@RiveraFamilyCollect said:
You can still buy it from the mint.
$20 for 1.5 inch
$60 for 3 inch
Thanks for the warning.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I checked my order history on the Mint's website and as late as December 2017, the 3-inch bronze medals were still selling for $39.95 plus the usual $4.95 shipping charge. If my memory serves me well, and because I purchased several medals during that particular month, I believe the current price structure for bronze medals of both sizes (3-inch and 1 and 5/16-inch) went into effect on Jan. 1, 2018.
Addendum: I also remember the rationale the Mint gave in quadrupling their prices on the 3-inch bronze medals: they had been losing money on them for years and needed to make some "adjustments." I still wonder how such a dramatic increase impacted their sales.
... also commemorating the police officers who lied under oath plus the FBI informants who also entered the building and were not prosecuted. IMO, the only good thing about that medal is its very attractive design.
Other than @fiftysevener 's slightly more subtle political comment, this thread has dodged raindrops and stayed pretty apolitical. Impressive considering the topic.
Why am I not surprised this poster decided to air his political views inappropriately?
I see very few apolitical posts on this thread. They are almost all political, though mostly subtle. What do you think the references to Ft Sumter and DOGE are?
@FreeThinker said:
I checked my order history on the Mint's website and as late as December 2017, the 3-inch bronze medals were still selling for $39.95 plus the usual $4.95 shipping charge. If my memory serves me well, and because I purchased several medals during that particular month, I believe the current price structure for bronze medals of both sizes (3-inch and 1 and 5/16-inch) went into effect on Jan. 1, 2018.
Addendum: I also remember the rationale the Mint gave in quadrupling their prices on the 3-inch bronze medals: they had been losing money on them for years and needed to make some "adjustments." I still wonder how such a dramatic increase impacted their sales.
Per this CW article, the '$20/$160' pricing structure for bronze medals started Jan 1, 2021.
Addendum: I also remember the rationale the Mint gave in quadrupling their prices on the 3-inch bronze medals: they had been losing money on them for years and needed to make some "adjustments." I still wonder how such a dramatic increase impacted their sales.
I think (but am not sure ) that their calculations regarding costs included the cost of creating the original gold medals that were given to those being honored. But, those design and die preparation costs would have been incurred whether or not bronze versions were struck.
I occassionally purchased the large medals, which are quite impressive, but I haven't even considered it once the price increase went into effect.
The current cost of the smaller medals is equally as disincentivizing.
... also commemorating the police officers who lied under oath plus the FBI informants who also entered the building and were not prosecuted. IMO, the only good thing about that medal is its very attractive design.
Other than @fiftysevener 's slightly more subtle political comment, this thread has dodged raindrops and stayed pretty apolitical. Impressive considering the topic.
Why am I not surprised this poster decided to air his political views inappropriately?
I see very few apolitical posts on this thread. They are almost all political, though mostly subtle. What do you think the references to Ft Sumter and DOGE are?
Historical.
Lmfao. Touche'
Please support me with the moderators when I get banned for a "historical" rant.
Addendum: I also remember the rationale the Mint gave in quadrupling their prices on the 3-inch bronze medals: they had been losing money on them for years and needed to make some "adjustments." I still wonder how such a dramatic increase impacted their sales.
I think (but am not sure ) that their calculations regarding costs included the cost of creating the original gold medals that were given to those being honored. But, those design and die preparation costs would have been incurred whether or not bronze versions were struck.
I occassionally purchased the large medals, which are quite impressive, but I haven't even considered it once the price increase went into effect.
The current cost of the smaller medals is equally as disincentivizing.
They raised all their prices. It has nothing to do with gold medals. All of their medals are the same price.
... also commemorating the police officers who lied under oath plus the FBI informants who also entered the building and were not prosecuted. IMO, the only good thing about that medal is its very attractive design.
Other than @fiftysevener 's slightly more subtle political comment, this thread has dodged raindrops and stayed pretty apolitical. Impressive considering the topic.
Why am I not surprised this poster decided to air his political views inappropriately?
I see very few apolitical posts on this thread. They are almost all political, though mostly subtle. What do you think the references to Ft Sumter and DOGE are?
Throw em all in jail I say. The Collectors Universe U.S. Coin Forum is no place for politics. RGDS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Addendum: I also remember the rationale the Mint gave in quadrupling their prices on the 3-inch bronze medals: they had been losing money on them for years and needed to make some "adjustments." I still wonder how such a dramatic increase impacted their sales.
I think (but am not sure ) that their calculations regarding costs included the cost of creating the original gold medals that were given to those being honored. But, those design and die preparation costs would have been incurred whether or not bronze versions were struck.
I occassionally purchased the large medals, which are quite impressive, but I haven't even considered it once the price increase went into effect.
The current cost of the smaller medals is equally as disincentivizing.
They raised all their prices. It has nothing to do with gold medals. All of their medals are the same price.
It is clear that all bronze medals are priced the same for each size, However, I'm not sure it's appropriate to dismiss the idea of the cost of the gold medals impacting the price of the bronze medals.
In 2002 when the mint announced an earlier price increase, they included this:
Over the last 6 years, prices for the bronze medals have not changed despite rising costs of production — both labor and materials. By adjusting prices, the Mint will ensure that the medals program remains in compliance with authorizing legislation, which requires that the medals be sold "at a price sufficient to cover the costs thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, and the cost of materials."
For the gold medals, the costs of design, die preparation, etc. were going to be incurred whether or not they minted bronze duplicates. It doesn't cost as much to simply strike bronze medals from existing dies as it would to create a design from scratch.
Of course, once the prices were raised substantially I am sure sales plummeted, and I am doubtful that was part of their equation.
... also commemorating the police officers who lied under oath plus the FBI informants who also entered the building and were not prosecuted. IMO, the only good thing about that medal is its very attractive design.
