<< <i>I save and reuse all of them for shipping. Except for the one my son uses to store Legos. >>
Yeah, and then I have to throw them out.
I agree with the OP. They should be recyclable.
BTW, what's the going rate for OGBs? I think I have one or two around. >>
What does being "recyclable" mean? I am sure you can put them in a plastic bin. I remember all of the fuss over McDonalds foam packaging back in the 80's. What the idiots who do all of the complaining do not realize is they commissioned a major University to do an impact study to determine what to use for the packaging and that is how they ended up with the foam. I am sure the same idiots who whined about the foam whined about the paper products they were using prior to the foam. There are a certain class of people who will always complain. In the end, the problem is these people and nothing they complain about.
As for these boxes. If they made to degrade over time, then they would destroy the coins held in them. Sort of defeats their purpose.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
<< <i>What does being "recyclable" mean? I am sure you can put them in a plastic bin. >>
They likely "can" be recycled.... IF the plastics recyclers knew what type of plastic they were made from.
But, lacking an appropriate numbered recyling symbol, the recyclers would have to perform some tests to determine the proper method of recycling. Obviously, that would be cost prohibitive. So if you do put them in a recycling bin, my guess is they will get weeded out during the sorting process and tossed into a landfill.
"Wars are really ugly! They're dirty and they're cold. I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole." Mary
<< <i>What does being "recyclable" mean? I am sure you can put them in a plastic bin. >>
They likely "can" be recycled.... IF the plastics recyclers knew what type of plastic they were made from.
But, lacking an appropriate numbered recyling symbol, the recyclers would have to perform some tests to determine the proper method of recycling. Obviously, that would be cost prohibitive. So if you do put them in a recycling bin, my guess is they will get weeded out during the sorting process and tossed into a landfill. >>
<< <i>What does being "recyclable" mean? I am sure you can put them in a plastic bin. >>
They likely "can" be recycled.... IF the plastics recyclers knew what type of plastic they were made from.
But, lacking an appropriate numbered recyling symbol, the recyclers would have to perform some tests to determine the proper method of recycling. Obviously, that would be cost prohibitive. So if you do put them in a recycling bin, my guess is they will get weeded out during the sorting process and tossed into a landfill. >>
>>
I agree. An attempt should be made at designating what type of plastic they are made from. If we all do our part with helping our mother Earth, it will still be around for future generations.
Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Mother earth will survive me, my kids, my kids kids, my kids kids kids,.......................I only hope I survive the idiots that want to take away from my life so they can feel like they are doing something good for mother earth.
As for numbers, when did they start with the plastic numbers. Must have been in the 80's if you feel PCGS should have it on their boxes.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
Landfills are the least of my worries. There is plenty of room for landfills and when they're full we put dirt on them and have a usable land area. What happened to the "stop littering" campaigns that were on TV when we were kids. I think there is more trash alongside the roads than there is in landfills. --Jerry
The SPI resin identification coding system is a set of symbols placed on plastics to identify the polymer type. It was developed by the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) in 1988, and used internationally. The primary purpose of the codes is to allow efficient separation of different polymer types for recycling.
<< <i>I would if the "nonsense" did not have such a negative financial effect on me. >>
One of the reasons I favor recycling is that it is, or at least should be, financially beneficial (or at worst, break even). It's an extension of my frugality.
<< <i>I would if the "nonsense" did not have such a negative financial effect on me. >>
One of the reasons I favor recycling is that it is, or at least should be, financially beneficial (or at worst, break even). It's an extension of my frugality. >>
Frugality is in. I've taken to driving the SUV much less than I have in the past.
Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
I've already started my own PCGS blue box breeding program, as they do seem to replicate much like tribbles. Overall, though, one has to admit that coin collecting is a pretty green hobby. We do put a lot through the mail, and we do take trips here and there, but we generate far less trash than most other hobbies, and the most valuable items we seek are typically items manufactured a century or two ago. Even with moderns, we're largely pulling coins from circulation, though a little plastic does go into proof sets, professional certification, and miscellaneous storage. I go through a lot more plastic in a typical week grocery shopping, though I try to get as much of it as I can into recycling bins.
Anyone else read Samuel Coleridge's The Rime of the Ancient Mariner? I find the idea of the albatross being threatened with extinction by way of careless pollution a little disturbing a parallel. (If you don't know the epic poem, you might recognize the name from an Iron Maiden song.)
Improperly Cleaned, Our passion for numismatics is Genuine! Now featuring correct spelling.
I like the recyclable idea, however I have noticed a few posts here concerning the recyclable boxes deteriorating. Lets not get "recyclable" confused with "biodegradeable".
<< <i>As the ludicrous 'global warming' hoax falls apart (and it is a hoax), we should always remember to be good stewards of the environment. Cheers, RickO >>
My gut feeling is that this is "junk science" as well. However, recycling, saving energy, and saving money have ALWAYS been good things, even before "global warming" was invented.
