@olympicsos said:
I am not against eliminating the cent, but I think the real reason why they are doing this now is because they want to close the San Francisco Mint and redevelop the site
Im not really tracking here.....the SF mint wasnt making any cents for circulation, they were only producing a limited number of proof coins and commemoratives Also, the original historic SF mint (granite lady) was sold to the city of San Francisco for $1in 2003, and subsequently leased to the historical society .
The "new" mint at 155 Herman street, constructed in 1937, is the one thats still operating and owned by the treasury, but like I mentioned they haven't produced circulation coinage for quite some time.
The current operations at SF could be moved to P or D if they suddenly have additional capacity that comes with not having to make billions of pennies each year.
Philadelphia makes proof coins, they could always shift production back there. But I do think the San Francisco Mint must be kept and the other mints must be kept or reopened, these are national treasures and there is a source of local pride that comes with coins being made at these locations.
I think you misunderstood what they meant by pride in San Francisco.
But there is a local pride and something special about an S mintmark that a P or D mintmark has less of.
Ok, jokes aside, I agree that SF has a certain cachet. The origin of which comes from the 09-s VDB phenomenon when people started plugging penny boards in the 1930's and SF coins we relatively scarce overall and almost never seen in the eastern US.
That said, keeping the SF Mint open because of that is a non sequitur. The Carson City Mint closed in 1893 and has far more cachet than SF will ever have.
The SF mint needs to be shut down and proof production moved back to Philadelphia where it was originally for the first 100+ years.
Agreed, If the objective is cutting costs, then it doesn't make sense not to consolidate operations. Also, I think the collectibility and allure of a mint mark is only amplified after the closure of said mint....
Besides, the original SF mint building is already enshrined as a historic landmark and the current building can be repurposed into a revenue generating asset, a museum or a "Franklin Institute" type of place.
When I started collecting Lincolns back in the very early 60's the S-mint coins WERE special, if only because they had stopped making them in 1955.
When they started making them again in 1968 they were still special, and so many were hoarded out of circulation that they stopped making them again after 1974. To discourage hoarding part of the 1974-S production was shipped to Denver and Philadelphia and dumped into the production there prior to counting and bagging. I was working for Coin World when we reported this last bit.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@olympicsos said:
But there is a local pride and something special about an S mintmark that a P or D mintmark has less of.
What data or source can you link to prove this point?
Why are coins with an S mintmark so popular?
Once again what data or source can you cite/link to support your claim that a coin with an S mintmark is "so popular".
I can sell "S" mint wheat rolls to a local coin dealer for $2.50 a roll when he buys non P and D mint wheats for $1.50
And?? That does not prove that collectors prefer them, only that due to mintages they may be more scarce than the P/D rolls.
Usually collectors prefer more scarce coins.
I would accept that as generally true, but that has little to do with the issue of a couple posters saying that S mint coins are considered special just because of the place they were minted. It is very easy to find gem level 55-S cents, far more difficult to find gem level 55-P cents. So if we accept your theory that collectors prefer more scarce coins then for more than a decade span (starting in the late 40's to the late 50's) it is far more difficult to find gem P mint cents and thus it stands to reason that P mint cents are more scarce, in greater demand, and thus more "special" than those minted in SF. Which disproves the comments from several who have posted so far including yourself.
Where I have lived my life I rarely see a P mintmark coin, but you don't see me making false statements and going weak in the knees when I do see one.
@jesbroken said:
Wonder if we will be able to sell our pre 84 lincoln cents?
Jim
$50 bags of pre-1982 Lincolns are fetching $125 and up on eBay. That's close to their melt value of 2.87 cents each.
They just can't legally be melted at the moment.
.
There is no reason to go through the illegal hassle of melting them if they sell for near melt as is.
They will remain legal tender and circulate for many years to come anyway.
Then why aren't wheat cents circulating? I think there will be a premium for the 1959-1982 copper cents and I think the melting ban will be lifted.
.
They are circulating, just like the IH-1C, Buff-5C, and junk-Ag are still circulating, just not much anymore.
When I find those coins via pockets or rolls, I set them aside for their perceived collectability and/or intrinsic value like many others do.
There is a premium for the pre-'83-1C as mentioned above. Melting ain't happening anytime soon so I'll respectfully disagree.
Yes indeed. I recently went through a case of penny rolls. Out of 2500 cents, I found about 20 wheaties. I lost track but approx 12-15% where pre-1982.
S mint marks stand out to me just because I grew up near Denver so getting anything other than D coins in change as a child was notable. Not exactly rare or uncommon, but it was refreshing to find coins with other mintmarks because change was so dominantly from Denver it seemed.
@olympicsos said:
I am not against eliminating the cent, but I think the real reason why they are doing this now is because they want to close the San Francisco Mint and redevelop the site
Im not really tracking here.....the SF mint wasnt making any cents for circulation, they were only producing a limited number of proof coins and commemoratives Also, the original historic SF mint (granite lady) was sold to the city of San Francisco for $1in 2003, and subsequently leased to the historical society .
The "new" mint at 155 Herman street, constructed in 1937, is the one thats still operating and owned by the treasury, but like I mentioned they haven't produced circulation coinage for quite some time.
The current operations at SF could be moved to P or D if they suddenly have additional capacity that comes with not having to make billions of pennies each year.
Philadelphia makes proof coins, they could always shift production back there. But I do think the San Francisco Mint must be kept and the other mints must be kept or reopened, these are national treasures and there is a source of local pride that comes with coins being made at these locations.
I think you misunderstood what they meant by pride in San Francisco.
But there is a local pride and something special about an S mintmark that a P or D mintmark has less of.
Ok, jokes aside, I agree that SF has a certain cachet. The origin of which comes from the 09-s VDB phenomenon when people started plugging penny boards in the 1930's and SF coins we relatively scarce overall and almost never seen in the eastern US.
That said, keeping the SF Mint open because of that is a non sequitur. The Carson City Mint closed in 1893 and has far more cachet than SF will ever have.
The SF mint needs to be shut down and proof production moved back to Philadelphia where it was originally for the first 100+ years.
Agreed, If the objective is cutting costs, then it doesn't make sense not to consolidate operations. Also, I think the collectibility and allure of a mint mark is only amplified after the closure of said mint....
Besides, the original SF mint building is already enshrined as a historic landmark and the current building can be repurposed into a revenue generating asset, a museum or a "Franklin Institute" type of place.
I don't know if we have the data to make that conclusion. Generally consolidating facilities can lead to cost reductions, but there are advantages and reasons to have production distributed with different capabilities at different locations. I'm not sure there's huge upside in closing one facility unless you combine that with lower overall production and you are going to end up with excess capacity. Remember, the US mints may be able to pick up business producing coins for other countries or for other purposes, so simply removing the workload of producing cents doesn't mean they workload won't be replaced with something else.
I live in SW TN and the 2025 coins have not reached this area yet. To be honest not many 2024 coins have either. We usually get the Denver minted coins and see some of the Philly minted coins. I have just started finding 2024 Cents and Quarters. The next are coin show is in September, and I hope the2025 coins will be in the area by then.
USN & USAF retired 1971-1993
Successful Transactions with more than 100 Members
@ProofCollection said:
Remember, the US mints may be able to pick up business producing coins for other countries or for other purposes, so
simply removing the workload of producing cents doesn't mean they workload won't be replaced with something else.
It is just a matter of time, everyone here also wants the nickel 86'd as well and many want the dime as well. Many of those also think that we should be coining larger denomination coins like $2 or $5 coins, which shows how little they know of the US consumer. I know of no one that wants to carry around coins in general much less large high denomination coins.
What country do you think an idle US mint facility would produce coins for? The world not just the US is moving towards a cashless system, I see no opportunities for the US mint to produce coinage for non US countries now and even less so in the future.
It will not be long before all the coinage the US needs can be produced at the Philly mint, keeping the SF mint open for ifs, maybes, and personal attachments is just as irresponsible as it has been to produce a coin that costs more than face value for the past many decades. That land has a significant value, the SF mint should be shut down and the land/building sold to be redeveloped so those funds can be used to pay down the US debt. The Denver mint is next for the chopping block.
@ProofCollection said:
Remember, the US mints may be able to pick up business producing coins for other countries or for other purposes, so
simply removing the workload of producing cents doesn't mean they workload won't be replaced with something else.
It is just a matter of time, everyone here also wants the nickel 86'd as well and many want the dime as well. Many of those also think that we should be coining larger denomination coins like $2 or $5 coins, which shows how little they know of the US consumer. I know of no one that wants to carry around coins in general much less large high denomination coins.
What country do you think an idle US mint facility would produce coins for? The world not just the US is moving towards a cashless system, I see no opportunities for the US mint to produce coinage for non US countries now and even less so in the future.
It will not be long before all the coinage the US needs can be produced at the Philly mint, keeping the SF mint open for ifs, maybes, and personal attachments is just as irresponsible as it has been to produce a coin that costs more than face value for the past many decades. That land has a significant value, the SF mint should be shut down and the land/building sold to be redeveloped so those funds can be used to pay down the US debt. The Denver mint is next for the chopping block.
You would probably know better than anyone, but the failure of $1 coins and presumably $2 and $5 coins is the lack of acceptance by vending machines, or at least that's what I believe. You're right, that ship has probably sailed though.
But there are many smaller nations that undoubtedly still have a need and are not as digital as the US is, such as Ukraine. You'd probably be surprised at how many customers there could be. It's a dying industry for sure, but it's far from dead.
@ProofCollection said:
You would probably know better than anyone, but the failure of $1 coins and presumably $2 and $5 coins is the lack of >acceptance by vending machines, or at least that's what I believe. You're right, that ship has probably sailed though.
But there are many smaller nations that undoubtedly still have a need and are not as digital as the US is, such as Ukraine. >You'd probably be surprised at how many customers there could be. It's a dying industry for sure, but it's far from dead.
A very high percentage of vending machines can accept $1 coins, all of mine can and almost all of mine have the ability to dispense $1 coins as change too. People don't like them by and large, sure there is always that small percentage that do but I get approached often with the request to swap a $1 coin for $1 bill that someone got as change from the use of a $5 because they don't want that big heavy coin in their pocket.
I think you are overestimating the need globally now and it will only get smaller as time goes by. I certainly don't have that data but I seriously doubt that the US mint/treasury is approached with requests to produce coins for other nations on a regular basis. But that would be interesting to know.
@jesbroken said:
Wonder if we will be able to sell our pre 84 lincoln cents?
Jim
$50 bags of pre-1982 Lincolns are fetching $125 and up on eBay. That's close to their melt value of 2.87 cents each.
They just can't legally be melted at the moment.
.
There is no reason to go through the illegal hassle of melting them if they sell for near melt as is.
They will remain legal tender and circulate for many years to come anyway.
Then why aren't wheat cents circulating? I think there will be a premium for the 1959-1982 copper cents and I think the melting ban will be lifted.
Why aren't Buffalo nickels circulating? The obsolete coinage (wheat cents, Indian cents and Buffs, e.g.) don't circulate due to perceived collectibilty not intrinsic value.
Memorial cents are obsolete and have been since 2008.
They are not viewed as such because the obverse was not changed.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@ProofCollection said:
You would probably know better than anyone, but the failure of $1 coins and presumably $2 and $5 coins is the lack of >acceptance by vending machines, or at least that's what I believe. You're right, that ship has probably sailed though.
But there are many smaller nations that undoubtedly still have a need and are not as digital as the US is, such as Ukraine. >You'd probably be surprised at how many customers there could be. It's a dying industry for sure, but it's far from dead.
A very high percentage of vending machines can accept $1 coins, all of mine can and almost all of mine have the ability to dispense $1 coins as change too. People don't like them by and large, sure there is always that small percentage that do but I get approached often with the request to swap a $1 coin for $1 bill that someone got as change from the use of a $5 because they don't want that big heavy coin in their pocket.
I think you are overestimating the need globally now and it will only get smaller as time goes by. I certainly don't have that data but I seriously doubt that the US mint/treasury is approached with requests to produce coins for other nations on a regular basis. But that would be interesting to know.