Other than @fiftysevener 's slightly more subtle political comment, this thread has dodged raindrops and stayed pretty apolitical. Impressive considering the topic.
Why am I not surprised this poster decided to air his political views inappropriately?
I see very few apolitical posts on this thread. They are almost all political, though mostly subtle. What do you think the references to Ft Sumter and DOGE are?
Throw em all in jail I say. The Collectors Universe U.S. Coin Forum is no place for politics. RGDS!
Addendum: I also remember the rationale the Mint gave in quadrupling their prices on the 3-inch bronze medals: they had been losing money on them for years and needed to make some "adjustments." I still wonder how such a dramatic increase impacted their sales.
I think (but am not sure ) that their calculations regarding costs included the cost of creating the original gold medals that were given to those being honored. But, those design and die preparation costs would have been incurred whether or not bronze versions were struck.
I occassionally purchased the large medals, which are quite impressive, but I haven't even considered it once the price increase went into effect.
The current cost of the smaller medals is equally as disincentivizing.
They raised all their prices. It has nothing to do with gold medals. All of their medals are the same price.
It is clear that all bronze medals are priced the same for each size, However, I'm not sure it's appropriate to dismiss the idea of the cost of the gold medals impacting the price of the bronze medals.
In 2002 when the mint announced an earlier price increase, they included this:
Over the last 6 years, prices for the bronze medals have not changed despite rising costs of production — both labor and materials. By adjusting prices, the Mint will ensure that the medals program remains in compliance with authorizing legislation, which requires that the medals be sold "at a price sufficient to cover the costs thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, and the cost of materials."
For the gold medals, the costs of design, die preparation, etc. were going to be incurred whether or not they minted bronze duplicates. It doesn't cost as much to simply strike bronze medals from existing dies as it would to create a design from scratch.
Of course, once the prices were raised substantially I am sure sales plummeted, and I am doubtful that was part of their equation.
Yes, but you would need to make the dies even if you don't make any gold coins.
Addendum: I also remember the rationale the Mint gave in quadrupling their prices on the 3-inch bronze medals: they had been losing money on them for years and needed to make some "adjustments." I still wonder how such a dramatic increase impacted their sales.
I think (but am not sure ) that their calculations regarding costs included the cost of creating the original gold medals that were given to those being honored. But, those design and die preparation costs would have been incurred whether or not bronze versions were struck.
I occassionally purchased the large medals, which are quite impressive, but I haven't even considered it once the price increase went into effect.
The current cost of the smaller medals is equally as disincentivizing.
They raised all their prices. It has nothing to do with gold medals. All of their medals are the same price.
It is clear that all bronze medals are priced the same for each size, However, I'm not sure it's appropriate to dismiss the idea of the cost of the gold medals impacting the price of the bronze medals.
In 2002 when the mint announced an earlier price increase, they included this:
Over the last 6 years, prices for the bronze medals have not changed despite rising costs of production — both labor and materials. By adjusting prices, the Mint will ensure that the medals program remains in compliance with authorizing legislation, which requires that the medals be sold "at a price sufficient to cover the costs thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, and the cost of materials."
For the gold medals, the costs of design, die preparation, etc. were going to be incurred whether or not they minted bronze duplicates. It doesn't cost as much to simply strike bronze medals from existing dies as it would to create a design from scratch.
Of course, once the prices were raised substantially I am sure sales plummeted, and I am doubtful that was part of their equation.
Yes, but you would need to make the dies even if you don't make any gold coins.
But you wouldn't be making any dies (for those medals) if there weren't any gold medals made. The bronze versions only exist because of the gold medals, and the associated costs of design and die production would be incurred for the gold medals regardless. That one gold medal incurs those costs.
(This does not apply to the president, Secretary of the Treasury, etc. medals that are not based on a gold medal).
... also commemorating the police officers who lied under oath plus the FBI informants who also entered the building and were not prosecuted. IMO, the only good thing about that medal is its very attractive design.
Other than @fiftysevener 's slightly more subtle political comment, this thread has dodged raindrops and stayed pretty apolitical. Impressive considering the topic.
Why am I not surprised this poster decided to air his political views inappropriately?
I see very few apolitical posts on this thread. They are almost all political, though mostly subtle. What do you think the references to Ft Sumter and DOGE are?
Throw em all in jail I say. The Collectors Universe U.S. Coin Forum is no place for politics. RGDS!
We can agree to disagree, politely.
Doesn't matter what you or I agree or disagree on. Rules are rules and the mods on this forum have jailed and banned members for much less. Remember this is their house, they make the rules. THKS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Notwithstanding the politics inferred in its subject matter, I do find the medal aesthetically pleasing and overall, a strong design that effectively conveys its intended message, at least in my professional judgment.
Hats off to Chief Engraver Joseph Menna for a superb job!
Mint medals are now quite overpriced. It might cost a lot to make them because they must be struck and annealed multiple times, but the demand for them in the secondary market is not there.
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 ... ?
... also commemorating the police officers who lied under oath plus the FBI informants who also entered the building and were not prosecuted. IMO, the only good thing about that medal is its very attractive design.
Other than @fiftysevener 's slightly more subtle political comment, this thread has dodged raindrops and stayed pretty apolitical. Impressive considering the topic.
Why am I not surprised this poster decided to air his political views inappropriately?
I see very few apolitical posts on this thread. They are almost all political, though mostly subtle. What do you think the references to Ft Sumter and DOGE are?
Throw em all in jail I say. The Collectors Universe U.S. Coin Forum is no place for politics. RGDS!
We can agree to disagree, politely.
Doesn't matter what you or I agree or disagree on. Rules are rules and the mods on this forum have jailed and banned members for much less. Remember this is their house, they make the rules. THKS!
We have lots of political discussions on these boards.
For example, the 1933 Double Eagle case, the lobbying for commemorative coins, the "In God We Trust" motto.