When I was a kid in MO we bought an old farm. It had a junkpile out back that the farmer had accumulated. That summer my brother and I hauled several pickup loads of scrap iron to the recycler and sold it for .03/lb IIRC. But gas was .29/gal and it made economic sense to recycle it. We did this with no incentive from the govt and it cost taxpayers nothing. 99% of recycling programs today are NOT economically viable and exist only because they are mandated by some law or politically correct contract and are heavily subsidized by either tax money or trash collection fees. I would prefer to let recycling develop on it's own WHEN it becomes economically able to stand on it's own. --Jerry
<< <i>When I was a kid in MO we bought an old farm. It had a junkpile out back that the farmer had accumulated. That summer my brother and I hauled several pickup loads of scrap iron to the recycler and sold it for .03/lb IIRC. But gas was .29/gal and it made economic sense to recycle it. We did this with no incentive from the govt and it cost taxpayers nothing. 99% of recycling programs today are NOT economically viable and exist only because they are mandated by some law or politically correct contract and are heavily subsidized by either tax money or trash collection fees. I would prefer to let recycling develop on it's own WHEN it becomes economically able to stand on it's own. --Jerry >>
1) Most recycling centers are corporate owned entities and can only be considered "subsidized" in the sense that many municipalities legally mandate recycling of common high churn materials like aluminum, newsprint and plastics 1 through 10. These are independent businesses that turn a profit and employ people. I'm perfectly pleased to let any and all governments continue to contribute what paltry sums they do towards the operation of these facilities on those grounds alone.
2) Recycling common high churn materials such as aluminum, newsprint and plastics 1 through 10 serves to drive down the prices of consumer goods dependent on the usage of those materials. I know we're really only used to seeing post consumer content listed on the side of coffee cups from boutique shops and other perceived nonessentials, but it is now common practice for producers to source as much of their materials as they can from the recycled supply chain. Newspapers and beverages are probably the most impacted products, but there are multitudes. Recycling old packaging makes new products cheaper for everyone.
3) Plastics take a ridiculously long time to break down naturally in landfills - and even when they do the remnants are destructive to nearly everything. Recycling is literally the only responsible way to deal with plastic waste as it never really goes away.
4) America has encouraged and propped up through legislation an artificially cheap production economy for packaging intense goods. As long as corn is subsidized to the point that a package of twinkies costs less than a bag of carrots there will be an unnaturally high amount of packaging to dispose of. Due to public policy companies like Cargill, ADM and Monsanto are able to buy corn at far less than the true cost of production which allows them to bring an astounding variety of products to market at impossibly low prices while still reaping enormous profits. The pressures produced on the market from this arrangement result in the cheapest possible packaging being used which in turn results in a general insouciance by consumers about the fate of that packaging. This is why glass bottles have virtually disappeared from the soda business - certainly giants like Coke and Pepsi can afford the glass but plastic is so cheap by comparison that they don't even have to consider it. This one point alone means that waiting for recycling to become "economically able to stand on its own" (by which I assume you mean than people are faced with the personal financial practicality of recycling rather than discarding) is a terrible idea because the system is skewed in such a way that it will never happen.
I don't personally own any PCGS boxes so I was actually surprised to find out that they weren't recyclable coded. In my opinion it's ridiculous. It's the absolute least they can do to stamp the number on it. I'm certain that their supplier would be able to easily facilitate this.
"YOU SUCK!" Awarded by nankraut/renomedphys 6/13/13 - MadMarty dissents
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>I save and reuse all of them for shipping. Except for the one my son uses to store Legos. >>
Yeah, and then I have to throw them out.
I agree with the OP. They should be recyclable.
BTW, what's the going rate for OGBs? I think I have one or two around. >>
What does being "recyclable" mean? I am sure you can put them in a plastic bin. I remember all of the fuss over McDonalds foam packaging back in the 80's. What the idiots who do all of the complaining do not realize is they commissioned a major University to do an impact study to determine what to use for the packaging and that is how they ended up with the foam. I am sure the same idiots who whined about the foam whined about the paper products they were using prior to the foam. There are a certain class of people who will always complain. In the end, the problem is these people and nothing they complain about.
As for these boxes. If they made to degrade over time, then they would destroy the coins held in them. Sort of defeats their purpose.
<< <i>What does being "recyclable" mean? I am sure you can put them in a plastic bin. >>
They likely "can" be recycled.... IF the plastics recyclers knew what type of plastic they were made from.
But, lacking an appropriate numbered recyling symbol, the recyclers would have to perform some tests to determine the proper method of recycling. Obviously, that would be cost prohibitive. So if you do put them in a recycling bin, my guess is they will get weeded out during the sorting process and tossed into a landfill.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i>
<< <i>What does being "recyclable" mean? I am sure you can put them in a plastic bin. >>
They likely "can" be recycled.... IF the plastics recyclers knew what type of plastic they were made from.
But, lacking an appropriate numbered recyling symbol, the recyclers would have to perform some tests to determine the proper method of recycling. Obviously, that would be cost prohibitive. So if you do put them in a recycling bin, my guess is they will get weeded out during the sorting process and tossed into a landfill. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What does being "recyclable" mean? I am sure you can put them in a plastic bin. >>
They likely "can" be recycled.... IF the plastics recyclers knew what type of plastic they were made from.