And any vending machine change is too accept CCs and digital payments not adding 50 cent and $1 coins.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@jesbroken said:
Wonder if we will be able to sell our pre 84 lincoln cents?
Jim
$50 bags of pre-1982 Lincolns are fetching $125 and up on eBay. That's close to their melt value of 2.87 cents each.
They just can't legally be melted at the moment.
.
There is no reason to go through the illegal hassle of melting them if they sell for near melt as is.
They will remain legal tender and circulate for many years to come anyway.
Then why aren't wheat cents circulating? I think there will be a premium for the 1959-1982 copper cents and I think the melting ban will be lifted.
Why aren't Buffalo nickels circulating? The obsolete coinage (wheat cents, Indian cents and Buffs, e.g.) don't circulate due to perceived collectibilty not intrinsic value.
Memorial cents are obsolete and have been since 2008.
They are not viewed as such because the obverse was not changed.
The obverse wasn't changed from the Wheat Cent to the memorial cent in 1959
@ProofCollection said:
You would probably know better than anyone, but the failure of $1 coins and presumably $2 and $5 coins is the lack of >acceptance by vending machines, or at least that's what I believe. You're right, that ship has probably sailed though.
But there are many smaller nations that undoubtedly still have a need and are not as digital as the US is, such as Ukraine. >You'd probably be surprised at how many customers there could be. It's a dying industry for sure, but it's far from dead.
A very high percentage of vending machines can accept $1 coins, all of mine can and almost all of mine have the ability to dispense $1 coins as change too. People don't like them by and large, sure there is always that small percentage that do but I get approached often with the request to swap a $1 coin for $1 bill that someone got as change from the use of a $5 because they don't want that big heavy coin in their pocket.
I think you are overestimating the need globally now and it will only get smaller as time goes by. I certainly don't have that data but I seriously doubt that the US mint/treasury is approached with requests to produce coins for other nations on a regular basis. But that would be interesting to know.
There are other countries that can produce foreign coins cheaper.
@ProofCollection said:
Remember, the US mints may be able to pick up business producing coins for other countries or for other purposes, so
simply removing the workload of producing cents doesn't mean they workload won't be replaced with something else.
It is just a matter of time, everyone here also wants the nickel 86'd as well and many want the dime as well. Many of those also think that we should be coining larger denomination coins like $2 or $5 coins, which shows how little they know of the US consumer. I know of no one that wants to carry around coins in general much less large high denomination coins.
What country do you think an idle US mint facility would produce coins for? The world not just the US is moving towards a cashless system, I see no opportunities for the US mint to produce coinage for non US countries now and even less so in the future.
It will not be long before all the coinage the US needs can be produced at the Philly mint, keeping the SF mint open for ifs, maybes, and personal attachments is just as irresponsible as it has been to produce a coin that costs more than face value for the past many decades. That land has a significant value, the SF mint should be shut down and the land/building sold to be redeveloped so those funds can be used to pay down the US debt. The Denver mint is next for the chopping block.
The San Francisco mint building is on the national register of historic places. What I do think should happen is that we should maybe relocate the San Francisco mint and build it on a site where there is an office tower or some other use above the first couple floors which remain as a mint. I would explore reopening Charlotte, Carson City and even New Orleans in a similar style
The discontinuation of the penny is more than a cost-saving measure; it underscores the ongoing devaluation of paper money. As inflation erodes purchasing power, the smallest denominations become obsolete, and the public's trust in fiat currency diminishes. This trend raises critical questions about the future of money and the importance of preserving wealth through tangible assets.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
@jesbroken said:
Wonder if we will be able to sell our pre 84 lincoln cents?
Jim
$50 bags of pre-1982 Lincolns are fetching $125 and up on eBay. That's close to their melt value of 2.87 cents each.
They just can't legally be melted at the moment.
.
There is no reason to go through the illegal hassle of melting them if they sell for near melt as is.
They will remain legal tender and circulate for many years to come anyway.
Then why aren't wheat cents circulating? I think there will be a premium for the 1959-1982 copper cents and I think the melting ban will be lifted.