Addendum: I also remember the rationale the Mint gave in quadrupling their prices on the 3-inch bronze medals: they had been losing money on them for years and needed to make some "adjustments." I still wonder how such a dramatic increase impacted their sales.
I think (but am not sure ) that their calculations regarding costs included the cost of creating the original gold medals that were given to those being honored. But, those design and die preparation costs would have been incurred whether or not bronze versions were struck.
I occassionally purchased the large medals, which are quite impressive, but I haven't even considered it once the price increase went into effect.
The current cost of the smaller medals is equally as disincentivizing.
They raised all their prices. It has nothing to do with gold medals. All of their medals are the same price.
It is clear that all bronze medals are priced the same for each size, However, I'm not sure it's appropriate to dismiss the idea of the cost of the gold medals impacting the price of the bronze medals.
In 2002 when the mint announced an earlier price increase, they included this:
Over the last 6 years, prices for the bronze medals have not changed despite rising costs of production — both labor and materials. By adjusting prices, the Mint will ensure that the medals program remains in compliance with authorizing legislation, which requires that the medals be sold "at a price sufficient to cover the costs thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, and the cost of materials."
For the gold medals, the costs of design, die preparation, etc. were going to be incurred whether or not they minted bronze duplicates. It doesn't cost as much to simply strike bronze medals from existing dies as it would to create a design from scratch.
Of course, once the prices were raised substantially I am sure sales plummeted, and I am doubtful that was part of their equation.
Yes, but you would need to make the dies even if you don't make any gold coins.
But you wouldn't be making any dies (for those medals) if there weren't any gold medals made. The bronze versions only exist because of the gold medals, and the associated costs of design and die production would be incurred for the gold medals regardless. That one gold medal incurs those costs.
(This does not apply to the president, Secretary of the Treasury, etc. medals that are not based on a gold medal).
So what? It's the same cost model as the bronze and the SAME PRICE. Oddly, you are looking for a difference to justify the sameness. Any cost the gold medals added DOESN'T show up in the pricing of the medals which is the SAME for all the medals, including ones that had dies made DECADES AGO.
@WillieBoyd2 said:
We have lots of political discussions on these boards.
For example, the 1933 Double Eagle case, the lobbying for commemorative coins, the "In God We Trust" motto.
Those are not political in the same way. And those politics are about the coin. The politics on this thread have almost nothing to do with the coin itself.
Addendum: I also remember the rationale the Mint gave in quadrupling their prices on the 3-inch bronze medals: they had been losing money on them for years and needed to make some "adjustments." I still wonder how such a dramatic increase impacted their sales.
I think (but am not sure ) that their calculations regarding costs included the cost of creating the original gold medals that were given to those being honored. But, those design and die preparation costs would have been incurred whether or not bronze versions were struck.
I occassionally purchased the large medals, which are quite impressive, but I haven't even considered it once the price increase went into effect.
The current cost of the smaller medals is equally as disincentivizing.
They raised all their prices. It has nothing to do with gold medals. All of their medals are the same price.
It is clear that all bronze medals are priced the same for each size, However, I'm not sure it's appropriate to dismiss the idea of the cost of the gold medals impacting the price of the bronze medals.
In 2002 when the mint announced an earlier price increase, they included this:
Over the last 6 years, prices for the bronze medals have not changed despite rising costs of production — both labor and materials. By adjusting prices, the Mint will ensure that the medals program remains in compliance with authorizing legislation, which requires that the medals be sold "at a price sufficient to cover the costs thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, and the cost of materials."
For the gold medals, the costs of design, die preparation, etc. were going to be incurred whether or not they minted bronze duplicates. It doesn't cost as much to simply strike bronze medals from existing dies as it would to create a design from scratch.
Of course, once the prices were raised substantially I am sure sales plummeted, and I am doubtful that was part of their equation.
Yes, but you would need to make the dies even if you don't make any gold coins.
But you wouldn't be making any dies (for those medals) if there weren't any gold medals made. The bronze versions only exist because of the gold medals, and the associated costs of design and die production would be incurred for the gold medals regardless. That one gold medal incurs those costs.
(This does not apply to the president, Secretary of the Treasury, etc. medals that are not based on a gold medal).
So what? It's the same cost model as the bronze and the SAME PRICE. Oddly, you are looking for a difference to justify the sameness. Any cost the gold medals added DOESN'T show up in the pricing of the medals which is the SAME for all the medals, including ones that had dies made DECADES AGO.
When you're caught being wrong you just turn to the "so what" argument. 🙄
You had said that the cost of producing the gold medals has nothing to do with the cost of the bronze duplicates. That is wrong. The Mint's own press release said so.
The mint is trying to recoup the cost of design and die preparation of the gold medals by charging more for the bronze.
If it costs $160 each to produce a new 3" bronze medal (such as president or Secretary of the Treasury) where there was no gold medal to kick off the process, then bronze medals where there was a gold medal to start off the process are overpriced.
If they want to raise the price of all medals to maintain consistency that does not change the fact that the bronze buyers are subsidizing the gold presentation medal for the Congressional Gold Medals. They're hoping that confused people won't notice.
Our government issues a medal for an event, and we cannot discuss anything related to the event without ruffling the feathers of the less informed who believe that trying to educate them is a political statement.
I read the rules, Politics is against the rules; and I have a "target" (OMG - that's gun related!) on my back because of the way I post. I will not give anyone here a reason to flag my posts unjustly. IMO, that is a very attractive medal for an event that is very misunderstood.
Addendum: I also remember the rationale the Mint gave in quadrupling their prices on the 3-inch bronze medals: they had been losing money on them for years and needed to make some "adjustments." I still wonder how such a dramatic increase impacted their sales.
I think (but am not sure ) that their calculations regarding costs included the cost of creating the original gold medals that were given to those being honored. But, those design and die preparation costs would have been incurred whether or not bronze versions were struck.
I occassionally purchased the large medals, which are quite impressive, but I haven't even considered it once the price increase went into effect.
