Options
The U.S. Mint might be redesigning a new Dime, Quarter, and Half in 2016! Update 9/19/14
Stooge
Posts: 4,646 ✭✭✭✭✭
In their annual meeting at the 2014 World's fair of Money in Chicago, the U.S. Mint released a couple of statements regarding some possible U.S. Mint products for the 2015 & 2016 calendar years which include:
U.S. Mint plans special collector products in 2015 and 2016 & Product to include special 2015 ANA show release
U.S. Mint to issue a 2015 Reverse Proof set, according to Mint officials
Some very interesting ideas floating around the Mint lately. Good to see.
Paul.
U.S. Mint plans special collector products in 2015 and 2016 & Product to include special 2015 ANA show release
U.S. Mint to issue a 2015 Reverse Proof set, according to Mint officials
Some very interesting ideas floating around the Mint lately. Good to see.
Paul.
Later, Paul.
0
Comments
We'll use our hands and hearts and if we must we'll use our heads.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
+1!!!
<< <i>>>>So sick of the current issues!! <<<
+1!!! >>
+1 to infinity....
I'm just so sick of the dead President theme on our coins. It is on several different Countries coins & currency.
There has to be something different to put on the money we use.
Getting back to the 1916-2016 100th anniversary redesign. I for 1 would love to see the mint put out a 2016-D/S/P/W Mercury Dime and if they do the D, they could match the mintage of the 1916-D and randomly insert them into the 2016 Mint sets. That would be awesome. No long lines at the A.N.A. and everyone would have the same equal chance to obtain the Dime. They could put one in every 100 mint set or so and then everyone would have to open the sets to see if they received one or not.
Good idea?
Paul.
Later, Paul.
<< <i> They could put one in every 100 mint set or so and then everyone would have to open the sets to see if they received one or not.
Good idea?
Paul. >>
If they matched the 1916d mintage of 264,000 with a 1 in 100 mint sets they would have to sell 26,400,000 mint sets. In recent years, with almost 30 coins in a set and a price of $30+ they can't even sell 1,000,000 sets. But the key problems to your idea is collectors who would love to own a 2016d mercury dime would not pay $30+ for the CHANCE to get one. Also, with such a plan by the US Mint, some very enterprising dealers would figure a way to acquire most of these coins and sell them directly to collectors for whatever the market will pay. Unfortunately, in this country, as we saw in Rosemont, and as we see every day, the name of the game is MONEY.
Paul,
I only wish your idea could work to bring some excitement into collecting coins for their historical significance, but I just don't see how it can happen in our society.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Good idea Paul.
<< <i>
<< <i> They could put one in every 100 mint set or so and then everyone would have to open the sets to see if they received one or not.
Good idea?
Paul. >>
If they matched the 1916d mintage of 264,000 with a 1 in 100 mint sets they would have to sell 26,400,000 mint sets. In recent years, with almost 30 coins in a set and a price of $30+ they can't even sell 1,000,000 sets. But the key problems to your idea is collectors who would love to own a 2016d mercury dime would not pay $30+ for the CHANCE to get one. Also, with such a plan by the US Mint, some very enterprising dealers would figure a way to acquire most of these coins and sell them directly to collectors for whatever the market will pay. Unfortunately, in this country, as we saw in Rosemont, and as we see every day, the name of the game is MONEY.
Paul,
I only wish your idea could work to bring some excitement into collecting coins for their historical significance, but I just don't see how it can happen in our society.
Steve
Steve,
To be honest, I forgot the mintage figures for the 1916-D Dime, and I didn't do the math, but I just went with my passion as a collector. I know that the Mint could come up with some sort of plan to make the 100 anniversary work out better then the total disaster in Rosemont. As far as the dealers are concerned, they will make their money selling any of the mint products no matter how the Mint sells them. It is a very unfortunate situation, but I do feel that if the Mint puts a coin in a set of any kind "Randomly" it kills it just enough for the dealer and gives the average Joe collector a fighting chance.
