Should the US Mint be backdating coins over a hundred years?
HalfDime
Posts: 453 ✭✭✭✭
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
As a stand alone issue, there is no confusion over when these were made. They don't have to date them at all.
There IS confusion because they misrepresented the date. No date would be acceptable and preferable to the false dating.
Confusion with what? All the gold 1916 Mercs that never existed?
We have come to rely on the date as accepted convention that we can rely on as accurate, with a few historical one offs. Sure you and me know better about which coins were actually minted in 1916, but that is not the point. They can't go down the road of just slinging old dates on new coins.
Sometimes coins were backdated for nefarious reasons. I read that the Swiss who were the bankers for the Nazis converted holocaust gold jewelry and teeth into 20F Swiss gold coins which were backdated to the 1920s to hide their evil origins. It's creepy to think that some of the gold in that beautiful 20F Swiss gold coin may have come from the mouth of someone who was murdered by the Nazis.
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
Why? What purpose does the date actually serve?
Our currency is almost always backdated. Would it matter if coins had no dates at all? Ancient coins were largely undated.
I do not collect world coins but I think i have been told that the Austrians produced Maria Theresa Thalers with the same date for decades. james
Blasphemy there would be no numismatics, lol.
Over a century. They also issued "restrike" 1915 gold as a bullion coin. It's really not uncommon. And the date really isn't relevant, especially on bullion coins where the assay would be more important.
There are also numerous undated coins and currency.
Mexico is still making back dated gold coins with the date 1959 for the 20P gold coin and 1947 for the 50P gold coin.
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
Don’t care one way or another. These are redundant issues of the 2016 versions, which I already own. Sad when marketing gimmicks are foisted on us by our own mint. The whole privy mark thing is for suckers.
Silver coins were minted till early 1966 with a date of 1964. Not sure of what denominations were minted when.
The first clad quarters were minted on Dec.31, 1965, some clad coins dated 1965 and 1966 were back dated to an extent. The government does what it wants.
There are a lot of gold bullion coins that are backdated they call them restrikes. Other than the Maria Teresia Thalers I do not know of any other silver bullion coins that are restrikes. Most, if not all,of restrike coins are backdated.
My opinion is that circulation coins should not be backdated. Bullion struck coins that are not intended for circulation they can do what they want-they will anyway.
I don't agree with it.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
Just you wait...... in a few years you will receive hundreds of phone calls saying "I have a rare pattern trial striking gold 1916 dime I saw on the internet for $500,000!!!!"
Good luck convincing that insistent customer that the coin dated 1916 was not made in 1916.
I side with the "probably not the best idea" crowd for the 1916 issues. Backdating in this case doesn't add any value from the collector's standpoint, so why not current date the coins, or at least dual date them?
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606