they’re producing the “privy marked” silver eagles for a private company now as part of a “partnership.” They’ve opened the door wide open to chaos now. Can’t wait to see the Pornhub privy mark, because to not do so will become a first amendment violation.

Everyone, well almost everyone, here is incensed over the mint still making cents at a loss, yet now you are also incensed at the mint partnering with a second party to sell something that they make money on, seems a bit hypocritical to me. And your first amendment bit is so over the top, it's the government, they can do what they want legal or not.

With respect, you’re conflating two totally different t issues. The mint doesn’t make money because it is inefficient. From excess wages, to a top heavy bureaucracy, to outdated manufacturing capabilities, and on and on.

Now we have a second issue. The mint has partnered with a private company. Albeit one completely unknown to me, and probably most people, which screams sketchy. I doubt sincerely this was an outreach from the mint to this company and was quite the opposite. The flood gates are open now. I would also bet the mint will invariable also lose money on these too.

You are making widely inaccurate and unsubstantiated accusations, if you read the very first part of the article you linked this is not the first time the mint has partnered with an outside firm in this way.

This is hardly groundbreaking, also you say that you expect the mint to lose money on this as well, where are your facts to back this up? Do you have data that shows the mint lost money on their previous collaboration with DC? Clearly this was a special run of a set amount of coins, neither you or I know how much the mint charged for this run of coins so there is no way you can know they will lose money on the deal. However, given the outrageous premium the mint has been charging for NLCT I see no reason that they would charge any less to this outside partner than they do when selling silver eagles

It’s called common sense. But by all means, keep your head in the sand. 👍🏻

I agree, common sense would say that the mint would make just as much money on this special run as it does on all other NLCT products. But you seem to want to ignore common sense and run around crying the sky is falling. Again the world didn't stop turning when the mint partnered with DC comics in the past, common sense dictates that there is nothing different with this partnership. But by all means continue to lose your head over nothing.

JBK

@coinbuf said:

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

@coinbuf said:

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

@coinbuf said:
How exactly is this the doing of the US mint?

Well they’re producing the “privy marked” silver eagles for a private company now as part of a “partnership.” They’ve opened the door wide open to chaos now. Can’t wait to see the Pornhub privy mark, because to not do so will become a first amendment violation.

Everyone, well almost everyone, here is incensed over the mint still making cents at a loss, yet now you are also incensed at the mint partnering with a second party to sell something that they make money on, seems a bit hypocritical to me. And your first amendment bit is so over the top, it's the government, they can do what they want legal or not.

With respect, you’re conflating two totally different t issues. The mint doesn’t make money because it is inefficient. From excess wages, to a top heavy bureaucracy, to outdated manufacturing capabilities, and on and on.

Now we have a second issue. The mint has partnered with a private company. Albeit one completely unknown to me, and probably most people, which screams sketchy. I doubt sincerely this was an outreach from the mint to this company and was quite the opposite. The flood gates are open now. I would also bet the mint will invariable also lose money on these too.

You are making widely inaccurate and unsubstantiated accusations, if you read the very first part of the article you linked this is not the first time the mint has partnered with an outside firm in this way.

This is hardly groundbreaking, also you say that you expect the mint to lose money on this as well, where are your facts to back this up? Do you have data that shows the mint lost money on their previous collaboration with DC? Clearly this was a special run of a set amount of coins, neither you or I know how much the mint charged for this run of coins so there is no way you can know they will lose money on the deal. However, given the outrageous premium the mint has been charging for NLCT I see no reason that they would charge any less to this outside partner than they do when selling silver eagles

From my understanding of the situation, the Marvel coins will be sold by the mint to anyone who wants them.

The story on the gaming coins mentions "early access", which seems to imply that the special Silver Eagles will eventually be available to everyone, which might make the program controversial. If the special coins are not going to be made available to everyone, then the program is a potential scandal.

I don't know why costs or potential losses are a discussion point when the arrangement itself is the potential issue.

Also, I don't know where the authorization to add privy marks to silver coins comes from. Maybe it's in the law somewhere but I'm not aware of it.

MWallace

@JBK said:

@coinbuf said:

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

@coinbuf said:

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

@coinbuf said:
How exactly is this the doing of the US mint?

Also, I don't know where the authorization to add privy marks to silver coins comes from. Maybe it's in the law somewhere but I'm not aware if it.

