Hey US Mint... ENOUGH!!

GoldenEyeNumismatics · March 5, 2007 2:03PM

I don't know about all of you but I am getting sick of all these "commemorative reverses," the presidential dollars, and the upcoming plans to commemorate the life of Lincoln on the 2009 cents and to commemorate accomplishments of Native Americans on the reverse of the Sac dollars.

The state quarters were a great idea, but now the mint is milking the statehood quarter concept to the limit, and I am getting sick of it.

I know our coinage is boring, but doing all these special programs for almost every denomination is getting annoying.

Hey US Mint... ENOUGH!!

DieClash · March 5, 2007 2:08PM

I'm not a dealer. But I like to keep my U.S. modern series up to date. The mint is the largest coin dealer in the world. Each year I have to spend more and more to keep by date/year/variety set current. I too have had enough.

GAT · March 5, 2007 2:20PM

It's Congress that's mandating all these coin programs, not the Mint.

sumnom · March 5, 2007 2:24PM

I find this constant changing of designs to diminish the dignity of US coinage. Of course, the designs have not been all that dignified as of late but when the designs change so frequently, my desire to collect them is sharply reduced.

DieClash · March 5, 2007 2:24PM

<< It's Congress that's mandating all these coin prorams, not the Mint. >>

OK. That's just a technicality. For sure our ire should be directed at congress. But congress doesn't actually make the things. And when the mint lobbies congress to produce an as yet unauthorized silver version of the Prexy $ than the mint is similarly culpable as an extension of congress. Afterall it isn't congress that dictates that the mint must produce fractional Bison Gold bullion but rather it is up to the mint's discretion.

So the two are equal in this post as far as I'm concerned!

Coxe · March 5, 2007 2:56PM

To be honest, what would be so terribly wrong to just go back to making coins for commerce? Mint as many as we need and use the hardly questionable Liberty seated design. The Congress/Mint is not in the businesses they were designed for with regard to all of this.

NumisOxide · March 5, 2007 3:16PM

FullStrike · March 5, 2007 6:23PM

Goldeneye you are shooting right for the heart of the problem with the US Mint. I agree with you 100%.

The Presidential Dollars are sizing up to be the most ugly series in history. The "plain edge" GW $1 coin is the lamest rip-off going. To me the thing is totally worthless trash - I wouldn't pay $1.25 for one.

But while I view the series as crap as far as collectable coinage I do see them as a great educational tool and an excellent vehicle to promote circulation of the dollar coin. I mean, think of it - the ugly little coins do grab attention. I think most non-collectors that see them will throw them into a drawer until they have a very sizable "collection". Along the way, they might learn a little about our past Presidents. At the very least, they will be aware of their names and the time period they served. That alone will be a great educational experience.

If and when the "collectors" become a little desparate for spending cash, the little uglies can come to the rescue. Who doesn't need a little savings account now and then? Maybe the tradedollarnut doesn't need this sort of little stash now and then but many others ( including myself ) certainly could use it.

So I guess I've actually named 3 good uses for the ugly Presidential series.

1. educational tool

2. circulation of $1 denomination coins

3. a little "forced" savings account that doesn't pay interest

I actually like the Presidential Coin series. I still think they're ugly and I have no intentions of " collecting" them, but I will be getting rolls of each and every issue that comes out. Why? To spend them of course. I get some enjoyment out of the reactions of those store clerks.

Cam40 · March 5, 2007 7:41PM

wait! we,re not up to the dimes yet!?!

GoldenEyeNumismatics · March 5, 2007 8:58PM

<< It's Congress that's mandating all these coin programs, not the Mint. >>

I know, I'm just trying to get a point across

cincycoin · March 5, 2007 9:19PM

sort of reminds me of collecting stamps. They made so many comms. that it made it hard to stay interested.

TheRaven · March 5, 2007 10:25PM

We should be getting rid of this coin not adding reverses to it.....

They are going to kill the collector goose once again.....

Shamika · March 5, 2007 11:02PM

<< sort of reminds me of collecting stamps. They made so many comms. that it made it hard to stay interested. >>

My thoughts exactly! Occasional changes are good. But at this point, one could probably mint there own goofy $5 coins and pass them off as legit since cashiers can't keep up with so many different designs.

291fifth · March 5, 2007 11:11PM

The only way the mint will get the message is if collectors stop buying their products.

garsmith · March 5, 2007 11:32PM

<< It's Congress that's mandating all these coin prorams, not the Mint. >>

Who voted all those dumbascraps into office, wasn't me

bumanchu · March 5, 2007 11:44PM

Maybe they are sowing the seeds of a unified currency/coinage for the Americas.