I also feel that if you put an identically minted 2016-D Mercury Dime in the Mint set that is blow by blow 100% identical as the 1916-D except for the 2016 date, the Mint would probably sell more then 1,000,000 Mint sets. JMHO.
Thanks for your input Steve...it is always welcome.
Paul.
Later, Paul.
Modifying the designs to today's tastes. Using reissued designs
is NOT the way to go. Having another Mercury Dime or SLQ -
Walking Liberty designs with 2016 dates is utterly ridiculous.
You can see I was not a big fan of the AGE - or - ASE 's Obverses.
Our historical designs shouldn't be resurrected for the mere sake
of changing out our current designs. I agree it's about time we
change out all our circulating coin designs. The Lincoln Cent has a
New Reverse - and it's based on an old pattern coin. I see no reason
not to follow in those footsteps and issue coins with old patterns that
have been modified.
Last note on this subject: I hope the ANA flatly refuses to allow the US Mint
to ever come back to a ANA sponsored show if they are introducing new
coinage at the show. They shouldn't be allowed to cause the show's participants
to loose money for attending the ANA show, as was the case at the August 2014
ANA Show.
Edit to add: this is my 10,000th post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
New Barber Purchases
<< <i>Using reissued designs
is NOT the way to go. Having another Mercury Dime or SLQ -
Walking Liberty designs with 2016 dates is utterly ridiculous. >>
<< <i>Our historical designs shouldn't be resurrected for the mere sake
of changing out our current designs. I agree it's about time we
change out all our circulating coin designs. The Lincoln Cent has a
New Reverse - and it's based on an old pattern coin. I see no reason
not to follow in those footsteps and issue coins with old patterns that
have been modified.
Edit to add: this is my 10,000th post. >>
Let me say that I wish the U.S. Mint would just completely do away with the resurrecting of ALL old mint designs and come up with new ones, even doing away with the 100th anniversary ideas they have brewing. The ONLY reason I bring it up is because the U.S. Mint with their infinite wisdom is going to do this kinda of 100th celebrating anyway, so why not throw some ideas out there. The problem with our coinage is that we have had the same old tired "Dead President" themed coinage going on over 100 years with the Lincoln cent, and unfortunately in our lifetime no one alive will be around to remember what it is like to see beautiful circulating money.
Congrats on your 10,00th post! That is quite an achievement. One that I won't see for a few years.
Paul.
Later, Paul.
Meeting Aug. 7 with Coin World at the 2014 convention in Rosemont, Ill., Deputy U.S. Mint Director Richard A. Peterson said the final product approved for the 2015 show release will be a hit with the collecting public.
“We like the rhythm the Mint is on,” Peterson said, his statement coming on the heels of the successful Aug. 5 launch of the 1964–2014-W Proof gold Kennedy half dollar.
==============================================================[
What part of the debacle Kennedy launch involving rent-a-buyers and endangering the security of the coin dealers at the ANA show could be considered "successful"?
Nonetheless I am cheered by the prospect of new designs based on the classic motifs of Adolph Weinman and Hermon MacNeil.
Best Regards,
George
Later, Paul.
I would expect the coins to actually look like junk since it appears that ANYTHING the US Mint does in high volume comes out looking fairly crappy once the press operators get into the swing of things.
Just look at the Satin Finish Mint Sets. 2005, the inaugural year, produced some very nice looking, high quality coins. By the time they got to 2010, the quality dropped significantly which is reflected in the population reports.
I can imagine that reverse proof finished sets will have a lot of undesireable coins within them. Needless to say, I'm not very excited about what they are considering since they barely scrape by with what they currently offer.
What I'd like to see them do, is just address their quality control issues as there is absolutely no reason that a proof coin should be sent out with a scratch or a die imperfection.
That would impress me.
The name is LEE!