My first thought exactly. Under what authority are they allowed to do this.

TwoSides2aCoin

Clever gimmicks rarely hurt our hobby. It is most resilient.

Mr_Spud

Now all the people who have been purchasing every date and mintmark SAE will feel used because they won’t be able to purchase these very easily. Might make some of them stop buying them

TwoSides2aCoin

@Mr_Spud said:
Now all the people who have been purchasing every date and mintmark SAE will feel used because they won’t be able to purchase these very easily. Might make some of them stop buying them

Yes. Remember 2009 when true collectors of American Silver Eagle Proof coins were shut out, due to a run on silver bullion coins by the AP’s ? It hurt a lot of collectors’ feelings …. Yet the hobby has exploded since. The modern era is unpredictable. Nobody experiments with the minds more than the mint.

BillJones

@Mr_Spud said:
Now all the people who have been purchasing every date and mintmark SAE will feel used because they won’t be able to purchase these very easily. Might make some of them stop buying them

There are collectors who feel as if they have to own everything the mint issues. One of first “thumb to the eye” for those guys was the 1995 Proof Silver Eagle that was added to the Proof gold sets that year. The mint didn’t realize the consequences, but it turned out to be a coin that was priced way beyond the means of many Silver Eagle collectors. This time the mint is running a collector lottery.

CaptHenway

@Mr_Spud said:
Now all the people who have been purchasing every date and mintmark SAE will feel used because they won’t be able to purchase these very easily. Might make some of them stop buying them

I remember when the Mint foolishly issued the (stupidly misnamed) 10th Anniversary American Eagle set in 1995 (the tenth year of the Eagle program, not 1996, the tenth anniversary) with the W-Mint Proof Silver Eagle that you could only get by buying four gold coins as well. The mintage was slightly over 30,000, thereby limiting the number of collectors who could have complete sets of silver eagles to that number. I was working in a coin shop back then, and I noticed a lessening of interest in the series after that.

MedalCollector

This sounds like an effort to introduce the hobby to young folks and build the hobby. That should be a good thing.

The coin itself is an ASE with a star privy, an “early release” of which will be offered as an incentive within the game. It sounds like anyone can play the game, and more of the coins will become available through authorized distributors. So if you want early access, then play the game, or wait for them to become available through an authorized distributor.

The authority to add a privy mark is likely at the Mint Director level, or possibly Secretary of the Treasury. Some folks here will probably know for sure.

At this point, I wouldn’t consider it an “abomination” or a “scandal” as described in this thread. Mint leadership wants to grow the hobby. After all, that would mean more customers for their product. But just as us collectors are unsure about the best way to do it - you see it on countless threads here in fact - so are the leaders at the Mint. In my eyes, this is an experiment in the pursuit of expanding the hobby. Of course they have made many mistakes, some of which actually stem from limitations put in place by Congress, but at least they are trying something.

Colonialcoin

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:
This is an abomination.

https://www.coinnews.net/2024/09/27/numismatic-themed-game-rewards-players-with-unique-u-s-mint-coins/

Oh the humanity! 😂

BobSav

This will be showing up on the home shopping network as a valuable limited edition super rare must have collectable.
For only 3 easy payments of $249.00 with free shipping.
Limit 5 per household.

oldabeintx

Not sure why I’m bothered by this or any “marketing” ploy. Perhaps it’s my old-fashioned belief that the the mint should stick to the business of issuing coins for circulation. Of course this ship sailed long ago with the issuing of proof coins for collectors.

privatecoin

Now if only there was one with an end the fed privy.....

hummingbird_coins

This is, in theory, a good idea to grow the hobby, considering how many young people play video games. Its success will depend on how well the game is marketed. I also think it would be better to make coins with designs related to the game rather than a worn-out bullion design with a minuscule change. However, I fear that the targeted audience will view the game as more of a chance to make money than an entry to collecting.

NJCoin

@CaptHenway said:

@Mr_Spud said:
Now all the people who have been purchasing every date and mintmark SAE will feel used because they won’t be able to purchase these very easily. Might make some of them stop buying them

I remember when the Mint foolishly issued the (stupidly misnamed) 10th Anniversary American Eagle set in 1995 (the tenth year of the Eagle program, not 1996, the tenth anniversary) with the W-Mint Proof Silver Eagle that you could only get by buying four gold coins as well. The mintage was slightly over 30,000, thereby limiting the number of collectors who could have complete sets of silver eagles to that number. I was working in a coin shop back then, and I noticed a lessening of interest in the series after that.