Get us use to diverse designs.

Make us sick of them.

Bring back order by new consistent designs that just happen to be the same as Canada, Mexico, et al simultaneously.

Voila!

Too conspiratorial? Maybe....maybe not!

aficionado · March 5, 2007 11:59PM

<< << It's Congress that's mandating all these coin prorams, not the Mint. >>

Who voted all those dumbascraps into office, wasn't me

>>

With that remark, I'll assume you’re a Republican, which explains why you’re not very bright.

You apparently think the Democratic Congress which took power in January 2007 passed legislation and put into law the Presidential Dollar Program?

This is why our Govt. is out of wack. Uninformed, clueless people voting.

RotatedRainbows · March 6, 2007 12:50AM

<< 

<< << It's Congress that's mandating all these coin prorams, not the Mint. >>

Who voted all those dumbascraps into office, wasn't me

>>

With that remark, I'll assume you’re a Republican, which explains why you’re not very bright.

You apparently think the Democratic Congress which took power in January 2007 passed legislation and put into law the Presidential Dollar Program?

This is why our Govt. is out of wack. Uninformed, clueless people voting. >>

onthespot · March 6, 2007 2:33AM

collect what you like. If they are too ugly for you, don't collect them.

Cladiator · March 6, 2007 2:34AM

Welcome to the Royal Canadian Mint.

kwmorgan · March 6, 2007 2:43AM

The RCM's quality is lightyears beyond the US Mint, but the RCM has practically made their 25c piece uncollectable with all the variants of it. I'm not going to even try to keep up. If I like what I see, I'll buy it. Otherwise, nope. That goes for both mints.

Pentimento · March 6, 2007 2:49AM

U.S. Mint Business Plan 2003 (2002-2007) as made available by the FOIA.

<< GOAL 3 MEASURES: • Double revenues and profits >>

PDF link

I don't think it gets any simpler than that.

flaminio · March 6, 2007 2:50AM

It's 1936 all over again. Soon the whole thing will implode, and we'll have thirty years of numismatic darkness.

Bring it.

BECOKA · March 6, 2007 2:51AM

No one said you had to buy all of the coins. Just buy the ones you like and stick to the series.

sweetwilliet · March 6, 2007 2:58AM

Something similar was posted above, but with all these new series, I think of baseball cards. So many baseball cards were produced that eventually people lost interest and there doesn't seem to be many card collectors out there anymore. Hopefully these new series are bringing in more collectors and not just distracting already established collectors to different areas (no, I'm not saying anything bad at all about moderns in general). Wait, if everyone went to moderns, my series would get cheaper!!

CoinHusker · March 6, 2007 3:18AM

Where would I find information on the proposed SAC reverses?

Bochiman · March 6, 2007 3:21AM

<< It's 1936 all over again. Soon the whole thing will implode, and we'll have thirty years of numismatic darkness.

Bring it. >>

That's what I have been thinking/saying for most of the past year......it actually saddens me that this is happening...stupid politician's and their stupid littel agendas playing with the coinage/Mint

Sotty · March 6, 2007 3:24AM

All of the coins from 2007 would be a collection in itself.I wonder if they are going to have a reverse proof for everything?

vega1 · March 6, 2007 3:25AM

<< It's 1936 all over again >>

At least the designs in that commemorative program where somewhat inspired... a few could even be classified as quite beautiful IMO. The designs today are absolutely horrible. Completely devoid of any symbolism or artistic merit (once again, my opinion). The lack of aesthetics bothers me far more than the fact that the current program exists at all.

DeepCoin · March 6, 2007 3:26AM

Just and FYI, the Mint does not lobby congress with regard to coin production. There are no hired lobbyists, or other individuals operating at that level. All of the Mint's public statements are sent via the Public Affairs Office.

DieClash · March 6, 2007 3:39AM

<< Just and FYI, the Mint does not lobby congress with regard to coin production. There are no hired lobbyists, or other individuals operating at that level. All of the Mint's public statements are sent via the Public Affairs Office. >>

"lobbying" may be semantics but the intent is the same when Mint employees float balloons about wanting to produce a Silver Presidential $ at public speaking events. They cannot do so without Congressional authorization.

I believe this was reported on by CW but I can't find the back issue where the article appeared.