But, lacking an appropriate numbered recyling symbol, the recyclers would have to perform some tests to determine the proper method of recycling. Obviously, that would be cost prohibitive. So if you do put them in a recycling bin, my guess is they will get weeded out during the sorting process and tossed into a landfill. >>
I agree. An attempt should be made at designating what type of plastic they are made from. If we all do our part with helping our mother Earth, it will still be around for future generations.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
As for numbers, when did they start with the plastic numbers. Must have been in the 80's if you feel PCGS should have it on their boxes.
The SPI resin identification coding system is a set of symbols placed on plastics to identify the polymer type. It was developed by the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) in 1988, and used internationally. The primary purpose of the codes is to allow efficient separation of different polymer types for recycling.
Maybe you should hunker down in your bunker for a few years and insulate yourself from all the nonsense.
<< <i>I would if the "nonsense" did not have such a negative financial effect on me. >>
One of the reasons I favor recycling is that it is, or at least should be, financially beneficial (or at worst, break even). It's an extension of my frugality.
<< <i>
<< <i>I would if the "nonsense" did not have such a negative financial effect on me. >>
One of the reasons I favor recycling is that it is, or at least should be, financially beneficial (or at worst, break even). It's an extension of my frugality. >>
Frugality is in.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Anyone else read Samuel Coleridge's The Rime of the Ancient Mariner? I find the idea of the albatross being threatened with extinction by way of careless pollution a little disturbing a parallel. (If you don't know the epic poem, you might recognize the name from an Iron Maiden song.)
You guys are throwing them away while I am buying them for more than a few dollars????What a world what a world
<< <i>My local dealer gives them away at christmas ................. I would like a green one for Christmas.
<< <i>As the ludicrous 'global warming' hoax falls apart (and it is a hoax), we should always remember to be good stewards of the environment. Cheers, RickO >>
My gut feeling is that this is "junk science" as well. However, recycling, saving energy, and saving money have ALWAYS been good things, even before "global warming" was invented.
the Indians did it
our grandparents did it
it's called not wasting anything
<< <i>When I was a kid in MO we bought an old farm. It had a junkpile out back that the farmer had accumulated. That summer my brother and I hauled several pickup loads of scrap iron to the recycler and sold it for .03/lb IIRC. But gas was .29/gal and it made economic sense to recycle it. We did this with no incentive from the govt and it cost taxpayers nothing. 99% of recycling programs today are NOT economically viable and exist only because they are mandated by some law or politically correct contract and are heavily subsidized by either tax money or trash collection fees. I would prefer to let recycling develop on it's own WHEN it becomes economically able to stand on it's own. --Jerry >>
1) Most recycling centers are corporate owned entities and can only be considered "subsidized" in the sense that many municipalities legally mandate recycling of common high churn materials like aluminum, newsprint and plastics 1 through 10. These are independent businesses that turn a profit and employ people. I'm perfectly pleased to let any and all governments continue to contribute what paltry sums they do towards the operation of these facilities on those grounds alone.
2) Recycling common high churn materials such as aluminum, newsprint and plastics 1 through 10 serves to drive down the prices of consumer goods dependent on the usage of those materials. I know we're really only used to seeing post consumer content listed on the side of coffee cups from boutique shops and other perceived nonessentials, but it is now common practice for producers to source as much of their materials as they can from the recycled supply chain. Newspapers and beverages are probably the most impacted products, but there are multitudes. Recycling old packaging makes new products cheaper for everyone.
3) Plastics take a ridiculously long time to break down naturally in landfills - and even when they do the remnants are destructive to nearly everything. Recycling is literally the only responsible way to deal with plastic waste as it never really goes away.
4) America has encouraged and propped up through legislation an artificially cheap production economy for packaging intense goods. As long as corn is subsidized to the point that a package of twinkies costs less than a bag of carrots there will be an unnaturally high amount of packaging to dispose of. Due to public policy companies like Cargill, ADM and Monsanto are able to buy corn at far less than the true cost of production which allows them to bring an astounding variety of products to market at impossibly low prices while still reaping enormous profits. The pressures produced on the market from this arrangement result in the cheapest possible packaging being used which in turn results in a general insouciance by consumers about the fate of that packaging. This is why glass bottles have virtually disappeared from the soda business - certainly giants like Coke and Pepsi can afford the glass but plastic is so cheap by comparison that they don't even have to consider it. This one point alone means that waiting for recycling to become "economically able to stand on its own" (by which I assume you mean than people are faced with the personal financial practicality of recycling rather than discarding) is a terrible idea because the system is skewed in such a way that it will never happen.
I don't personally own any PCGS boxes so I was actually surprised to find out that they weren't recyclable coded. In my opinion it's ridiculous. It's the absolute least they can do to stamp the number on it. I'm certain that their supplier would be able to easily facilitate this.