Yeah, that move really killed interest in the American Eagle program! 🤣

JCH22

@MedalCollector said:
This sounds like an effort to introduce the hobby to young folks and build the hobby. That should be a good thing....

The authority to add a privy mark is likely at the Mint Director level, or possibly Secretary of the Treasury. Some folks here will probably know for sure....

Treasury has broad discretion:

31 U.S.C. § 5112 - Denominations, specifications, and design of coins

(a)The Secretary of the Treasury may mint and issue only the following coins:

....

(e)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall mint and issue, in qualities and quantities that the Secretary determines are sufficient to meet public demand, coins which—
(1) are 40.6 millimeters in diameter and weigh 31.103 grams;
(2) contain .999 fine silver;
(3) have a design—
(A) symbolic of Liberty on the obverse side; and
(B) of an eagle on the reverse side;
(4) have inscriptions of the year of minting or issuance, and the words “Liberty”, “In God We Trust”, “United States of America”,
“1 Oz. Fine Silver”, “E Pluribus Unum”, and “One Dollar”; and
(5)have reeded edges.

Understand the distaste for novelties from series collectors. However, point about building interest in younger people for coins, which they likely seldom use today, is well taken.

JBK

@JCH22 said:

@MedalCollector said:
This sounds like an effort to introduce the hobby to young folks and build the hobby. That should be a good thing....

The authority to add a privy mark is likely at the Mint Director level, or possibly Secretary of the Treasury. Some folks here will probably know for sure....

Treasury has broad discretion:

31 U.S.C. § 5112 - Denominations, specifications, and design of coins

(a)The Secretary of the Treasury may mint and issue only the following coins:

....

(e)Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall mint and issue, in qualities and quantities that the Secretary determines are sufficient to meet public demand, coins which—
(1) are 40.6 millimeters in diameter and weigh 31.103 grams;
(2) contain .999 fine silver;
(3) have a design—
(A) symbolic of Liberty on the obverse side; and
(B) of an eagle on the reverse side;
(4) have inscriptions of the year of minting or issuance, and the words “Liberty”, “In God We Trust”, “United States of America”,
“1 Oz. Fine Silver”, “E Pluribus Unum”, and “One Dollar”; and
(5)have reeded edges.

Understand the distaste for novelties from series collectors. However, point about building interest in younger people for coins, which they likely seldom use today, is well taken.

Thanks for digging out the legal text. I suspect, however, that there is additional relevant law on this subject. Otherwise, we wouldn't have these special gold coins pared with silver medals.

I know that for circulating coins, at least, once a design was set, it couldn't be changed for 25 years without specific legislation to override that rule.

DocBenjamin

@coinbuf said:

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

@coinbuf said:
How exactly is this the doing of the US mint?

Well they’re producing the “privy marked” silver eagles for a private company now as part of a “partnership.” They’ve opened the door wide open to chaos now. Can’t wait to see the Pornhub privy mark, because to not do so will become a first amendment violation.

Everyone, well almost everyone, here is incensed over the mint still making cents at a loss, yet now you are also incensed at the mint partnering with a second party to sell something that they make money on, seems a bit hypocritical to me. And your first amendment bit is so over the top, it's the government, they can do what they want legal or not.

Edited to add: I cannot wait for these to be a special category in the PCGS registry.

Would they make limited numbers of mule errors for a private organization, if a tidy profit to the Mint, were assured?

Jacques_Loungecoque

Now that I’ve seen Numismatic News’s story it’s all making sense.

JCH22

@JBK said:
>

Thanks for digging out the legal text. I suspect, however, that there is additional relevant law on this subject. Otherwise, we wouldn't have these special gold coins pared with silver medals.

Much deeper dive available here:

https://www.govregs.com/uscode/title31_subtitleIV_chapter51_subchapterII

AUandAG

I believe they did the same with the Cheerios dollars. I wish my Cheerios had had one it the box.

bob

Cranium_Basher73

@jmlanzaf said:
P.S. I am willing to stop the Mint from making any more coins by going to a digital currency.

