George Herbert Walker Bush Coin And Chronicles Set

The 11,531st and 11,532nd sales must have been the last remaining sets because I just visited the product page and it is currently unavailable. Interesting timing.

In addition to my surprise of it still being available as recently as two weeks ago, I'm surprised that the current retail price ($138) is only $18 more than it was when originally released ($120).

I forgot I paid that much for it!

The 2013 TR, 2014 FDR, and four 2015 sets (HST/DDE/JFK/LBJ) were only $57.95 each. Heck, the 2016 Reagan was still a bargain at $68.95.

Although it seems to act like a for profit business many times, the US Mint is a government agency that is supposed to provide a service to we the people. Its numismatic offerings are supposed to be provided on a cost recoverable basis, which can admittedly be hard to predict, so numismatics typically generate a small (~5%) profit. IMHO the only reason a price should increase after production is due to storage costs and inventory accounting but sadly that isn't always the case.

The price adjustments are primarily based on the changes in the bullion prices of the metals that the coins contain. It works both ways. If the price of gold or silver go down, the price of the coins will go down.



I completely agree. They are making excessive profits on the products that they sell. Under normal competitive market conditions, I would not take issue with a company maximizing the profit they can make. However, the U.S. mint is a monopoly that is owned by U.S. citizens. The prices should be similar to what private mints can manufacture similar products for plus a small profit.

Yes, they are the only ones who can legally create legal tender coin for circulation in the US and its territories, but they sell that to the Fed at face value. There is no monopolistic profiteering there.

When it comes to numismatic products, there are other mints, public and private, foreign and domestic, who would love our business.

If we are not able to get our leaders—via correspondence or our votes—to change how the Mint is run, well, we can take our business elsewhere. This is where I thank commems and others for sparking my interest in non-Mint medals.

And then there is all that stuff for sale in the after-market.

Perhaps I should have said that they're a monopoly when it comes to U.S. coinage. A monopoly is by definition a company or organization that has "the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service." If the U.S. mint is not a monopoly when it comes to U.S. coinage, tell me what other companies are allowed to manufacture U.S. coinage. A company does not have to engage in monopolistic profiteering in order to be a monopoly. That said, they are. If other companies were allowed to bid on making U.S. coins, they would certainly be able to do so for less. Unfortunately, since the U.S. Mint has a monopoly and gets to keep the seigniorage (profit), it can hide great deal of manufacturing inefficiency.



Not for legal tender U.S. coins. I think that U.S. companies should be able to operate the existing mint facilities and should have to compete with each other for U.S. coin manufacturing contracts. This would be similar to how private companies manufacture ammunition for the U.S. military at government owned facilities.



I agree except that I can't take my business elsewhere. I can just buy from the U.S. Mint at the prices they're selling at or not buy at all.

Your analogy is poor because other companies can't currently manufacture U.S. coinage that competes with the mint's products. That said, Nike does have other companies manufacture its shoes. Pou Chen Corporation, PT Pan Brothers, Fulgent Sun Group, Delta Galil Industries, and Eagle Nice Intl. Holdings are several of them.



I never said anything about there being a constitutional right to obtain U.S. coins. You're right. There is no legal reason that the U.S. Mint would have to allow private companies to operate competing mint facilities. That's why the law needs to be changed so that the President has the power to do so. You're right that I have no right to compel Nike to allow others to make their shoes. The shareholders who own Nike have the right to do that and have done so. We as U.S. citizens are Defacto shareholders in the U.S. Mint and it is perfectly acceptable for us to petition our representatives to change the law to allow the manufacturing process to be improved.



I don't even know what you mean by that. China is a pseudo communist country that has top-down government control over most industry. I'm talking about going in the opposite direction from that.



The notion that privately owned production is somehow of less quality than government owned production flies in the face of historical realities. If the mint accepted poor quality raw materials, then that's on them. It's obvious that the mint continues to ship products that are not final QC'd and simply relies on its customers to do the work for them. A privately owned company that literally had to pay the cost of poor QC wouldn't allow it.



When it comes to commodity products, there are typically little if any quantity discounts. This is especially true of metals.