US Mint: The Final Frontier: Reissuing coins (not just designs)
NowhereMan
Posts: 478
There have been a couple of recent threads about the mint recycling classic designs.
What about this twist...
What would collectors think about the US Mint not just re-issuing designs, but the entire coin, composition, design and denomination, but with an updated year.
For example, think about the 1921 Morgan, or the 1999 SBA, or the 1992 Silver 90% dime, quarter and half. All five of these examples represent the US Mint reviving a coin (not just the design) that had been dormant for many years.
The logical extreme of this would be to reach WAY back. How about the liberty seated design, as an example. What would we think about the US mint issuing a "special" 2008 mint set and proof set with silver half dime, dime, 20c, quarter, half and dollar, all in the liberty seated original designs and original compositions, but dated 2008. Would we consider these coins to be part of the same series, which just happened to take a 100+ year break? Or would we consider it some freaky modern crap cash-in? "..and the seated set of '08 was such a success that the bust set of '09 is sure to be a hit..."
What would this do to TYPE collecting, when suddenly the slots in your DANSCO could be filled with MS69 examples, available at current US Mint prices.
Does it sound too far fetched? Well, look at the SF Old Mint $1 and $5. Original composition, Original Denomination, Original Design (on one side). If the mint had taken one more step and made the $1 have the original "Morgan" obverse also, would we consider this part of the Morgan series? Would we like it or hate it? If you're saying that it would NOT be part of the series because of the gap, then I ask you whether you consider the 1921 Morgan to be part of the series? If you say it's not part of the series because 1921 was released for circulation, and the hypothetical 2008 was only sold to collectors, then I ask you whether you consider the 1992-present 90% silver dime, quarter and halves to be part of the same series, as they are only sold to collectors.
Thoughts?
Rex
EDIT: PLEASE don't think I am promoting this idea -- I actually HATE it. I just think it's a cookie jar that the Mint won't be able to keep their hands out of, and the SF coins represented the closest they have come to that line...
What about this twist...
What would collectors think about the US Mint not just re-issuing designs, but the entire coin, composition, design and denomination, but with an updated year.
For example, think about the 1921 Morgan, or the 1999 SBA, or the 1992 Silver 90% dime, quarter and half. All five of these examples represent the US Mint reviving a coin (not just the design) that had been dormant for many years.
The logical extreme of this would be to reach WAY back. How about the liberty seated design, as an example. What would we think about the US mint issuing a "special" 2008 mint set and proof set with silver half dime, dime, 20c, quarter, half and dollar, all in the liberty seated original designs and original compositions, but dated 2008. Would we consider these coins to be part of the same series, which just happened to take a 100+ year break? Or would we consider it some freaky modern crap cash-in? "..and the seated set of '08 was such a success that the bust set of '09 is sure to be a hit..."
What would this do to TYPE collecting, when suddenly the slots in your DANSCO could be filled with MS69 examples, available at current US Mint prices.
Does it sound too far fetched? Well, look at the SF Old Mint $1 and $5. Original composition, Original Denomination, Original Design (on one side). If the mint had taken one more step and made the $1 have the original "Morgan" obverse also, would we consider this part of the Morgan series? Would we like it or hate it? If you're saying that it would NOT be part of the series because of the gap, then I ask you whether you consider the 1921 Morgan to be part of the series? If you say it's not part of the series because 1921 was released for circulation, and the hypothetical 2008 was only sold to collectors, then I ask you whether you consider the 1992-present 90% silver dime, quarter and halves to be part of the same series, as they are only sold to collectors.
Thoughts?
Rex
EDIT: PLEASE don't think I am promoting this idea -- I actually HATE it. I just think it's a cookie jar that the Mint won't be able to keep their hands out of, and the SF coins represented the closest they have come to that line...
0
Comments
Rex
<< <i>Would be consider these coins to be part of the same series, which just happened to take a 100+ year break? Or would we consider it some freaky modern crap cash-in? >>
Both? I'm sure these would be a great flipping opportunity
<< <i>Does it sound too far fetched? >>
Not really. And besides, Canada's already done it (old designs w/new dates). Based on their actions, it seems clear that when the US mint grows up, it wants to be the Royal Canadian Mint.
One of the 2006 Franklin commem used an old design on one side, as did the 2007 San Francisco Mint commem. Maybe a complete replica would be the next step. Thinking about it, the silver eagles also used an old obverse design.
Initially, there would be decent demand for some of these, depending on mintage numbers.