Why aren't Buffalo nickels circulating? The obsolete coinage (wheat cents, Indian cents and Buffs, e.g.) don't circulate due to perceived collectibilty not intrinsic value.
Memorial cents are obsolete and have been since 2008.
They are not viewed as such because the obverse was not changed.
The obverse wasn't changed from the Wheat Cent to the memorial cent in 1959
I'm well aware. But the market simply views them differently. Arguably, all Washington quarters are also obsolete, but the market doesn't treat them that way. You may not agree, but fortunes are lost by arguing with the market.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@ProofCollection said:
Remember, the US mints may be able to pick up business producing coins for other countries or for other purposes, so
simply removing the workload of producing cents doesn't mean they workload won't be replaced with something else.
It is just a matter of time, everyone here also wants the nickel 86'd as well and many want the dime as well. Many of those also think that we should be coining larger denomination coins like $2 or $5 coins, which shows how little they know of the US consumer. I know of no one that wants to carry around coins in general much less large high denomination coins.
What country do you think an idle US mint facility would produce coins for? The world not just the US is moving towards a cashless system, I see no opportunities for the US mint to produce coinage for non US countries now and even less so in the future.
It will not be long before all the coinage the US needs can be produced at the Philly mint, keeping the SF mint open for ifs, maybes, and personal attachments is just as irresponsible as it has been to produce a coin that costs more than face value for the past many decades. That land has a significant value, the SF mint should be shut down and the land/building sold to be redeveloped so those funds can be used to pay down the US debt. The Denver mint is next for the chopping block.
The San Francisco mint building is on the national register of historic places. What I do think should happen is that we should maybe relocate the San Francisco mint and build it on a site where there is an office tower or some other use above the first couple floors which remain as a mint. I would explore reopening Charlotte, Carson City and even New Orleans in a similar style
Why? There is no business case for it.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
That's just it. They can stop making them and it would be a decade or two before anyone would notice.
@coinbuf said:
It will not be long before all the coinage the US needs can be produced at the Philly mint, keeping the SF mint open for ifs, maybes, and personal attachments is just as irresponsible as it has been to produce a coin that costs more than face value for the past many decades. That land has a significant value, the SF mint should be shut down and the land/building sold to be redeveloped so those funds can be used to pay down the US debt. The Denver mint is next for the chopping block.
The the philly mint have the spare capacity? I'm not sure anyone here really knows.
What's the land worth, $50M? I really have no idea. It may be a premium site but whatever amount it is, it's a drop in the bucket for the national budget.
That's just it. They can stop making them and it would be a decade or two before anyone would notice.
@coinbuf said:
It will not be long before all the coinage the US needs can be produced at the Philly mint, keeping the SF mint open for ifs, maybes, and personal attachments is just as irresponsible as it has been to produce a coin that costs more than face value for the past many decades. That land has a significant value, the SF mint should be shut down and the land/building sold to be redeveloped so those funds can be used to pay down the US debt. The Denver mint is next for the chopping block.
The the philly mint have the spare capacity? I'm not sure anyone here really knows.
What's the land worth, $50M? I really have no idea. It may be a premium site but whatever amount it is, it's a drop in the bucket for the national budget.
Considering that cent production is over half of capacity, eliminating cents should create any capacity needed.
@ProofCollection said:
Remember, the US mints may be able to pick up business producing coins for other countries or for other purposes, so
simply removing the workload of producing cents doesn't mean they workload won't be replaced with something else.
It is just a matter of time, everyone here also wants the nickel 86'd as well and many want the dime as well. Many of those also think that we should be coining larger denomination coins like $2 or $5 coins, which shows how little they know of the US consumer. I know of no one that wants to carry around coins in general much less large high denomination coins.
What country do you think an idle US mint facility would produce coins for? The world not just the US is moving towards a cashless system, I see no opportunities for the US mint to produce coinage for non US countries now and even less so in the future.
It will not be long before all the coinage the US needs can be produced at the Philly mint, keeping the SF mint open for ifs, maybes, and personal attachments is just as irresponsible as it has been to produce a coin that costs more than face value for the past many decades. That land has a significant value, the SF mint should be shut down and the land/building sold to be redeveloped so those funds can be used to pay down the US debt. The Denver mint is next for the chopping block.
