Bill Introduced To Recognise 50th Anniversary Of The First Manned Landing On The Moon

Ahhh...missed that link.

Proof puck...good

100k....now not so good since ATB's sell out below 19k

$50 surcharge? Is that on top of the normal $149? Definitely not good

Hmmmm....the more I think about it...it gets interesting...a curved puck..THAT would actually be cool...maybe use for salsa....now the 100k still sucks

No clue how they would retool that beast of a machine to make curved pucks AND proof ones at that...bet it will be a regular flat proof puck

The mint needs to step up the gimmick game.

How about a coin shaped like a 3D model of the Apollo lander?

5 will contain encapsulated moon dust for the low, low price of $200,719.69!

I fully support a US commemorative coin program for the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing. It was one of the seminal events of the 20th century and is (IMO) deserving of significant recognition 50 years later. I do have a couple of nits to pick with the proposed coin program, however.

First, like the Baseball Hall of Fame coin program, it will be another multi-coin program that uses a common obverse and a common reverse design across all four coins. Why? Why do we need to have four different coins with the same obverse and reverse designs?

I understand that the coin's sponsors want to see a reverse design based on the famous Buzz Aldrin visor photograph and that the coin's mandated curved planchet has the potential to present such a design to great effect, but why does the obverse on all four coin's have to be the same? There are so many possibilities of meaningful design elements that it seems a shame to only use one.

I also understand that the sponsors might have gone down the common design path so that multiple price points can be created for the coin design which would thus enable collectors of varying financial means to obtain an example; this is an approach that several world mints have taken (e.g. the Paris Mint). I can certainly appreciate the thinking behind such an approach, but I would argue that the multi-design approach used for other multi-coin programs has seemed to satisfy US collectors for 30+ years and given us a large number of attractive coins.

My other issue is that the bill plays fast and loose with the denominations of US coinage by including a five-ounce silver coin with a denomination of $1.00. (I had the same objection to the five-ounce ATB "pucks" being given a denomination of 25 cents. It is nonsensical IMO.) Why, in the same program, should there be a "standard sized" dollar coin issued alongside a "jumbo" three-inch, five-ounce dollar coin. It completely disregards US coinage history. A denomination of $5.00 or $10.00 would make a bit more sense (not complete sense, mind you, but a bit more!).

The bill still needs to pass the Senate and only has about a week to do so as the Senate will be in active session only until the end of next week. Fortunately, the Senate version of the bill has 69 co-sponsors so if the bill (as amended by the House) does come up for consideration by the Senate, it could move quickly to a vote and gain approval. The bill, however, is currently rated as having only an 8% chance of getting approved. We might have to wait until the next session of Congress for this program to get its approval.

Well now... I guess we get to see how this all shakes out as the Apollo coin program bill has passed in the Senate!

http://news.coinupdate.com/apollo-1...of-congress/

I, for one, am interested!

That is good news. I look forward to seeing how these coins turn out. Maybe I will be impressed.

I like the looks of the Sacs, but admittedly would have liked Daniel Carr's design as in that link to have been the actual issued coin.