Zoins · March 6, 2007 4:12AM

<< The only way the mint will get the message is if collectors stop buying their products. >>

<< collect what you like. If they are too ugly for you, don't collect them. >>

both!

If people keep buying them, Congress will keep authorizing them. If you want the Mint to stop, get people to STOP BUYING THEM!

barbershopper · March 6, 2007 4:50AM

My first post.
There's no doubt about the reason for all these new series.
There is a considerable profit between the cost of manufacturing and the face value of coins.
The mint is making a killing for the USA by encouraging the purchasing of multiple rolls and/or
bags of them. I do have to order one set each year to maintain the status of having a complete collection.
I have this to offer if it isn't to much of a reach along this line.
I remember (indeed predicted) the practice of hoarding rolls of BU coins in the 1950's and early 1960's and
the ensuing tumble in 1964-65 which resulted in a loss of any premium price of these coins
while also cutting by half or more that of most of the semi-key coins
such as the 1950-D nickels, etc. The same thing happened 10 or 15 years earlier with stamps.
My brother and thousands of "collectors" were buying sheets of 3 cent commeratives with the
hope of making themselves RICH. Worse than coins, they had to sell them at a 10% discount from face!
My advice would be, as I said, to buy one set of each new issue for your collection.

poorguy · March 6, 2007 4:50AM

<< I don't know about all of you but I am getting sick of all these "commemorative reverses," the presidential dollars, and the upcoming plans to commemorate the life of Lincoln on the 2009 cents and to commemorate accomplishments of Native Americans on the reverse of the Sac dollars.

The state quarters were a great idea, but now the mint is milking the statehood quarter concept to the limit, and I am getting sick of it.

I know our coinage is boring, but doing all these special programs for almost every denomination is getting annoying.

Hey US Mint... ENOUGH!! >>

Take a note from the sports cards era in the late eighties and early nineties. The producers such as donruss, upper deck, fleer, ect. produced so many subtypes and the like that it because a huge stinking mess and essentially helped destroy that market in the early nineties in conjunction with the strike that occurred around the same time.

Zoins · March 6, 2007 5:29AM

<< It's 1936 all over again. Soon the whole thing will implode, and we'll have thirty years of numismatic darkness. >>

<< Take a note from the sports cards era in the late eighties and early nineties. The producers such as donruss, upper deck, fleer, ect. produced so many subtypes and the like that it because a huge stinking mess and essentially helped destroy that market in the early nineties in conjunction with the strike that occurred around the same time. >>

That would be a great time to buy and build a collection right? I don't know about anyone else, but if the coin market does collapse, I will be buying more than I'm buying now.

Zoins · March 6, 2007 5:40AM

<< 

<< It's 1936 all over again >>

At least the designs in that commemorative program where somewhat inspired... a few could even be classified as quite beautiful IMO. The designs today are absolutely horrible. Completely devoid of any symbolism or artistic merit (once again, my opinion). The lack of aesthetics bothers me far more than the fact that the current program exists at all. >>

IMO, some pre-modern commems are artistic disasters while some modern commems have some artistic merit and symbolism. The modern commems having designs I like have decent premiums now. Both pre-modern and modern commems are like boxes of chocolate IMO.

JoeLewis · March 6, 2007 5:57AM

Just wait until the mint starts putting the actual day each coin was minted right on the coin.

Then you'll hear coin collectors saying, "I'm working on my Roosevelt set, and I've got a 2007 February 4, and a 2007 February 6, but I can't seem to locate a 2007 February 5. I really need to fill that hole in my 400-page Dansco album!"

ericj96 · March 6, 2007 6:10AM

I hope all the collectors get fed up and stop buying this year......that way I can buy a few and be in the right place at the right time. Collectors ran on and on about the injustice of the mint in the 1995-1997 era too. It was the best time to buy. Jackie, Wheelchair and 95-w ring a bell?

Ericj

Zoins · March 6, 2007 6:12AM

<< Just wait until the mint starts putting the actual day each coin was minted right on the coin.

Then you'll hear coin collectors saying, "I'm working on my Roosevelt set, and I've got a 2007 February 4, and a 2007 February 6, but I can't seem to locate a 2007 February 5. I really need to fill that hole in my 400-page Dansco album!" >>

I doubt this will happen and think you are joking but if they go this way, we may have the TPGs to thank for it. Many times organizations change things as a response to what they consider abuses by outside parties. We can see what the US Mint considers abuses posted on their website. I'd rather have a coin with an early date imprinted by the US Mint than something that is printed on an insert by a third-party.