The San Francisco mint building is on the national register of historic places. What I do think should happen is that we should maybe relocate the San Francisco mint and build it on a site where there is an office tower or some other use above the first couple floors which remain as a mint. I would explore reopening Charlotte, Carson City and even New Orleans in a similar style
Why? There is no business case for it.
There's a business case for "exotic" mint marks, look at how popular the O and CC privies on the 2021 Morgan Dollars. Look at how values are likely to rise on S mint proof sets once the San Francisco Mint closes now that those would be a closed series.
@ProofCollection said:
Remember, the US mints may be able to pick up business producing coins for other countries or for other purposes, so
simply removing the workload of producing cents doesn't mean they workload won't be replaced with something else.
It is just a matter of time, everyone here also wants the nickel 86'd as well and many want the dime as well. Many of those also think that we should be coining larger denomination coins like $2 or $5 coins, which shows how little they know of the US consumer. I know of no one that wants to carry around coins in general much less large high denomination coins.
What country do you think an idle US mint facility would produce coins for? The world not just the US is moving towards a cashless system, I see no opportunities for the US mint to produce coinage for non US countries now and even less so in the future.
It will not be long before all the coinage the US needs can be produced at the Philly mint, keeping the SF mint open for ifs, maybes, and personal attachments is just as irresponsible as it has been to produce a coin that costs more than face value for the past many decades. That land has a significant value, the SF mint should be shut down and the land/building sold to be redeveloped so those funds can be used to pay down the US debt. The Denver mint is next for the chopping block.
The San Francisco mint building is on the national register of historic places. What I do think should happen is that we should maybe relocate the San Francisco mint and build it on a site where there is an office tower or some other use above the first couple floors which remain as a mint. I would explore reopening Charlotte, Carson City and even New Orleans in a similar style
Why? There is no business case for it.
There's a business case for "exotic" mint marks, look at how popular the O and CC privies on the 2021 Morgan Dollars. Look at how values are likely to rise on S mint proof sets once the San Francisco Mint closes now that those would be a closed series.
You are talking about supporting an entire Mint facility to make a handful of commems. There is no business case that is profitable. They do not need that capacity. You're only thinking as a collector, not as a business person.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@ProofCollection said:
Remember, the US mints may be able to pick up business producing coins for other countries or for other purposes, so
simply removing the workload of producing cents doesn't mean they workload won't be replaced with something else.
It is just a matter of time, everyone here also wants the nickel 86'd as well and many want the dime as well. Many of those also think that we should be coining larger denomination coins like $2 or $5 coins, which shows how little they know of the US consumer. I know of no one that wants to carry around coins in general much less large high denomination coins.
What country do you think an idle US mint facility would produce coins for? The world not just the US is moving towards a cashless system, I see no opportunities for the US mint to produce coinage for non US countries now and even less so in the future.
It will not be long before all the coinage the US needs can be produced at the Philly mint, keeping the SF mint open for ifs, maybes, and personal attachments is just as irresponsible as it has been to produce a coin that costs more than face value for the past many decades. That land has a significant value, the SF mint should be shut down and the land/building sold to be redeveloped so those funds can be used to pay down the US debt. The Denver mint is next for the chopping block.
The San Francisco mint building is on the national register of historic places. What I do think should happen is that we should maybe relocate the San Francisco mint and build it on a site where there is an office tower or some other use above the first couple floors which remain as a mint. I would explore reopening Charlotte, Carson City and even New Orleans in a similar style
Why? There is no business case for it.
There's a business case for "exotic" mint marks, look at how popular the O and CC privies on the 2021 Morgan Dollars. Look at how values are likely to rise on S mint proof sets once the San Francisco Mint closes now that those would be a closed series.
You are talking about supporting an entire Mint facility to make a handful of commems. There is no business case that is profitable. They do not need that capacity. You're only thinking as a collector, not as a business person.