The current cost of the smaller medals is equally as disincentivizing.
They raised all their prices. It has nothing to do with gold medals. All of their medals are the same price.
It is clear that all bronze medals are priced the same for each size, However, I'm not sure it's appropriate to dismiss the idea of the cost of the gold medals impacting the price of the bronze medals.
In 2002 when the mint announced an earlier price increase, they included this:
Over the last 6 years, prices for the bronze medals have not changed despite rising costs of production — both labor and materials. By adjusting prices, the Mint will ensure that the medals program remains in compliance with authorizing legislation, which requires that the medals be sold "at a price sufficient to cover the costs thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, and the cost of materials."
For the gold medals, the costs of design, die preparation, etc. were going to be incurred whether or not they minted bronze duplicates. It doesn't cost as much to simply strike bronze medals from existing dies as it would to create a design from scratch.
Of course, once the prices were raised substantially I am sure sales plummeted, and I am doubtful that was part of their equation.
Yes, but you would need to make the dies even if you don't make any gold coins.
But you wouldn't be making any dies (for those medals) if there weren't any gold medals made. The bronze versions only exist because of the gold medals, and the associated costs of design and die production would be incurred for the gold medals regardless. That one gold medal incurs those costs.
(This does not apply to the president, Secretary of the Treasury, etc. medals that are not based on a gold medal).
So what? It's the same cost model as the bronze and the SAME PRICE. Oddly, you are looking for a difference to justify the sameness. Any cost the gold medals added DOESN'T show up in the pricing of the medals which is the SAME for all the medals, including ones that had dies made DECADES AGO.
When you're caught being wrong you just turn to the "so what" argument. 🙄
You had said that the cost of producing the gold medals has nothing to do with the cost of the bronze duplicates. That is wrong. The Mint's own press release said so.
The mint is trying to recoup the cost of design and die preparation of the gold medals by charging more for the bronze.
If it costs $160 each to produce a new 3" bronze medal (such as president or Secretary of the Treasury) where there was no gold medal to kick off the process, then bronze medals where there was a gold medal to start off the process are overpriced.
If they want to raise the price of all medals to maintain consistency that does not change the fact that the bronze buyers are subsidizing the gold presentation medal for the Congressional Gold Medals. They're hoping that confused people won't notice.
I haven't changed the argument at all. YOU DID. Show me where the cost of the gold medal is in the cost of these medals when EVERY MEDAL on the website costs EXACTLY THE SAME. George Bush $160, FDR $160, Jan 6th $160. Simple math indicates that the gold medal added ZERO CENTS to the price of the medals.
The press release you quote doesn't mention gold at all, by the way. It only mentions the cost of production of the bronze medals.
@4Redisin said:
Our government issues a medal for an event, and we cannot discuss anything related to the event without ruffling the feathers of the less informed who believe that trying to educate them is a political statement.
I read the rules, Politics is against the rules; and I have a "target" (OMG - that's gun related!) on my back because of the way I post. I will not give anyone here a reason to flag my posts unjustly. IMO, that is a very attractive medal for an event that is very misunderstood.
Your "education" is not related to US coins and was directly a political statement, whether one agrees with it or not.
I'll only speak for myself; I don't want your education and the presumption that you have anything to teach, particularly about that event is beyond absurd. That's saying something considering your other posts.
The mods agree as your post was deleted. You don't have a target on your back. You're just who you are. That is plenty.
Addendum: I also remember the rationale the Mint gave in quadrupling their prices on the 3-inch bronze medals: they had been losing money on them for years and needed to make some "adjustments." I still wonder how such a dramatic increase impacted their sales.
I think (but am not sure ) that their calculations regarding costs included the cost of creating the original gold medals that were given to those being honored. But, those design and die preparation costs would have been incurred whether or not bronze versions were struck.
I occassionally purchased the large medals, which are quite impressive, but I haven't even considered it once the price increase went into effect.
The current cost of the smaller medals is equally as disincentivizing.
They raised all their prices. It has nothing to do with gold medals. All of their medals are the same price.
It is clear that all bronze medals are priced the same for each size, However, I'm not sure it's appropriate to dismiss the idea of the cost of the gold medals impacting the price of the bronze medals.
In 2002 when the mint announced an earlier price increase, they included this:
Over the last 6 years, prices for the bronze medals have not changed despite rising costs of production — both labor and materials. By adjusting prices, the Mint will ensure that the medals program remains in compliance with authorizing legislation, which requires that the medals be sold "at a price sufficient to cover the costs thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, and the cost of materials."
For the gold medals, the costs of design, die preparation, etc. were going to be incurred whether or not they minted bronze duplicates. It doesn't cost as much to simply strike bronze medals from existing dies as it would to create a design from scratch.
Of course, once the prices were raised substantially I am sure sales plummeted, and I am doubtful that was part of their equation.
Yes, but you would need to make the dies even if you don't make any gold coins.
But you wouldn't be making any dies (for those medals) if there weren't any gold medals made. The bronze versions only exist because of the gold medals, and the associated costs of design and die production would be incurred for the gold medals regardless. That one gold medal incurs those costs.
(This does not apply to the president, Secretary of the Treasury, etc. medals that are not based on a gold medal).
So what? It's the same cost model as the bronze and the SAME PRICE. Oddly, you are looking for a difference to justify the sameness. Any cost the gold medals added DOESN'T show up in the pricing of the medals which is the SAME for all the medals, including ones that had dies made DECADES AGO.
When you're caught being wrong you just turn to the "so what" argument. 🙄
You had said that the cost of producing the gold medals has nothing to do with the cost of the bronze duplicates. That is wrong. The Mint's own press release said so.
The mint is trying to recoup the cost of design and die preparation of the gold medals by charging more for the bronze.
If it costs $160 each to produce a new 3" bronze medal (such as president or Secretary of the Treasury) where there was no gold medal to kick off the process, then bronze medals where there was a gold medal to start off the process are overpriced.
If they want to raise the price of all medals to maintain consistency that does not change the fact that the bronze buyers are subsidizing the gold presentation medal for the Congressional Gold Medals. They're hoping that confused people won't notice.
I haven't changed the argument at all. YOU DID. Show me where the cost of the gold medal is in the cost of these medals when EVERY MEDAL on the website costs EXACTLY THE SAME. George Bush $160, FDR $160, Jan 6th $160. Simple math indicates that the gold medal added ZERO CENTS to the price of the medals.
The press release you quote doesn't mention gold at all, by the way. It only mentions the cost of production of the bronze medals.
They only sell the bronze medals. Why would it mention the gold?
The mint said they wanted to recoup costs, including design and die preparation. However, for the bronze duplicates those initial costs were already incurred separately when the gold medals were produced. They fact that they generically mentioned those costs in their press release strongly suggests that they are transferring some of the costs of getting the gold medals produced over to the purchasers of the bronze medals. The fact that they charge the same for all medals proves that.
If you took out the the costs of preparation of the initial gold medals then the bronze duplicates would be cheaper than medals that were originally issued as bronze medals only.
It's common sense and logic. Why must you constantly argue and beat these things to death? Aren't you busy enough turning young brains to mush in the lecture hall?
Addendum: I also remember the rationale the Mint gave in quadrupling their prices on the 3-inch bronze medals: they had been losing money on them for years and needed to make some "adjustments." I still wonder how such a dramatic increase impacted their sales.
I think (but am not sure ) that their calculations regarding costs included the cost of creating the original gold medals that were given to those being honored. But, those design and die preparation costs would have been incurred whether or not bronze versions were struck.
I occassionally purchased the large medals, which are quite impressive, but I haven't even considered it once the price increase went into effect.
The current cost of the smaller medals is equally as disincentivizing.
They raised all their prices. It has nothing to do with gold medals. All of their medals are the same price.
It is clear that all bronze medals are priced the same for each size, However, I'm not sure it's appropriate to dismiss the idea of the cost of the gold medals impacting the price of the bronze medals.
In 2002 when the mint announced an earlier price increase, they included this:
Over the last 6 years, prices for the bronze medals have not changed despite rising costs of production — both labor and materials. By adjusting prices, the Mint will ensure that the medals program remains in compliance with authorizing legislation, which requires that the medals be sold "at a price sufficient to cover the costs thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, and the cost of materials."
For the gold medals, the costs of design, die preparation, etc. were going to be incurred whether or not they minted bronze duplicates. It doesn't cost as much to simply strike bronze medals from existing dies as it would to create a design from scratch.
Of course, once the prices were raised substantially I am sure sales plummeted, and I am doubtful that was part of their equation.
Yes, but you would need to make the dies even if you don't make any gold coins.
But you wouldn't be making any dies (for those medals) if there weren't any gold medals made. The bronze versions only exist because of the gold medals, and the associated costs of design and die production would be incurred for the gold medals regardless. That one gold medal incurs those costs.
(This does not apply to the president, Secretary of the Treasury, etc. medals that are not based on a gold medal).
So what? It's the same cost model as the bronze and the SAME PRICE. Oddly, you are looking for a difference to justify the sameness. Any cost the gold medals added DOESN'T show up in the pricing of the medals which is the SAME for all the medals, including ones that had dies made DECADES AGO.
When you're caught being wrong you just turn to the "so what" argument. 🙄
You had said that the cost of producing the gold medals has nothing to do with the cost of the bronze duplicates. That is wrong. The Mint's own press release said so.
The mint is trying to recoup the cost of design and die preparation of the gold medals by charging more for the bronze.
If it costs $160 each to produce a new 3" bronze medal (such as president or Secretary of the Treasury) where there was no gold medal to kick off the process, then bronze medals where there was a gold medal to start off the process are overpriced.
If they want to raise the price of all medals to maintain consistency that does not change the fact that the bronze buyers are subsidizing the gold presentation medal for the Congressional Gold Medals. They're hoping that confused people won't notice.
I haven't changed the argument at all. YOU DID. Show me where the cost of the gold medal is in the cost of these medals when EVERY MEDAL on the website costs EXACTLY THE SAME. George Bush $160, FDR $160, Jan 6th $160. Simple math indicates that the gold medal added ZERO CENTS to the price of the medals.
The press release you quote doesn't mention gold at all, by the way. It only mentions the cost of production of the bronze medals.
They only sell the bronze medals. Why would it mention the gold?
The mint said they wanted to recoup costs, including design and die preparation. However, for the bronze duplicates those initial costs were already incurred separately when the gold medals were produced. They fact that they generically mentioned those costs in their press release strongly suggests that they are transferring some of the costs of getting the gold medals produced over to the purchasers of the bronze medals. The fact that they charge the same for all medals proves that.
If you took out the the costs of preparation of the initial gold medals then the bronze duplicates would be cheaper than medals that were originally issued as bronze medals only.
It's common sense and logic. Why must you constantly argue and beat these things to death? Aren't you busy enough turning young brains to mush in the lecture hall?
Lmao. I haven't spent any more time arguing about this than YOU have.
But the price for medals is the same as it was before the Jan 6 medals were issued. Sure, it's part of Mint costs, but it can't possibly be related to the choice to raise the prices to $160 for all medals which is what started this whole discussion.
You said: "I think (but am not sure ) that their calculations regarding costs included the cost of creating the original gold medals that were given to those being honored. But, those design and die preparation costs would have been incurred whether or not bronze versions were struck."
There was NO such calculation on the pricing of these medals as ALL 3 inch Mint bronze medals have been $160 since Jan 1, 2021 when the change was made.
But i do have more useful things to do so I'll leave the floor to you. Use it wisely.
You said: "I think (but am not sure ) that their calculations regarding costs included the cost of creating the original gold medals that were given to those being honored. But, those design and die preparation costs would have been incurred whether or not bronze versions were struck."
