Home U.S. Coin Forum
Options

Reasons why the Gold First Spouse is a failure as a series (JMHO)

I realize this is a controversial title!









Curious what you all think?
Do you think the first spouse series is a success or a failure?







I vote for failure.







And here are my primary reasons why.








1. A Terrible subject matter.







Really the best the US Mint could come up with are the wives of presidents? Admittedly some wives made significant contributions (like Eleanor Roosevelt amongst a few others, but is that reason enough to make a whole coin series about them?







2. Terrible and uninspired designs.







Many of these coins are ugly beyond imagination. In the hands of talented designers, I bet it would have been possible to make these better looking. Some of them look like they were designed by 12 year old just learning about coin design.







3. High metal content cost and a resultant high cost per coin.







If you did want to collect the whole series (and no idea why someone would want to), you must be talking about a $40,000+ investment. This is a pile of cash to lay out for what I consider to be some of the ugliest modern coins ever produced.







4. Falling Gold Prices since 2011 or so.







Final nail in the coffin was the falling price of gold after 2011. So any coins bought over the past 5 years are probably underwanter in terms of value.







5. Final thoughts.







Point 1: I only really like 4 of the FS coins, and those are the Liberty Subset for presidents that didnt have wives. Where they used old U.S. Coin Deisgns on the obverse. Those are actually kind of cool looking (IMHO) ... Or at least I dont want to throw up when looking at them. But what does it say about a series when the BEST coins of the series are those that dont actually (technically) fit into the series ... LOL







Point 2: I think a few collectors keep trying to guess which one will be the lowest mintage and buy that hoping for a future windfall. But the mintages of most of them are really low. The issue is, who are you going to sell them to? I dont know anyone that is exciting about collecting the series (but I suppse there might be a few out there somewhere?)







Yes, I do own these four. So I contributed to the insanity. but other than the Jackson, I kind of hate the other 3 reverses.







image


Comments

  • FullStrikeFullStrike Posts: 4,353 ✭✭✭
    Too bad they didn't make em a 1/10 oz Coin. The series might have flourished.



    Maybe the First Pets Coins will be 1/10 oz ?
  • AUandAGAUandAG Posts: 24,929 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I totally agree, well at least mostly agree.



    I did not particularly like the designs either. Seems old dead men just don't turn me on.



    Now the same goes with the spouses....with one exception. I did buy the Jackie Kennedy as she was one class act!



    bobimage



    PS: after having Jackie for a while (still in unopened box) I see that if I tried to sell it would be at a loss.
    Registry: CC lowballs (boblindstrom), bobinvegas1989@yahoo.com
  • SonorandesertratSonorandesertrat Posts: 5,695 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This view of the First Spouse series is not particularly controversial. It a commonly expressed opinion. There was a recent article in Coinweek (try Google) that said pretty much the same thing.
    Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA

    RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'

    CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 34,758 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I did buy the Jackie Kennedy as she was one class act!


    I agree. That is only piece from that series that is in my collection. It sits beside the JFK gold half dollar.


    I did buy the Draped Bust piece because I have long admired that design, but the mint sent a really poor example to me. Fortunately I sold that one for a small profit when I was dealer because the price of bullion was up at the time. That coin was so screwed up, I'm sure it got melted.


    As I've written before, this series covered a topic that should not have been addressed with a set of commemorative coins. Although there have been some good First Ladies and some of historical note, most of them went along for the ride and should not have been honored by a commemorative coin, especially a gold commemorative coin.

    Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
  • MilesWaitsMilesWaits Posts: 5,416 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This is a melt price series, at best. I would think these will, as a whole, trade much like dinged up American eagles and scratched up maples.



    Those reverses are barely suitable for dollar coins. They all have a " let's circulate these dogs" look to me that speaks well for pocket change but not for collectible gold.



    I feel fortunate I put my gold funds elsewhere. Unless, I can pay below spot for the spousal abusers.
    Now riding the swell in PM's and surf.
  • dpooledpoole Posts: 5,940 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The Liberty subseries was a pleasant surprise, and I do enjoy having them.



    I remain very sorry that Congress screwed up that one winning aspect of the series, and substituted Alice Paul during Chester Arthur's tenure instead of the contemporary Liberty design. Whoever came up with that idea (it came by dictate from Congress, of course) should be taken out and flogged (probably the same person who came up with the First Spouse series idea in the first place).



    On the other hand, gold's gold, When the price goes up again, we may see a "rediscovery" of this obscure series and a surge in interest. Stranger things have happened in numismatics.
  • 291fifth291fifth Posts: 24,670 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This was a completely unneeded series of expensive "coins". It never inspired much interest except for the Liberty head designs (which I consider the worst of the series as they are nothing more than inferior copies of the original designs). I wonder what percentage of these have already been sent to the melting pot?
    All glory is fleeting.
  • OverdateOverdate Posts: 7,155 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Most of those following the series will probably select individual coins for their collections rather than going after the complete set. Classic commemorative halves are often collected in this way.

    My Adolph A. Weinman signature :)

  • rickoricko Posts: 98,724 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The entire concept was politically driven (political correctness) to get women on a coin series.

    The designs are terrible (ugly actually), and the only (IMO) redeeming value is that they are

    gold. I do not foresee them ever worth much more than melt. I would not pay that much...well,

    I would not pay anything unless it was approaching 3/4 of melt. Cheers, RickO
  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 34,758 ✭✭✭✭✭
    If the economy ever recovers to prosperity, look for a marketer to push these things as "Rare collectables that were underappreciated in their time." The marketing strategy will push the low mintages, "unknown numbers that have been melted," and "classic, historic beauty" of these "collectors' treasures." These things are like tulip bulbs that never bloomed, but if a promoter can add enough manure, they might get lucky.


    The biggest problem any marketing scheme will face is the fact these things each contain one half ounce of gold, which will keep the riff-raff from participating. I've seen ads for the tenth ounce Gold Eagles in non-collector magazines, but these things with five times the gold content will be a harder sell.

    Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
  • MilesWaitsMilesWaits Posts: 5,416 ✭✭✭✭✭
    These tick-infested mutts of the gold world make a Gold Kennedy "almost" smell like a UHR.

    From a distance, of course, where the deaf are King.

    I have made a few buying errors in my short collecting life, but thankfully, never as fateful or futile as this series.
    Now riding the swell in PM's and surf.
  • TwoSides2aCoinTwoSides2aCoin Posts: 44,554 ✭✭✭✭✭
    24K Au stacks just as easily as .999 Ag
  • WillieBoyd2WillieBoyd2 Posts: 5,266 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The American Arts Commemorative medals of the early 1980's had the same problems.

    One can still get them for a little over the price of gold.

    image
    https://www.brianrxm.com
    The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
    Coins in Movies
    Coins on Television

  • ElKevvoElKevvo Posts: 4,134 ✭✭✭✭✭
    All of the reasons in the OP's post are very valid. I have the Liberty sub series and am happy with that. I honestly don't think the majority will (should?) ever command a premium.



    K
    ANA LM
  • ebaytraderebaytrader Posts: 3,312 ✭✭✭
    The Mint premium on top of the high entry fee (the AGW / price) caused many casual players to pass. A $5 piece with the minimal premium the Mint could stomach might have made for a 2x+ as popular series.

    Edited to add:

    There's been no one broadly supporting prices in the modern gold market since Bob Lecce's passing. Few people realize how important it is for market makers in price perceptions.
  • BryceMBryceM Posts: 11,851 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Things made to be collectors items don't normally appeal to me. There are rare exceptions. The points in the OP are very good ones.



    I appreciate a few of the classic commems and really like five or six of them. The only modern commems that appeal to me (slightly) are the 2009 UHR and the baseball "coin." Beyond that, it's just an attempt by our government to turn a profit on something the non-subsidized private sector could do better.



