A U.S. Mint question.
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
Among other things, we sell coins from the current year as soon as they are available and there seems to be a constant demand for them Apparently there is still a steady group of dedicated date/mm collectors. Since I am always 2x2'ing them I tend to notice the quality of the individual coins. For instance, it is clearly visible to anyone that the Denver Mint tends to put out a higher quality product. That includes all denominations.
All that aside, it seems as though the Mint(s) is not really careful about the overall quality of circulation grade coins, the stuff meant for everyday commerce that still goes to collectors. So my question is this: Do you think that the Mint has so many products which require close scrutiny, special finishes and almost perfection that they neglect the ordinary coins??
Al H.
Comments
Well, the minimum standards for circulating coinage are probably fairly low. Sometimes the Mints exceed those and we are happy, but at other times they just meet the standards and we are not, but they haven't done anything wrong.
Look at how nice the S-mint morgans were circa 1879-1882. Somebody there was really quality conscious and it showed, but we got spoiled by the quality and think that there is something wrong with 1883-O dollars, which were perfectly adequate for their intended purpose.
I think that the ONLY quality issue the Mint should consider is survivability of the coins. If striking them half as shallowly doubled the output, I would say do it. If striking with scratched and broken dies would increase the output, fire away.
Circulating coinage is for commerce not artistic presentation or even collecting.
It would be logical to think that there are different standards for Proof, Uncirculated and standard circulating coinage...and also different processes for handling. By the nature of designation, they are effectively different products. JMO.... Cheers, RickO
I always assumed that the absurd volume that the Mint has to produce - BILLIONS of coins a year - necessitated a certain level of acceptable quality.
Be thankful the mint doesn't return to the quality standards for cents and nickels in the early/mid-1920s!
I agree with the OP. During the years the Presidential dollars were issued, most of the boxes of "D" Mint coins were higher quality than the "P's."
I visited and took the tour at the Denver mint just two weeks ago, the tour guides made several comments about the quality control and checks. However after seeing the coins actually being minted and how each batch is checked it all comes down to how the press operator is feeling that day or time of the day. I will say that I agree that most of the stuff I see from the Denver mint is much brighter with more luster while the Philly stuff that I do see looks more satin like in appearance.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
certainly I don't expect the circulation intended coins to be of the quality as the collector intended coins. however, I just think that there are times when the quality is lower than what should be expected. added to that is why the difference between the Mints?? I suppose some can be explained by the fact that the Philadelphia Mint probably has a larger workload than Denver but I would expect the workforce to be larger.
Sounds plausible. Apparently that is why the modern Philly cents have a higher premium than the Denver's but it depends on the particular year in some cases, the 63 D commands much more than the P and even with twice as much production.