Government is not a private business, with that point aside, the business case exists when you can use the first couple floors as a production facility and then build office space or other commercial space above the first couple minting floors. Probably would support a small number of federal jobs that make congressional officials happy they got federal jobs for their state at no cost to taxpayers and you make money off of the real estate and you have numismatists that would buy the products. West point was only one floor for a long time and they added a second floor.
@olympicsos said:
...you can use the first couple floors as a production facility and then build office space or other commercial space above the first couple minting floors
I have to think there are multiple security considerations that would prevent this. The SF Mint has allowed public visitors only a handful of times throughout its existence.
@olympicsos said:
...you can use the first couple floors as a production facility and then build office space or other commercial space above the first couple minting floors
I have to think there are multiple security considerations that would prevent this. The SF Mint has allowed public visitors only a handful of times throughout its existence.
Yes as the building is literally a fortress like building. We have sensitive buildings in New York such as the fed building in lower manhattan with a large portion of gold being stored there but it also has offices above it and multiple below ground gold vaults.
Comments
Agreed, If the objective is cutting costs, then it doesn't make sense not to consolidate operations. Also, I think the collectibility and allure of a mint mark is only amplified after the closure of said mint....
Besides, the original SF mint building is already enshrined as a historic landmark and the current building can be repurposed into a revenue generating asset, a museum or a "Franklin Institute" type of place.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
When I started collecting Lincolns back in the very early 60's the S-mint coins WERE special, if only because they had stopped making them in 1955.
When they started making them again in 1968 they were still special, and so many were hoarded out of circulation that they stopped making them again after 1974. To discourage hoarding part of the 1974-S production was shipped to Denver and Philadelphia and dumped into the production there prior to counting and bagging. I was working for Coin World when we reported this last bit.
I can sell "S" mint wheat rolls to a local coin dealer for $2.50 a roll when he buys non P and D mint wheats for $1.50
DPOTD-3
'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
Don
And?? That does not prove that collectors prefer them, only that due to mintages they may be more scarce than the P/D rolls.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Usually collectors prefer more scarce coins.
DPOTD-3
'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
Don
And what is the data point?
I would accept that as generally true, but that has little to do with the issue of a couple posters saying that S mint coins are considered special just because of the place they were minted. It is very easy to find gem level 55-S cents, far more difficult to find gem level 55-P cents. So if we accept your theory that collectors prefer more scarce coins then for more than a decade span (starting in the late 40's to the late 50's) it is far more difficult to find gem P mint cents and thus it stands to reason that P mint cents are more scarce, in greater demand, and thus more "special" than those minted in SF. Which disproves the comments from several who have posted so far including yourself.
Where I have lived my life I rarely see a P mintmark coin, but you don't see me making false statements and going weak in the knees when I do see one.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Yes indeed. I recently went through a case of penny rolls. Out of 2500 cents, I found about 20 wheaties. I lost track but approx 12-15% where pre-1982.
S mint marks stand out to me just because I grew up near Denver so getting anything other than D coins in change as a child was notable. Not exactly rare or uncommon, but it was refreshing to find coins with other mintmarks because change was so dominantly from Denver it seemed.
I don't know if we have the data to make that conclusion. Generally consolidating facilities can lead to cost reductions, but there are advantages and reasons to have production distributed with different capabilities at different locations. I'm not sure there's huge upside in closing one facility unless you combine that with lower overall production and you are going to end up with excess capacity. Remember, the US mints may be able to pick up business producing coins for other countries or for other purposes, so simply removing the workload of producing cents doesn't mean they workload won't be replaced with something else.
http://ProofCollection.Net
I live in SW TN and the 2025 coins have not reached this area yet. To be honest not many 2024 coins have either. We usually get the Denver minted coins and see some of the Philly minted coins. I have just started finding 2024 Cents and Quarters. The next are coin show is in September, and I hope the2025 coins will be in the area by then.
USN & USAF retired 1971-1993
Successful Transactions with more than 100 Members
2025-S 1C Shield First Strike, DCAM PR70
It is just a matter of time, everyone here also wants the nickel 86'd as well and many want the dime as well. Many of those also think that we should be coining larger denomination coins like $2 or $5 coins, which shows how little they know of the US consumer. I know of no one that wants to carry around coins in general much less large high denomination coins.