And I subsequently provided the relevant text from a mint press release.
There was NO such calculation on the pricing of these medals as ALL 3 inch Mint bronze medals have been $160 since Jan 1, 2021 when the change was made.
You have no idea what went into their calculation, especially if you're ignoring the obvious implications in their press release.
You said: "I think (but am not sure ) that their calculations regarding costs included the cost of creating the original gold medals that were given to those being honored. But, those design and die preparation costs would have been incurred whether or not bronze versions were struck."
And I subsequently provided the relevant text from a mint press release.
There was NO such calculation on the pricing of these medals as ALL 3 inch Mint bronze medals have been $160 since Jan 1, 2021 when the change was made.
You have no idea what went into their calculation, especially if you're ignoring the obvious implications in their press release.
But i do have more useful things to do...
I'll have to take your word for it.
They can't have included the Jan6th medal on JANUARY FIRST. Jan 6th hadn't even happened.
Sorry. I meant to leave. I really really did. But you seem to be missing the date issue, which is the whole thing frankly. Medals were $160 before Jan 6th and after. There is absolutely no way that they could have included the cost of gold medals into the price.
[I need to learn to let go. I need to learn to let go. I need to let go...]
You said: "I think (but am not sure ) that their calculations regarding costs included the cost of creating the original gold medals that were given to those being honored. But, those design and die preparation costs would have been incurred whether or not bronze versions were struck."
And I subsequently provided the relevant text from a mint press release.
There was NO such calculation on the pricing of these medals as ALL 3 inch Mint bronze medals have been $160 since Jan 1, 2021 when the change was made.
You have no idea what went into their calculation, especially if you're ignoring the obvious implications in their press release.
But i do have more useful things to do...
I'll have to take your word for it.
[I need to learn to let go. I need to learn to let go. I need to let go...]
You said: "I think (but am not sure ) that their calculations regarding costs included the cost of creating the original gold medals that were given to those being honored. But, those design and die preparation costs would have been incurred whether or not bronze versions were struck."
And I subsequently provided the relevant text from a mint press release.
There was NO such calculation on the pricing of these medals as ALL 3 inch Mint bronze medals have been $160 since Jan 1, 2021 when the change was made.
You have no idea what went into their calculation, especially if you're ignoring the obvious implications in their press release.
But i do have more useful things to do...
I'll have to take your word for it.
They can't have included the Jan6th medal on JANUARY FIRST. Jan 6th hadn't even happened.
This isn't specifically about the Jan. 6th medal. It's about the fact that the mint is rolling some of the costs of the gold medals into the bronze medal program. They are charging the same for a bronze version of a gold medal as they are for a medal that was created only in bronze. That proves that purchasers of bronze replicas of gold medals are paying for the design and die preparation of those medals.
Sorry.
Finally, you apologized.
But you seem to be missing the date issue, which is the whole thing frankly.
No. It's you're whole thing, a tangent you chased all by yourself.
I meant to leave. I really really did.
[I need to learn to let go. I need to learn to let go. I need to let go...]
Yes, you lied, and yes, you really do need to learn to let go.
@JBK said:
Yes, you lied, and yes, you really do need to learn to let go.
Don't argue with JMLanzaf. He uses hyperbole to claim you are wrong, never recognized when he is wrong, and argues over minutia with anyone who gives him attention.
If you were a car sales man Lanzaf would be a "tire kicker" wasting your time.
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
@JBK said:
Yes, you lied, and yes, you really do need to learn to let go.
Don't argue with JMLanzaf. He uses hyperbole to claim you are wrong, never recognized when he is wrong, and argues over minutia with anyone who gives him attention.
If you were a car sales man Lanzaf would be a "tire kicker" wasting your time.
How true.
And to think that I let it slide when he referred to medals as "coins".
Yes, but you would need to make the dies even if you don't make any gold coins.
@JBK said:
Yes, you lied, and yes, you really do need to learn to let go.
Don't argue with JMLanzaf. He uses hyperbole to claim you are wrong, never recognized when he is wrong, and argues over minutia with anyone who gives him attention.
If you were a car sales man Lanzaf would be a "tire kicker" wasting your time.
While this is undeniably true, I like Lanza though. He's a good sport when getting razzed and unflappable when arguing.
I hereby propose that Congress authorize a medal commemorating "The Great JBK-jmlanzaf Debate About The Cost Of US Mint Medals 2025".
The big question is who should be awarded the gold medal version of it (and should that increase the cost) ?
I'll take the gold medal and jmlanzaf can have the bronze. The gold medal is free to the recipient so whether jmlanzaf admits that his bronze medal helps pay for the gold medal won't matter to me.
if a gold medal was created, i'd expect it to be mentioned in the pr for the bronzes
as a note, yes all medals, with or without gold, are $160. when they changed pricing, those already in inventory were priced up. these say to me that 160 is a general price for all 3" medals. this whole discussion of dies distracts from the simple concept.
@MsMorrisine said:
if a gold medal was created, i'd expect it to be mentioned in the pr for the bronzes
as a note, yes all medals, with or without gold, are $160. when they changed pricing, those already in inventory were priced up. these say to me that 160 is a general price for all 3" medals. this whole discussion of dies distracts from the simple concept.
When the medal says "Act of Congress" on it that usually (always?) means that a gold medal was made for the person or organization being honored.
The point about the costs of design, dies, etc. is that the mint is recouping some of the costs associated with the preparation of the presentation gold medal from the sales of the bronze versions.
Whether or not people agree with that policy is their business, but the discussion was about whether or not it was happening, which it is.
@MsMorrisine said:
if a gold medal was created, i'd expect it to be mentioned in the pr for the bronzes
as a note, yes all medals, with or without gold, are $160. when they changed pricing, those already in inventory were priced up. these say to me that 160 is a general price for all 3" medals. this whole discussion of dies distracts from the simple concept.