Elcontador · March 6, 2007 6:33AM

Personally, I'd like to see them start minting an incuse 3 1/2 cent coin. The obverse would be an image of Aaron Burr, the reverse of Jimmy Carter.

TwoSides2aCoin · March 6, 2007 6:54AM

Wal-Mart is going to start selling US Mint products

Coxe · March 6, 2007 7:01AM

<< Just wait until the mint starts putting the actual day each coin was minted right on the coin.

Then you'll hear coin collectors saying, "I'm working on my Roosevelt set, and I've got a 2007 February 4, and a 2007 February 6, but I can't seem to locate a 2007 February 5. I really need to fill that hole in my 400-page Dansco album!" >>

The 4th was a Sunday, probably not a production day at the Mint.

I still think we may see corporate sponsorship of our low denomination coins (one and five cents), particularly if neocons retake some control. If floated, the idea would probably be warmly received by the likes of all the Super Bowl sommercial sponsors and similar. Just put their logs on the reverses for subsidizing the production: McDonald's, NASCAR, Exxon-Mobil, The Gap, ...

Zoins · March 6, 2007 7:07AM

<< I still think we may see corporate sponsorship of our low denomination coins (one and five cents), particularly if neocons retake some control. If floated, the idea would probably be warmly received by the likes of all the Super Bowl sommercial sponsors and similar. Just put their logs on the reverses for subsidizing the production: McDonald's, NASCAR, Exxon-Mobil, The Gap, ... >>

Why do you think this may happen? Has this been proposed or discussed by any Congresmen? If so, which ones?

Also, why limit it to one and five cents? Why not have all denominations be sponsored? Having sponsors for all denominations will help the Mint reach their revenue and profit goals faster. Of course that may mean even MORE quarter and dollar types!

Coxe · March 6, 2007 7:20AM

I bring it up as a possibility since it is a uniquely capitalistic way out of the production cost problem with the extreme minor coinage that the public insists it wants to retain. Relatively widespread and cheap advertising. The collectibility is certainly another issue too.

mirabela · March 6, 2007 7:23AM

We will soon need a 43-cent piece, so we can buy stamps. Also, there will need to be a large $43 piece so we can buy rolls of them. It should be a bi-material coin with a core of acrylic and an outer ring of manganese, and as big as a dinner plate. They can do some special reverses and stuff for the collectors, and also different color cores. It should have "Chucky" on it.

Just my .02

JoeLewis · March 6, 2007 7:32AM

<< 

<< Just wait until the mint starts putting the actual day each coin was minted right on the coin.

Then you'll hear coin collectors saying, "I'm working on my Roosevelt set, and I've got a 2007 February 4, and a 2007 February 6, but I can't seem to locate a 2007 February 5. I really need to fill that hole in my 400-page Dansco album!" >>

I doubt this will happen and think you are joking but if they go this way, we may have the TPGs to thank for it. Many times organizations change things as a response to what they consider abuses by outside parties. We can see what the US Mint considers abuses posted on their website. I'd rather have a coin with an early date imprinted by the US Mint than something that is printed on an insert by a third-party. >>

Of course I was joking. I just think it would be hilarious to see the coin album companies try to accomodate that!

Hoodlatch · March 6, 2007 9:12AM

I too was hollering at anyone that would listen about the 1995-1998 issues. During this particular era there were many dealers and collectors asking us to boycott the U.S Mint over too many coins. At the time a fellow collector and close friend of mine was concentrating on classic coins such as Morgans and Walkers and was just considering moderns at a time when you could go to a coin show and see dealers tossing around silver commemoratives like they were worn out rounds. I started setting up at coin shows with him, displaying mostly high grade modern gold and silver commemoratives, and other graded moderns also. With the passion that I displayed and the research I put into these coins, the buyers were falling all over themselves to buy my coins. I sold several of the key issues at just over the U.S Mints' prices including the 1995/1996 Silver and gold Olympic's, 1997 Jackie's, 1998 Kennedy sets, 2001 Capitol Visitor gold, and the 1995W Silver Eagle. If We had listened to the mentality of the boycott brigade, then not only would we have been left out, but countless others would have been uninspired enough to pass on these wonderful coins, and regardless of what others are saying, promising long term investments! Thanks chas for your decades long passion and inspiration!

Hey US Mint... ENOUGH!!

Comments

Leave a Comment