What country do you think an idle US mint facility would produce coins for? The world not just the US is moving towards a cashless system, I see no opportunities for the US mint to produce coinage for non US countries now and even less so in the future.
It will not be long before all the coinage the US needs can be produced at the Philly mint, keeping the SF mint open for ifs, maybes, and personal attachments is just as irresponsible as it has been to produce a coin that costs more than face value for the past many decades. That land has a significant value, the SF mint should be shut down and the land/building sold to be redeveloped so those funds can be used to pay down the US debt. The Denver mint is next for the chopping block.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
You would probably know better than anyone, but the failure of $1 coins and presumably $2 and $5 coins is the lack of acceptance by vending machines, or at least that's what I believe. You're right, that ship has probably sailed though.
But there are many smaller nations that undoubtedly still have a need and are not as digital as the US is, such as Ukraine. You'd probably be surprised at how many customers there could be. It's a dying industry for sure, but it's far from dead.
http://ProofCollection.Net
A very high percentage of vending machines can accept $1 coins, all of mine can and almost all of mine have the ability to dispense $1 coins as change too. People don't like them by and large, sure there is always that small percentage that do but I get approached often with the request to swap a $1 coin for $1 bill that someone got as change from the use of a $5 because they don't want that big heavy coin in their pocket.
I think you are overestimating the need globally now and it will only get smaller as time goes by. I certainly don't have that data but I seriously doubt that the US mint/treasury is approached with requests to produce coins for other nations on a regular basis. But that would be interesting to know.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
They are not viewed as such because the obverse was not changed.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
And any vending machine change is too accept CCs and digital payments not adding 50 cent and $1 coins.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
The obverse wasn't changed from the Wheat Cent to the memorial cent in 1959
There are other countries that can produce foreign coins cheaper.
The San Francisco mint building is on the national register of historic places. What I do think should happen is that we should maybe relocate the San Francisco mint and build it on a site where there is an office tower or some other use above the first couple floors which remain as a mint. I would explore reopening Charlotte, Carson City and even New Orleans in a similar style
The discontinuation of the penny is more than a cost-saving measure; it underscores the ongoing devaluation of paper money. As inflation erodes purchasing power, the smallest denominations become obsolete, and the public's trust in fiat currency diminishes. This trend raises critical questions about the future of money and the importance of preserving wealth through tangible assets.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
plenty to go around: 114 billion in circulation.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
I'm well aware. But the market simply views them differently. Arguably, all Washington quarters are also obsolete, but the market doesn't treat them that way. You may not agree, but fortunes are lost by arguing with the market.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Why? There is no business case for it.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
That's just it. They can stop making them and it would be a decade or two before anyone would notice.
The the philly mint have the spare capacity? I'm not sure anyone here really knows.
What's the land worth, $50M? I really have no idea. It may be a premium site but whatever amount it is, it's a drop in the bucket for the national budget.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Considering that cent production is over half of capacity, eliminating cents should create any capacity needed.
There's a business case for "exotic" mint marks, look at how popular the O and CC privies on the 2021 Morgan Dollars. Look at how values are likely to rise on S mint proof sets once the San Francisco Mint closes now that those would be a closed series.
You are talking about supporting an entire Mint facility to make a handful of commems. There is no business case that is profitable. They do not need that capacity. You're only thinking as a collector, not as a business person.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Government is not a private business, with that point aside, the business case exists when you can use the first couple floors as a production facility and then build office space or other commercial space above the first couple minting floors. Probably would support a small number of federal jobs that make congressional officials happy they got federal jobs for their state at no cost to taxpayers and you make money off of the real estate and you have numismatists that would buy the products. West point was only one floor for a long time and they added a second floor.
I have to think there are multiple security considerations that would prevent this. The SF Mint has allowed public visitors only a handful of times throughout its existence.
Yes as the building is literally a fortress like building. We have sensitive buildings in New York such as the fed building in lower manhattan with a large portion of gold being stored there but it also has offices above it and multiple below ground gold vaults.