Then they'll be doing character skins or something by then.

yosclimber

@hummingbird_coins said:
... I also think it would be better to make coins with designs related to the game rather than a worn-out bullion design with a minuscule change. ...

The medals already being used do feature designs from the game.

https://www.nicegang.com/collectibles

Actually reading on the site, the above rare medals are for people who reach high on the leaderboard, not just for generic in game achievements (that was my prior guess).

Other medals are available for purchase in the app store.

Often in Free to Play games, the player can purchase cosmetic items which look cool in game, but do not give a competitive advantage.
In some games you can purchase random card packs or other things which do give a competitive advantage, and this is known as "Pay to Win".

airplanenut

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

@coinbuf said:
How exactly is this the doing of the US mint?

Well they’re producing the “privy marked” silver eagles for a private company now as part of a “partnership.” They’ve opened the door wide open to chaos now. Can’t wait to see the Pornhub privy mark, because to not do so will become a first amendment violation.

Is that a roll of quarters in your pocket or are you… you know what, never mind.

Namvet69

On a lighter note, the privy mark is nice.

OAKSTAR

You think maybe these two are in competition to see how many gimmicks and crap they can come up with?

logger7

Unfortunately government jobs and the ranking in an agency is based on seniority, and most people know about the controversy surrounding DeJoy. "Executive intelligence" is an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp.

MetroD

@JCH22 said:

@JBK said:
>

Thanks for digging out the legal text. I suspect, however, that there is additional relevant law on this subject. Otherwise, we wouldn't have these special gold coins pared with silver medals.

Much deeper dive available here:

https://www.govregs.com/uscode/title31_subtitleIV_chapter51_subchapterII

I did a QUICK search of these links for "privy". Certainly could have missed something, but I got one 'hit' in § 5112.

Source: https://www.govregs.com/uscode/title31_subtitleIV_chapter51_subchapterII_section5112

FWIW, this provision seems to have originated from the "Circulating Collectible Coin Redesign Act of 2020" (i.e., Public Law 116-330).
Link: https://www.congress.gov/116/plaws/publ330/PLAW-116publ330.pdf

Full Disclosure - I am NOT a lawyer. That said, the cited provision appears to only apply to specific programs (i.e., subsections (x), (y), or (z)). For example, (y) is upcoming semiquicentennial issues.

blitzdude

@Jacques_Loungecoque said:

@coinbuf said:
How exactly is this the doing of the US mint?

Well they’re producing the “privy marked” silver eagles for a private company now as part of a “partnership.” They’ve opened the door wide open to chaos now. Can’t wait to see the Pornhub privy mark, because to not do so will become a first amendment violation.

A Pornhub privy mark on my gutter metal eagles? Where can we purchase that? Just asking for a friend. THKS!

OAKSTAR

Like the post office, there are a 100 different stamps for every day of the year!

I'm exaggerating, but you get the point.

fathom

Many discussions here on the smorgasbord of product offerings and over production of Mint items stifling and choking off future demand and values.

Apparently this studio made a significant commitment. I doubt Gov agency exec's would stick their neck out on a game studio relationship without reasonable marketing potential.

This could be a different outcome. I am curious of marketing to gamers and the potential recruitment of new coin collectors.

Taking into account over production and too many product variations.

jedm

I can see this bringing in new collectors to our hobby, in that case, a benefit to our community as a whole.

FrankH

@jedm said:
I can see this bringing in new collectors to our hobby, in that case, a benefit to our community as a whole.

Agree. We need more people to blame for the mediocrity.

Ebeneezer

How could anything which will attract new collectors to the hobby be a wrong idea? A collaboration does not in any way mean that an outside facility will be striking the U.S. Silver Eagle. They have done so for years, albeit quietly in most cases, with non-mint employed sculptors/designers. The 1999 Dolly Madison comes to mind as it's one of my personal modern favorites, designed by Tiffany and Company. A collaboration. While I myself won't be adding any such coins, I most certainly will not critcize those who would or do.

PerryHall

When new collectors try to sell these modern gimmick coins at the local coin shop and are offered below melt value, most will leave the hobby forever.

ajaan

If the Mint makes money off these, more power to them. If I choose not to buy Mint products, more power to me.

Catbert

I fail to be outraged. Oh well....