When the medal says "Act of Congress" on it that usually (always?) means that a gold medal was made for the person or organization being honored.
The point about the costs of design, dies, etc. is that the mint is recouping some of the costs associated with the preparation of the presentation gold medal from the sales of the bronze versions.
Whether or not people agree with that policy is their business, but the discussion was about whether or not it was happening, which it is.
Who exactly is being honored?
The medal is technically despicable from my point of view.
@MsMorrisine said:
if a gold medal was created, i'd expect it to be mentioned in the pr for the bronzes
as a note, yes all medals, with or without gold, are $160. when they changed pricing, those already in inventory were priced up. these say to me that 160 is a general price for all 3" medals. this whole discussion of dies distracts from the simple concept.
When the medal says "Act of Congress" on it that usually (always?) means that a gold medal was made for the person or organization being honored.
The point about the costs of design, dies, etc. is that the mint is recouping some of the costs associated with the preparation of the presentation gold medal from the sales of the bronze versions.
Whether or not people agree with that policy is their business, but the discussion was about whether or not it was happening, which it is.
Who exactly is being honored?
The medal is technically despicable from my point of view.
The medal says "Honoring the service and sacrifice of those who protected the U.S. Capitol"
So, "those who protected the U.S. Capitol" appears to be who is being honored.
I'm unsure why you would be confused by these facts.
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
Comments
Thanks for the warning.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I checked my order history on the Mint's website and as late as December 2017, the 3-inch bronze medals were still selling for $39.95 plus the usual $4.95 shipping charge. If my memory serves me well, and because I purchased several medals during that particular month, I believe the current price structure for bronze medals of both sizes (3-inch and 1 and 5/16-inch) went into effect on Jan. 1, 2018.
Addendum: I also remember the rationale the Mint gave in quadrupling their prices on the 3-inch bronze medals: they had been losing money on them for years and needed to make some "adjustments." I still wonder how such a dramatic increase impacted their sales.
Only boring people get bored.
Historical.
Per this CW article, the '$20/$160' pricing structure for bronze medals started Jan 1, 2021.
I think (but am not sure ) that their calculations regarding costs included the cost of creating the original gold medals that were given to those being honored. But, those design and die preparation costs would have been incurred whether or not bronze versions were struck.
I occassionally purchased the large medals, which are quite impressive, but I haven't even considered it once the price increase went into effect.
The current cost of the smaller medals is equally as disincentivizing.
Thank you for the correction, MetroD.
Lmfao. Touche'
Please support me with the moderators when I get banned for a "historical" rant.
They raised all their prices. It has nothing to do with gold medals. All of their medals are the same price.
Throw em all in jail I say. The Collectors Universe U.S. Coin Forum is no place for politics. RGDS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
It is clear that all bronze medals are priced the same for each size, However, I'm not sure it's appropriate to dismiss the idea of the cost of the gold medals impacting the price of the bronze medals.
In 2002 when the mint announced an earlier price increase, they included this:
Over the last 6 years, prices for the bronze medals have not changed despite rising costs of production — both labor and materials. By adjusting prices, the Mint will ensure that the medals program remains in compliance with authorizing legislation, which requires that the medals be sold "at a price sufficient to cover the costs thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, and the cost of materials."
For the gold medals, the costs of design, die preparation, etc. were going to be incurred whether or not they minted bronze duplicates. It doesn't cost as much to simply strike bronze medals from existing dies as it would to create a design from scratch.
Of course, once the prices were raised substantially I am sure sales plummeted, and I am doubtful that was part of their equation.
.
My wallet is perfectly safe from this particular mint piece.
>
>
We can agree to disagree, politely.
Yes, but you would need to make the dies even if you don't make any gold coins.
But you wouldn't be making any dies (for those medals) if there weren't any gold medals made. The bronze versions only exist because of the gold medals, and the associated costs of design and die production would be incurred for the gold medals regardless. That one gold medal incurs those costs.
(This does not apply to the president, Secretary of the Treasury, etc. medals that are not based on a gold medal).
Doesn't matter what you or I agree or disagree on. Rules are rules and the mods on this forum have jailed and banned members for much less. Remember this is their house, they make the rules. THKS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Notwithstanding the politics inferred in its subject matter, I do find the medal aesthetically pleasing and overall, a strong design that effectively conveys its intended message, at least in my professional judgment.
Hats off to Chief Engraver Joseph Menna for a superb job!
Mint medals are now quite overpriced. It might cost a lot to make them because they must be struck and annealed multiple times, but the demand for them in the secondary market is not there.
Hate has no home here. RTDS!
Get your last shots in while you can - Monday is coming soon before the Mods put the hammer down!
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
We have lots of political discussions on these boards.
For example, the 1933 Double Eagle case, the lobbying for commemorative coins, the "In God We Trust" motto.
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
So what? It's the same cost model as the bronze and the SAME PRICE. Oddly, you are looking for a difference to justify the sameness. Any cost the gold medals added DOESN'T show up in the pricing of the medals which is the SAME for all the medals, including ones that had dies made DECADES AGO.
Those are not political in the same way. And those politics are about the coin. The politics on this thread have almost nothing to do with the coin itself.
When you're caught being wrong you just turn to the "so what" argument. 🙄
You had said that the cost of producing the gold medals has nothing to do with the cost of the bronze duplicates. That is wrong. The Mint's own press release said so.
The mint is trying to recoup the cost of design and die preparation of the gold medals by charging more for the bronze.
If it costs $160 each to produce a new 3" bronze medal (such as president or Secretary of the Treasury) where there was no gold medal to kick off the process, then bronze medals where there was a gold medal to start off the process are overpriced.
If they want to raise the price of all medals to maintain consistency that does not change the fact that the bronze buyers are subsidizing the gold presentation medal for the Congressional Gold Medals. They're hoping that confused people won't notice.
Our government issues a medal for an event, and we cannot discuss anything related to the event without ruffling the feathers of the less informed who believe that trying to educate them is a political statement.
I read the rules, Politics is against the rules; and I have a "target" (OMG - that's gun related!) on my back because of the way I post. I will not give anyone here a reason to flag my posts unjustly. IMO, that is a very attractive medal for an event that is very misunderstood.
I haven't changed the argument at all. YOU DID. Show me where the cost of the gold medal is in the cost of these medals when EVERY MEDAL on the website costs EXACTLY THE SAME. George Bush $160, FDR $160, Jan 6th $160. Simple math indicates that the gold medal added ZERO CENTS to the price of the medals.
The press release you quote doesn't mention gold at all, by the way. It only mentions the cost of production of the bronze medals.
Your "education" is not related to US coins and was directly a political statement, whether one agrees with it or not.
I'll only speak for myself; I don't want your education and the presumption that you have anything to teach, particularly about that event is beyond absurd. That's saying something considering your other posts.
The mods agree as your post was deleted. You don't have a target on your back. You're just who you are. That is plenty.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
They only sell the bronze medals. Why would it mention the gold?
The mint said they wanted to recoup costs, including design and die preparation. However, for the bronze duplicates those initial costs were already incurred separately when the gold medals were produced. They fact that they generically mentioned those costs in their press release strongly suggests that they are transferring some of the costs of getting the gold medals produced over to the purchasers of the bronze medals. The fact that they charge the same for all medals proves that.
If you took out the the costs of preparation of the initial gold medals then the bronze duplicates would be cheaper than medals that were originally issued as bronze medals only.
It's common sense and logic. Why must you constantly argue and beat these things to death? Aren't you busy enough turning young brains to mush in the lecture hall?
Lmao. I haven't spent any more time arguing about this than YOU have.
But the price for medals is the same as it was before the Jan 6 medals were issued. Sure, it's part of Mint costs, but it can't possibly be related to the choice to raise the prices to $160 for all medals which is what started this whole discussion.
You said: "I think (but am not sure ) that their calculations regarding costs included the cost of creating the original gold medals that were given to those being honored. But, those design and die preparation costs would have been incurred whether or not bronze versions were struck."
There was NO such calculation on the pricing of these medals as ALL 3 inch Mint bronze medals have been $160 since Jan 1, 2021 when the change was made.
But i do have more useful things to do so I'll leave the floor to you. Use it wisely.
And I subsequently provided the relevant text from a mint press release.
You have no idea what went into their calculation, especially if you're ignoring the obvious implications in their press release.
I'll have to take your word for it.
utrf[> @JBK said:
They can't have included the Jan6th medal on JANUARY FIRST. Jan 6th hadn't even happened.
Sorry. I meant to leave. I really really did. But you seem to be missing the date issue, which is the whole thing frankly. Medals were $160 before Jan 6th and after. There is absolutely no way that they could have included the cost of gold medals into the price.
[I need to learn to let go. I need to learn to let go. I need to let go...]
This isn't specifically about the Jan. 6th medal. It's about the fact that the mint is rolling some of the costs of the gold medals into the bronze medal program. They are charging the same for a bronze version of a gold medal as they are for a medal that was created only in bronze. That proves that purchasers of bronze replicas of gold medals are paying for the design and die preparation of those medals.
Finally, you apologized.
No. It's you're whole thing, a tangent you chased all by yourself.
Yes, you lied, and yes, you really do need to learn to let go.
One of these medals would go great with my “I survived the Portland federal building fire of ‘20” tee shirt
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
Don't argue with JMLanzaf. He uses hyperbole to claim you are wrong, never recognized when he is wrong, and argues over minutia with anyone who gives him attention.
If you were a car sales man Lanzaf would be a "tire kicker" wasting your time.
The substantial truth doctrine is an important defense in defamation law that allows individuals to avoid liability if the gist of their statement was true.
How true.
And to think that I let it slide when he referred to medals as "coins".
While this is undeniably true, I like Lanza though. He's a good sport when getting razzed and unflappable when arguing.
"Unflappable" has some less diplomatic synonyms.
Just bought 4 medals . Thanks to this post!
I hereby propose that Congress authorize a medal commemorating "The Great JBK-jmlanzaf Debate About The Cost Of US Mint Medals 2025".
The big question is who should be awarded the gold medal version of it (and should that increase the cost) ?
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
I'll take the gold medal and jmlanzaf can have the bronze. The gold medal is free to the recipient so whether jmlanzaf admits that his bronze medal helps pay for the gold medal won't matter to me.
if a gold medal was created, i'd expect it to be mentioned in the pr for the bronzes
as a note, yes all medals, with or without gold, are $160. when they changed pricing, those already in inventory were priced up. these say to me that 160 is a general price for all 3" medals. this whole discussion of dies distracts from the simple concept.
When the medal says "Act of Congress" on it that usually (always?) means that a gold medal was made for the person or organization being honored.
The point about the costs of design, dies, etc. is that the mint is recouping some of the costs associated with the preparation of the presentation gold medal from the sales of the bronze versions.
Whether or not people agree with that policy is their business, but the discussion was about whether or not it was happening, which it is.
The mint should make them out of chocolate so people can eat them.
Who exactly is being honored?
The medal is technically despicable from my point of view.
without going into details, there are badges on it
The medal says "Honoring the service and sacrifice of those who protected the U.S. Capitol"
So, "those who protected the U.S. Capitol" appears to be who is being honored.
I'm unsure why you would be confused by these facts.
The one physical Congressional Gold Medal is given to the recipient or his/her family if the recipient is one person.
If the medal is awarded to a group the physical gold medal is usually given to a museum such as the Smithsonian Institution.
The bronze copies of the medal are sold to the public for a period.
For example, the gold medal awarded to the "jungle doctor" Dr. Thomas Dooley in 1961 was given by President Kennedy to Dr. Dooley's mother.
Dr. Thomas Dooley three inch bronze medal
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television