Should the Mint do what the USPS has done and intentionally create a rarity?

Raufus · January 10, 2016 11:54AM

A year or so ago the USPS re-created the famous Inverted Jenny issue in a $2 format. It was sold in packages which were sealed with the sheet of six $2 stamps not visible. Of the 2,200,100 sheets printed 100 had the Jenny right side up. An example recently sold on ebay for $90K. I was wondering whether this would be a good idea for the Mint - if they could even get this authorized legislatively. With coins being so much more popular than stamps such a coin would bring big $. Of course, I could only imaging the ire of many collectors who would be shut out.

Zoins · January 10, 2016 12:01PM

Sure, why not as long as they were distributed fairly / randomly.

Regarding, getting shut out, the idea would be that you would not get shut out. Mint to demand. The Inverted Jenny retro stamps didn't sell out and were available in post offices for a very, very long time. Perhaps something like 1 for every 50,000?

Raufus · January 10, 2016 12:03PM

Originally posted by: Zoins
Sure, why not as long as they were distributed fairly / randomly.

Regarding, getting shut out, the idea would be that you would not get shut out. Mint to demand. The Inverted Jenny retro stamps didn't sell out and were available in post offices for a very, very long time. Perhaps something like 1 for every 50,000?

They still seem to be online from the USPS. I don't know how many of the right side up ones have been reported so far or even if that data is available. I bought a lot of them as I looked at it as a free lottery as I use them to ship coins. Of course, I didn't get any of the right side up ones. I remember reading about one winner who purchased one sheet from the USPS on ebay. Talk about lucky.

mr1931S · January 10, 2016 12:20PM

No.The Mint's business is not to deliberately create rarities for collectors. Activity like this is a giant step towards making a farce out of collecting accidental rarities that come out of the Mint from time-to-time is the way I see it.

fishcooker · January 10, 2016 12:23PM

My observation over the last 30 years is that Yes the Mint is and has been an active participant in the collectibles marketplace. Sometimes it's fun, sometimes it's ugly.

Zoins · January 10, 2016 12:29PM

Originally posted by: mr1874

No.The Mint's business is not to deliberately create rarities for collectors. Activity like this is a giant step towards making a farce out of collecting accidental rarities that come out of the Mint from time-to-time is the way I see it.

The accidental rarities are the ones the Mint does not want you to collect

As much as I like accidental rarities myself, some may see collecting those as making a farce of the Mint's manufacturing process.

TopographicOceans · January 10, 2016 12:32PM

About 20 years ago the Post Office did a sheet of famous western cowboy stamps.
On one of them, they used the picture of the guys brother instead of the famous cowboy.

After a bunch of discussion on what to do, they decided to sell them by a mail auction. You mailed in the form and a check and if you got selected you would get a sheet (otherwise they'd destroy your check).

My wife won one and made almost $100 selling it.

But that wasn't an intentional error, just a screw-up.
The Mint already does a lot of special packaging marketing for coins that are only available in that set (like the C&C sets)

But maybe they could do something like the Cheerio Sac's again?

COCollector · January 10, 2016 3:55PM

I like the idea of a limited-edition "error" coin. The question is, how to select recipients?

Randomly substituting it for an ordinary coin feels like a gimmick to stimulate sales. I would NOT participate.

Maybe have a lottery? $2 a ticket, with 2 max per household. And if you lose, the money is refundable on your next Mint order.

BackroadJunkie · January 10, 2016 7:35PM

In a way, they do that now, with different finishes in a limited number of a production coin. (For instance, the RP prezbucks.) They are deliberate variations, sometimes in mind numbingly small quantities (compared to the production coin), but the difference is they aren't randomly seeded through the distribution.

On the other hand, let's say the mint randomly inserts a reverse proof or enhanced uncirculated cent, nickel, dime, quarter and half into proof or silver proof sets. Say a mintage of 10K each. Not full sets, just random coins replaced, not all at once, but through the entire year, so there's just as good a chance in December as there was in February...

It's be a brilliant (single year) marketing move by the mint next year in the silver sets, assuming they're going to go .999 in 2017. Of course, the mint as a marketing company sucks, so I wouldn't expect it, but I'm sure it'd increase interest in the sets...

