Quote:Yes it has been reported multiple times in multiple places such as
Coin World.
Did you actually read the article you provided the link to? It says
Quote:
Under the usual protocol, once sales totals are officially audited, any unsold product in the Mint's inventory is de-trashed — that is, the coins are separated from their packaging, and the coins sent for melting and metal reclamation, and the packaging is shipped to a waste disposal facility for ultimate incineration.
So, this was not business as usual for the Mint. It was however prudent in that they were able to sell these coins for more value than would have been obtained than by recycling them for their silver content. Is there something wrong with that? BTW, thanks for the link to the article. I hadn't see it before.
Quote:
No I haven't, their obligation is to have a profit not lose money. You self admit they have to turn to profit to make sure they don't lose money on collectors items.
Again, where is the link that supports your contention that the Mint has a mandate to make a profit? You couldn't provide one before when this was discussed in a different thread, and I'm doubtful you can provide one now. When it comes to the Liberty Coins (what we now call Eagle coins, ASEs and AGEs) here's what the
legislation says
Quote:
(f) The Secretary shall sell the coins minted under subsection (e) to the public at a price equal to the market value of the bullion at the time of sale, plus the cost of minting, marketing, and distributing such coins (including labor, materials, dyes, use of machinery, and overhead expenses).
Quote:
You self admit they have to turn to profit to make sure they don't lose money on collectors items.
Yes, I said that reality dictates that they typically make a SMALL profit in order to comply with authorizing legislation mandating that these programs are cost neutral. Here's the table from the latest
annual report
showing that sometimes they make a few percent profit (2018 was a SMALL negative, 2017 & 2016 were SMALL positives). It is VERY difficult to predict sales with a 100% accuracy, so it is prudent of the Mint to price their products so as not to lose money which would be technically violating authorizing laws.
Quote:
So when TV network shows sell coins where the cost could never be recovered they're scammers, but if the mint does it it's serving the public?
Now you're comparing the Mint's obligation to recoup their costs to TV scammers (your words, not mine) selling Mint items at far above their cost? It's a ridiculous comparison.
Quote:
Their overall sales are dealer driven, if you removed the big buyers which get discounts right off the bat mintages would plummet on most things.
No denying this. In fact, most legislation authorizes them to do bulk sales at a discount. Here's typical language (in this case from the law authorizing the
Christa McAuliffe coin Quote:
(b) BULK SALES.—The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the coins issued under this Act at a reasonable discount.
but what does this have to do with whether or not the Mint should keep having products with mintages far below the expected demand? At least try and stay on topic for a change.
Quote:
Giving everyone a fair chance isn't serving the public?
IMHO this is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition to serve the American public. Name one other Government service where fairness by itself would be acceptable. How about your drivers license? Do you just want a fair chance at obtaining one? Or perhaps there's a Government service that you need. Again, is a fair chance of obtaining it the standard that should be applied?