Should the US Mint be backdating coins over a hundred years?
HalfDime
Posts: 452 ✭✭✭✭
Should the US Mint be backdating coins over a hundred years?
Recently the US Mint has released images of the Best of the Mint series, and they have decided to backdate the coins to 1916. So I was wondering how many times have they done this, or is it a new marketing gimmick to sell coins. After all the 1916 dated coins have nothing to do with the 250th anniversary of the United States other than they were produced within those 250 years. A search of other similar coins produced this:
"The United States Mint has backdated coins in select, rare instances, though it is not a regular practice and official documentation on the total number of occurrences appears limited. The most notable example was the proposed 1964 Peace dollar, where coins were struck using a date earlier than the actual production year, but these were never released to the public and were ultimately melted down.
The practice of backdating refers to striking coins with a date from a previous year, usually to fulfill legislative or commemorative requirements or to align with collector sets. In the case of the 1964 Peace dollar, the coins were struck in 1965 but bore the 1964 date.
Other famous cases sometimes confused with backdating (but not strictly fitting that description) include rare recalled coins, such as the 1933 Double Eagle, which was minted but never officially issued due to changes in US monetary policy.
There is no evidence that the US Mint routinely backdates coins for circulation; when it occurs, it is typically tied to special circumstances, and such coins are rarely, if ever, distributed.
Numismatic references and collector forums often cite the 1964 Peace dollar as the principal example of US Mint backdating, with few—if any—other confirmed cases. Thus, the number of times the US Mint has backdated coins is extremely limited and generally connected to exceptional, legislatively driven events."
So it appears the mint has rarely done it in the past and released few if any coins, until now. I would think the main reason to not do it is it confuses the general public into thinking the coins were actually struck in 1916, instead of being struck in 2026.
Should the US Mint change the coins to have a 2026 date to accurately reflect the year of striking, or leave the 1916 date on them as proposed?
Comments
Being accurately dated makes more sense to me as well and agree with it, jmo
They should overdate them, just like the good old days.
Are those even photos of real coins? The lighting on the 9 in the date looks different than on the other digits and devices.
Collector of Liberty Seated Half Dimes, including die pairs and die states
The 1804 silver dollar is another notable instance of backdating.
Collector of Liberty Seated Half Dimes, including die pairs and die states
Artist rendition
If Dan Carr can do it, why can't the Mint?
The 9 on the Mercury coin looks incuse to me.
The 9 on the SLQ could go either way depending on the light angle.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
I don’t have a problem with it since these are gold issues. Might confuse an archeologist 2,000 years from now tho.
The 1853/4 quarter is another example of backdating.
bob
Backdating does seem odd. And the mint already produced gold versions of these coins in 2016 for their 'Centennial' so not sure the point of these issues (other than the Mint must think they'll sell a boatload of 'em.)
2009 proof silver eagle anyone?
The 1804 dollar was an unusual situation. The mint was asked to make a complete Proof set of all the coins that on the books in 1834. The trouble was the last silver dollars and ten dollar gold coins were issued in 1804. No one knew that the dollars issued in 1804 were dated 1803. Therefore when the mint made the dies for the coin, they used the last date in which those two denominations had been issued.
I guess people would have thought that it would be odd to have them dated 1834.
Does minting 1964 dated Kennedy half dollars in 1965 count? 10s or 100s of millions were minted in 1965 dated 1964.
I can't believe they would do this.
We won't have archeologists by then, Just throw the piece in a scanner like device and it will tell you exactly what you need to know.
Also arguable humans will be around in 4025.
Addressing the OP I would think they should be dated as manu. somewhere on the coin.
@oldabeintx . The only confusing part for any archeologist 2000 years from now will be explaining how it was linked to canabalism; like every other thing over 2000 years old is. James
... and did the same thing in 1975 with the bicentennial quarters.
to the OP's point, I don't think they should backdate them. I'd want them more if they had the actual mintage date on them. (I probably won't be buying them either way, at least not the gold ones.)
There should be a massive outcry over this. We as collectors depend on dating accuracy. For the mint to throw us and the hobby under the bus here is completely out of line. This isn't any better than a counterfeiter or other false advertiser. And to think our own mint did it. Unbelievable.
Austria still issues Maria Theresa Thalers with the 1780 date. The 1804 silver dollar was struck in 1834. Turkish Republic gold has the 1923 date on it.
Yes, they should use a current date for them, but then perhaps they couldn't make such a hullabaloo over the privy mark being special. It also bothers me that the 9 is incuse in the pictures.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution