Too many new coins from the mint?

Windycity · January 5, 2006 12:13AM

Does it bother anyone else that the govenment continues to pass new legislation which authorizes the US Mint to issue new circulating coins? While I thought the State Quarter program was something new and fun, it seems the government is going back to the well a few too many times. Jefferson Nickels, Presidential dollars, a change in the Lincoln cent... I guess I prefer to have a series last many years without change which allows for a collection of one type of coin. Once the government decides to change a coin, great, keep that new design in place for the intended 25 or more years. Maybe I am old-fashioned in my thinking but I am having a hard time getting excited about multiple new reverses on coins each and every year.

Other thoughts?

291fifth · January 5, 2006 12:28AM

The recently passed coin legislation is likely to kill interest in modern commems. It is even worse than the Atlanta Olympics coin program. Our legislators continue to view coin collectors as saps who will buy anything they offer.

bonkrood · January 5, 2006 12:32AM

An expensive mint set I would think. To many coins.

sonoranmonsoon · January 5, 2006 12:33AM

I can think of one good reason for the increased varieties. I does spark a lot of interest in new collectors, particularly the younger ones. As these collectors get older and branch into the classics, it will keep the hobby alive and well. Having said that, there must be a saturation point somewhere. I have confidence that the US mint will find that point, and boldly go past it to the point of deminishing returns.

BulletBiter · January 5, 2006 12:51AM

I don’t know if I can say it bothers me, its going to end up hurting the hobby. I think with the State Quarter program, there were many new coin collectors added to the hobby and a ton of not so new coin collector that may have come back to coin collecting because of the program. I can’t say that I was keen on the Jefferson nickels, nor the upcoming president dollars. However, the 2009 cent is a different story; I would love to see a 2009-S VDB and 2009 VDB cent both in copper, with say less then a million of each minted. I think that having so many new coins from the mint is over kill and will overwhelm the numismatic community and could although be a short term boost in revenue, long term hurt the sales and potential profit for the mint.

Not to mention that each one of the new coins are being minted in the 10’s if not 100’s of millions.

JMHO

- For some reason I kept typing USPS when I meant to type Mint. huh

PerryHall · January 5, 2006 12:59AM

<< <i> Our legislators continue to view coin collectors as saps who will buy anything they offer. >>

Unfortunately, they are right.

pf70collector · January 5, 2006 1:04AM

I think the mint should have a lottery like the Bureau of Printing and Engraving on certain issues that have a very low mintage which allows a few individuals to own the coin. I think this would spark more interest in moderns.

Gemineye · January 5, 2006 1:14AM

I also would like a 2009 s vdb Lincoln Matte Proof copper cent.................

I wouldn't like a lottery though.Limit the big bulk sales entirely.Strict limits on sales........

BulletBiter · January 5, 2006 1:21AM

I wouldn't like a lottery though. Limit the big bulk sales entirely.Strict limits on sales........

I would agree. Maybe 1 set (2 rolls) per household/address.

LanLord · January 5, 2006 1:30AM

This kind of stuff seems cyclical.

Classic commems went through it.
Modern commems went through it.
Now regular circ coins are going through it.

The interesting thing in the end is that a few of the coins at the end of the overload period get ignored by collectors and prospectors and become fairly low mintage items and therefore fairly rare.

We may see that in the first lady coins or later releases of the presidential dollars.

Artist · January 5, 2006 2:30AM

I wrote this response for a thread about a desgin for a Washington Dollar, but since I was late to join the discussion there, I am posting it again here because what I have to say is equally relevant to this dialogue:

I too have trouble seeing the logic of this (the Presidnetial Dollar Coin) bill - I mean it's not as if Presidents are currently underrepresented on our circulating coinage. Perhaps these dollars will inspire some to do a little research on each figure and learn about him, his accomplishments, and the times he served in, but by and large I cannot imagine them commanding the same affection from the public as the SQs. For one thing, our leaders were generally not elected on the basis of their aesethic potential to carry a design. For another, just at face value it will cost four times as much to collect these coins as the SQs. And lastly, Dollar coins have never been popular in commerce in this country since 1794. As for the First Spouse $10 coins, I am concerned as well. Only on very special occasions in recent years has the Mint rolled out $10 gold coins, and now, just as gold seems to have settled above the $500 per ounce mark, there will be five a year? Worst of all, with regards to both series, is the idea that inevitably some of these coins will be made and collected purely out of obligation towards completing the series and not for any heartfelt reverence - I mean who out there is really lusting for a Warren G. Harding dollar?

**

Another part of this bill that frustrates me is the call for a Fraser Buffalo $50 gold. I know many of you are looking forward to this coin and so please know that I mean none of you any disrespect. However, as I see it, our Nation's coins represent who we are as a people, and so I just think in the grand scheme of things that the recycling of a 93 year old design (no matter how great the design is,) to be kind of sad. I mean is that truly where our greatest consensus lies? Plus it's not like there haven't been a million buffalos lately either.

Our country has such boundless natural history, that I think it's a shame more debate could not have been devoted to this subject. The Buffalo was Fraser's solution to the problem, and it was a great one, but what is ours? Actually, that statement applies to the new dollar program as well.

***

One cool thing, is that the same bill calls for the obverse of the 2009 cents to use VDB's original portrait in its orignal relief. As I see it, that could have HUGE implications for other issues.

BECOKA · January 5, 2006 2:35AM

I agree, I hope they put a stop to all of these new coins. Quarters program was something and got a lot of people interested in collecting. The westward journey nickels were something. But if this continues there will be so many coins on the market that no one will collect because they can just reach into there pocket and get any combination of varieties. Just think in a few years you will find several dozen different dollars, 52 types of quarters, 5 types of nickels, 3 types of pennies if you count wheaties still in circ.

Enough is enough. 1 coin design change over several years is more than enough not 80 new coins in a couple of years.

SilverDaddy · January 5, 2006 4:29AM

I think a larger proof set is actually a good thing. I like the sets we get now with all the quarters, the dollar, etc. I never see the dollar or a Kennedy in my pocket change but I like them in proof sets. To me, the old 5-coin proof sets weren't diverse enough. Maybe the government will take a tip from other retail industries that boost profits by charging significantly more for a product perceived to have significantly greater value. I pay seven times what I used to for a baseball ticket, but the new park is that much more pleasant. I wouldn't mind paying more to get more (within reason), especially if the new coins are attractive. The mint could also give the customer the option of choosing which proof coins to buy, like they do now. From my POV as a collector, if a new coin design is artistically innovative and attractive, it can appeal to people without making them saps for wanting to own it.

- - Mitch

Windycity · January 5, 2006 8:40AM

I too like the Lincoln cent plan but the presidential dollars and first lady coins are simply going to far in my opinion. I think the mint is looking at a profit center and they want to increase profits... eventually they could kill the goose that lays the golden egg. (That's not a knock on Canadian collectors!)

cullenbryant · January 5, 2006 8:57AM

does seem like they are over doing it a bit

ChangeInHistory · January 5, 2006 10:06AM

It can be a positive in that in helps expose the hobby with a younger generation. Just look around at the next show---we REALLY need new/young collectors to join the ranks.

However, the Mint overdoing it a bit--(making too much $)--on several levels. Instead of mass producing a multitude of different designs on several denominations, why not concentrate on making some decent--I'll settle for just decent--- designs.

Also there are too many multiple-design programs going at one time. Let the quarter program run it's coarse and then start the presidential dollar program.

It's pretty obvious that some hot-shot in Washington is looking at the Mint's bottom line saying "Hey, these people are going nuts for these multiple design coins and they are paying a healthy premium directly FROM THE MINT for rolls, bags, sets, etc. We need to milk this puppy big-time!" And they can say "hey the collectors are calling for different designs, and thats what we're giving them" And with the Presidential program they can hide behind the education tree and say"oh now the little kids can learn about the presidents and what they did..and bla, bla, bla" Um, they should be learning about them in school anyway. (how did being on a quarter effect the Ceasar Rodney fan-club enrollment..???)

Didn't the Mint kill the golden goose back in the '80's with the commemorative programs?

relayer · January 5, 2006 10:16AM

Yes. I think it would cost a few thousand to buy one of each coin/set being offered in 2006.
You could buy a nice coin with that money.

kiyote · January 5, 2006 11:19AM

Just a 1999-2008 set, PDSS, all coins (including bullion, commems) would be a massive set costing tens of thousands of dollars. I agree, it's getting crazy, with no end in sight. The only end in sight is the collector's ability to swallow all of it. Even the most avid collector can't always shell out $7,000 for every coin released that year. (Proof platinum sets will likely be 3k next year)

GAT · January 5, 2006 11:50AM

The 2006 Mint Sets are the only Mint products I would consider purchasing and only if they are satin finished.

Conder101 · January 5, 2006 5:16PM

And to think, it was as recently as the early 1990's that the Treasury Dept was against even making a single change in the coin designs under the argument that having multiple designs in circulation would confuse the public. Now we have one cent, six nickels, one dime, forty two quarters, one half, and two dollars. And by the end of next year we will have added nine more quarters and four more dollars.

Baley · January 5, 2006 5:27PM

Doesn't bother me, as I don't try to keep up with new coins.

My type set ends with the millenium and my series that I'll spend more than face value for end with the silver in 1964.

I am having fun collecting the circulating issues for face value, sometimes I'll "cheat" and offer on the BST board to trade a silver quarter for a Philadelphia SQ that I need (I live on the west coast)

I do feel sorry for people buying all the "mint products", I agree that a disillusionment will probably set in sometime in the future and a lot of this common junk will trade for under it's "issue price" but you never know, maybe collectors of modern "mint products" will pyramid forever in numbers and have limitless budget for "mint products"

cladking · January 6, 2006 12:27AM

<< <i>Doesn't bother me, as I don't try to keep up with new coins.

My type set ends with the millenium and my series that I'll spend more than face value for end with the silver in 1964.

I am having fun collecting the circulating issues for face value, sometimes I'll "cheat" and offer on the BST board to trade a silver quarter for a Philadelphia SQ that I need (I live on the west coast)

I do feel sorry for people buying all the "mint products", I agree that a disillusionment will probably set in sometime in the future and a lot of this common junk will trade for under it's "issue price" but you never know, maybe collectors of modern "mint products" will pyramid forever in numbers and have limitless budget for "mint products" >>

Times change.

In 1995 there were only a couple million people actively buying coins. Up to this point all
moderns had eventually lost money if you just waited long enough. This was usually about
three years. We old timers just got in the habit of ignoring these coins and the small sec-
ondary market for them because they didn't affect us and they were a sure way to lose mon-
ey. But that changed in '95 because the demand finally outstripped the supply on large num-
bers of moderns and prices of many moderns started moving up. Before this time the only
coins with high prices were the rarities and the ultra high grade. Since '95 most of the new
mint products have held values over their issue price. This is caused by the same thing that
pushed prices off the dime in '95; growing demand.

Today there are far more people buying rare coins and there are large numbers interested
in some or all of the mint products. While mintages in the tens of thousands and millions
might look astronomical to many old timers they are not always sufficient to meet the demand
of twenty or thirty million active coin buyers. By the time these numbers decrease, there will
have been some attrition in the supplies of the coins. This isn't to say that prices will go much
higher or never collapse just that I agree with you that only time will tell.

cladking · January 6, 2006 12:28AM

<< <i>I can think of one good reason for the increased varieties. I does spark a lot of interest in new collectors, particularly the younger ones. As these collectors get older and branch into the classics, it will keep the hobby alive and well. Having said that, there must be a saturation point somewhere. I have confidence that the US mint will find that point, and boldly go past it to the point of deminishing returns. >>

Very well said.

I'm looking forwaed to them branching into more of the moderns as well.

Whitby · January 6, 2006 12:34AM

Excellent insight.

IMO, moderns tend to provide a greater opportunity to new collectors or reptiles like myself who have come back to collecting after many years.

Motown · January 6, 2006 1:14AM

If it offsets some of the cost of manufacturing coins, that ok with me.

carl · January 6, 2006 5:25AM

How soon we all forget. I remember being a stamp collector but when the government started the many, many types of stamps I, along with most of my friends all stopped collecting. Then there was the sticker collections, baseball/football cards my kid was into until they flooded the market with thousands of varieties. That also died. Then there was Beanie Baby's, or however you spell it, that as they produced to many it also vanished.
Then there was the famous BiCentennial coins. Everyone saved them and them dumped them all back into circulation. I feel that the recent changes have inpired a realy lot of new coin collectors that will all to soon loose intrerest. When they all get tired of this new stuff from the government and realize how many billions of these things are out there, the interest will fade and in the long run the entire coin collecting hobby will suffer.
On the other hand when and if they all eventually dump these temporary collections, there will be more available for me.

coinnut86 · January 6, 2006 5:30AM

<< On the other hand when and if they all eventually dump these temporary collections, there will be more available for me. >>

You snake!

BECOKA · January 6, 2006 5:31AM

It may actually do some harm. I have actually decided to stop collecting modern stuff uless there is a design that really stands out as superior to the classic stuff.

tanner520 · January 6, 2006 5:50AM

<< <i>I do feel sorry for people buying all the "mint products", I agree that a disillusionment will probably set in sometime in the future and a lot of this common junk will trade for under it's "issue price" but you never know, maybe collectors of modern "mint products" will pyramid forever in numbers and have limitless budget for "mint products" >>

I can't help but say this at this juncture...at one time, everything was modern junk.

Too many new coins from the mint?

Comments

Leave a Comment