    The Liberty subseries is OK, but still are just retreads of designs better executed on the originals.
  • jmski52jmski52 Posts: 23,224 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The difference between these and proof sets from the '70s, '80s and '90s is...... 1/2 oz of gold. Most of them will trend towards melt until gold takes another ride. When it does, the series will gain some support and "some" will be enough to drive premiums up because there won't be many around at that point. Of course, that might be awhile.image
    Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally

    I knew it would happen.
  • DeepCoinDeepCoin Posts: 2,781 ✭✭✭
    I believe the major problem is cost. When the series began, the coins were somewhere around $450 at issue. My memory may fail me, but it was in that range. With the run up of gold and silver, many of the Mint products are priced out of range of the original target market. This includes proof sets, both silver and clad. The days of being able to buy an inexpensive SAE or proof set for children or grandchildren at Christmas or for birthdays is no longer possible with the price of metals.

    The subject matter is open to discussion, as I liked the ones where classic coins were used when there was no spouse. But I did not like them enough to buy what is essentially a bullion coin, tying up lots of resources in a series I did not see completing. If I were a gold bug, I might have gone for the short set of Liberty's, but I am not.
    Retired United States Mint guy, now working on an Everyman Type Set.
  • OverdateOverdate Posts: 7,155 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Collecting the series as a whole requires deep pockets, but a "short set" of the more significant and well-known spouses might be affordable for many - especially since many of these coins can be acquired at a modest premium to melt.

    Such a "short set" could include Martha Washington, Dolley Madison, Mary Todd Lincoln, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jackie Kennedy, and possibly a few others.

    My Adolph A. Weinman signature :)

  • illini420illini420 Posts: 11,466 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: DeepCoin
    I believe the major problem is cost. When the series began, the coins were somewhere around $450 at issue. My memory may fail me, but it was in that range. With the run up of gold and silver, many of the Mint products are priced out of range of the original target market. This includes proof sets, both silver and clad. The days of being able to buy an inexpensive SAE or proof set for children or grandchildren at Christmas or for birthdays is no longer possible with the price of metals.

    The subject matter is open to discussion, as I liked the ones where classic coins were used when there was no spouse. But I did not like them enough to buy what is essentially a bullion coin, tying up lots of resources in a series I did not see completing. If I were a gold bug, I might have gone for the short set of Liberty's, but I am not.



    Exactly. The series was initially pretty hot when the coins were under $500 each. Then, very quickly the price of each coin was over $750, then it went to over $1000 per coin with the huge run up in gold prices. I think that, more than anything, killed the momentum of this series.

  • I have noticed that some of the early spouses have few first strike
    strike labels, even though the more modern ones with much lower
    mintages have many first strike labels. will these spouses with
    say 100 or less first strike labels, hold up better price wise better then the
    others?
  • 291fifth291fifth Posts: 24,670 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: CoinMaster1229
    I have noticed that some of the early spouses have few first strike
    strike labels, even though the more modern ones with much lower
    mintages have many first strike labels. will these spouses with
    say 100 or less first strike labels, hold up better price wise better then the
    others?


    Just how many collectors of these really care about the First Strike labels? The premium I would allow for such a label would be zero, assuming I actually wanted to buy any, which I don't.

    All glory is fleeting.
  • MilesWaitsMilesWaits Posts: 5,416 ✭✭✭✭✭
    These will do very very well, like many other bullion coins measured in spot pricing, once gold raises up to a higher level.

    This series, since so many bought at inflated pricing, will be very ripe for the melt, and who knows, that may get the mintage to an interesting and unknown level!

    Until then, spot minus.
    Now riding the swell in PM's and surf.
  • OPAOPA Posts: 17,138 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I do not collect that set nor do I have any intentions of doing so. As a contrarian by nature, I believe, due to the low mintage, they will do very well 10+ years from now. Just review previous low mintage & at the time, unpopular gold coins, as a reference.
    "Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
  • LanLordLanLord Posts: 11,723 ✭✭✭✭✭
    In a century or two, people will be slobbering over a few of the lower mintage issues just like they do with Stellas today.



    Hey, it could happen!
  • BillJonesBillJones Posts: 34,758 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: LanLord
    In a century or two, people will be slobbering over a few of the lower mintage issues just like they do with Stellas today.

    Hey, it could happen!


    It all depends upon what is view as "low mintage" at that time. The most common Stella has a mintage of 425. None of the First Spouse coins are that low, most all of the surviving First Spouse coins will have higher grades, much higher grades. A lot of the surviving Stellas are messed up from what I've seen.
    Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
  • OverdateOverdate Posts: 7,155 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: LanLord
    In a century or two, people will be slobbering over a few of the lower mintage issues just like they do with Stellas today.

    That's why they should stay in their capsules! image

    My Adolph A. Weinman signature :)

  • Well many First Strike labels sell for very good premiums, that would imply many collectors value them!
  • TopographicOceansTopographicOceans Posts: 6,535 ✭✭✭✭
    I bought a proof and unc Jackie Kennedy, sent them to PCGS and sold them on eBay.

    I made $32.

    I wouldn't collect the series, but these were a success.

  • BackroadJunkieBackroadJunkie Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭✭✭
    For me, it was all about the abysmal designs. If I was going to by 41 OZT of gold, it wouldn't be these. (I did buy the Jefferson FS coin, but it ended there...)

    And they're going out with a whimper. I like Nancy, but nowhere close enough to buy the coin.

    image
  • 291fifth291fifth Posts: 24,670 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: CoinMaster1229
    Well many First Strike labels sell for very good premiums, that would imply many collectors value them!


    But will these premiums last over time? I doubt it.

    All glory is fleeting.
  • OperationButterOperationButter Posts: 1,672 ✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: OPA

    I do not collect that set nor do I have any intentions of doing so. As a contrarian by nature, I believe, due to the low mintage, they will do very well 10+ years from now. Just review previous low mintage & at the time, unpopular gold coins, as a reference.




    OPA I strongly agree with you. The set I have built, MS and PR, will be held for a very long time, however, I think that these will do quite well over time. Quite funny to read many of the posts in this thread. Ive never seen so much venom against a series. Its quite comical really.
    Gold is for savings. Fiat is for transactions.



    BST Transactions (as the seller): Collectall, GRANDAM, epcjimi1, wondercoin, jmski52, wheathoarder, jay1187, jdsueu, grote15, airplanenut, bigole
  • OverdateOverdate Posts: 7,155 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Originally posted by: CoinMaster1229
    Well many First Strike labels sell for very good premiums, that would imply many collectors value them!

    Many First Strikes have decent premiums in MS70 and PR70, but the First Strike label adds little or no premium for First Spouse coins in lower grades.

    My Adolph A. Weinman signature :)

  • wondercoinwondercoin Posts: 16,997 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A board member asked me today to assist him with selling his entire collection (Mint State and Proof) of Gold Spouse (2007-Date) all grading PCGS 70 FIRST STRIKE! I suggested one of the major auctions this Summer in Anaheim (where I am preparing a large consignment) and he was receptive to that. So, anyone seriously interested in these coins in 70 FIRST STRIKE grade (including the "toughies") - stay tuned!

    Wondercoin
    Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
  • jmski52jmski52 Posts: 23,224 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A full collection of these things didn't do too badly today. Just sayin'.image
    Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally

    I knew it would happen.
  • wondercoinwondercoin Posts: 16,997 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Not at all! And, the (89) generic spouse gold coins I was offering over on the BST board last week to board members (all sold to 3 different folks) are up about $2,500.00 (total) in a single day!

    Wondercoin
    Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.

Leave a Comment

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