And yes, you could make comparisons between a program like that and randomly inserted, limited edition sports cards...

ricko · January 10, 2016 8:52PM

I would prefer the Mint sticks to standard issue practices.... leave the games to others.

Cheers, RickO

gonzer · January 10, 2016 9:05PM

Dime on a nail....'nuff said.

FullStrike · January 11, 2016 1:57AM

How about some Proof 2016 SAE's with reeded edges? That would be fun.

ctf_error_coins · January 11, 2016 2:03AM

No

oih82w8 · January 11, 2016 2:19AM

I consider some of those recent coins & chronicles intentional mint made rarities, especially Truman & Eisenhower.

AUandAG · January 11, 2016 2:22AM

The mint's quality control is supposed to find the rarities and destroy them....for the most part they do a very good job.

davewesen · January 11, 2016 2:32AM

Did USPS 'intentionally' make this Jenny error?

19Lyds · January 11, 2016 2:48AM

Originally posted by: Raufus

A year or so ago the USPS re-created the famous Inverted Jenny issue in a $2 format. It was sold in packages which were sealed with the sheet of six $2 stamps not visible. Of the 2,200,100 sheets printed 100 had the Jenny right side up. An example recently sold on ebay for $90K. I was wondering whether this would be a good idea for the Mint - if they could even get this authorized legislatively. With coins being so much more popular than stamps such a coin would bring big $. Of course, I could only imaging the ire of many collectors who would be shut out.

I imagine that if Congress were to authorize anything in the collectible arena it might be for 5 and 10 million dollar "tokens" which could be purchased to help cut the National Debt.

mbogoman · January 11, 2016 6:14AM

About 20 years ago the Post Office did a sheet of famous western cowboy stamps. On one of them, they used the picture of the guys brother instead of the famous cowboy. After a bunch of discussion on what to do, they decided to sell them by a mail auction. You mailed in the form and a check and if you got selected you would get a sheet (otherwise they'd destroy your check). My wife won one and made almost $100 selling it. But that wasn't an intentional error, just a screw-up. The Mint already does a lot of special packaging marketing for coins that are only available in that set (like the C&C sets) But maybe they could do something like the Cheerio Sac's again?

Bill Picket, the black cowboy. I got two of them (one for my wife) and made about $350 on them. Only time I've ever got something out of a lottery situation - I got shut out of the GSA CC distribution.

TwoSides2aCoin · January 11, 2016 6:15AM

I don't know. Madonna's bra on ebay , or lunch with WB

coinkat · January 11, 2016 6:16AM

No

epcjimi1 · January 11, 2016 6:26AM

Originally posted by: davewesen
Did USPS 'intentionally' make this Jenny error?

Yes upside down / right side up.

Postal Service Announces Very Limited Edition Stamps Circulated with Recent Issue of Famous ‘Upside Down’ Jenny Stamp
Customers who purchased Inverted Jenny stamps could have one of only 100 stamp sheets printed with plane flying ‘right side up,’

Text

Gimmick.

USMint goes gimmick introducing deliberate errors. MHO

ms70 · January 11, 2016 6:56AM

I think the mint should do what it was created for and nothing else: make money for commerce.

fcloud · January 11, 2016 10:14AM

I think the mint already does. They make the first spouse coins. I think the mintage gets lower with every mintage...

Zoins · January 11, 2016 12:59PM

Originally posted by: davewesen

Did USPS 'intentionally' make this Jenny error?

Yes, but it's actually a non-error. You can read about it on Wikipedia. There are 100 sheets so much less than any modern Mint issue.

One recent non-gimmick missed opportunity would have been to make a 2.5 oz gold 100th anniversary Pan Pac slug similar to the original.

19Lyds · January 11, 2016 3:26PM

Originally posted by: fcloud

I think the mint already does. They make the first spouse coins. I think the mintage gets lower with every mintage...

True but.......the prices will turn to bullion pieces once the series stops.

It's happened before and it will happen with these coins.

Think about it, do these actually trade on a regular basis or is the biggest activity shortly after each coin is released?

Should the Mint do what the USPS has done and intentionally create a rarity?

Comments

Leave a Comment