Commems Collection Classic: 1928 Oregon Trail Memorial

Thanks, I had been wondering about that anomaly, as you know.

One of my favorite commemoratives.

A interesting story and history about this series, thanks for bring it up.

@Slerk: I'm sorry. I don't understand your question. The ANA did not have a role in the coin's production or distribution. Can you please clarify? Thanks!

@commems, I will try to formulate it differently. Why did the U.S. Mint keep these coins? Why didn't he immediately hand over these coins to ANA after the minting?

In short, "No." I'm not aware of other sponsors duplicating the Oregon Trail Memorial Association's "coin melt strategy" to retroactively create a rarity. (Who's to say what was discussed "off the record" by sponsors, however!)

However, the Oregon Trail Memorial, Arkansas Statehood Centennial, Texas Independence Centennial, Daniel Boone Bicentennial and, to a lesser extent. the Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver-Booker T. Washington multi-year programs all included date/mint mark combinations with limited mintages to create a sense of "rarity." For example, only 2,100 half dollars were struck at each of the Mint facilities (P/D/S) in 1939 for the Arkansas Statehood Centennial program.

Of course, the 2x2 variety of the Alabama Statehood Centennial, 2*4 variety of the Missouri Statehood Centennial and the w/ Star variety of the US Grant half dollars all point to attempts at creating a scarcer version of the base coin to entice collectors to purchase additional coins.

I'm not aware of another commemorative program, however, that found itself in a situation similar to the Oregon Trail Memorial Association. Taking delivery of coins that were struck and dated five years prior is a unique scenario in the series - no other sponsor had to address such a scenario. Meeting with collector apathy for the previously-struck coins shouldn't have come as a huge surprise, especially considering that many collectors may have assumed that President Herbert Hoover's April 1930 veto of the Gadsden Purchase commemorative half dollar bill had put an end to all future US commemorative coins.

That said, there are multiple examples of the sponsor/distribution dealer manipulating the market (absent of coin melts) through the artificial creation of rarity which led to collector frenzy (and exploitation). Cases in point: Horace Grant and the 1936 Providence, Rhode Island Tercentenary half dollars, Howard C. Dunn and the 1934-38 Daniel Boone Birth Bicentennial coins and Thomas Melish with the 1936 Cincinnati Music Center half dollars. (Links to these stories are included below.)




I'm not aware of much in the way of legislated "checks and balances" other than the Treasury/Mint could refuse to accept returns of coins and Congress did eventually put in place ordering limits to prevent sponsors from requesting unnaturally small quantities.

If the Mint refused to accept returned coins, it would limit the sponsor's options to: a) continuing their sales efforts (including discounted bulk sales to dealers) and/or b) releasing some number of their coins into circulation at face value. Neither creates an artificial "rarity" scenario the same as a coin melt, however. I also think that coin sponsor's were looking to maximize their profits from the sale of their coins and, unless a multi-year program was in play to take advantage of new found, perceived rarity, sending coins back to the Mint prematurely wouldn't be "good business."


For other of my posts on Sponsor/Coin Dealer Market Manipulations, check these out:

- 1936 Rhode Island Tercentnary and Horace Grant
- 1936 Cincinnati Music Center - Mintage Requests
- 1936 Cincinnati Music Center - Ephemera
- 1934-38 Daniel Boone Birth Bicentennial Notes
- 1930 Gadsden Purchase Veto

Very interesting!