Coin Community Family of Web Sites Join Thousands of Coin, Bullion, & Money Collectors
300,000 items to help build your collection! Join Thousands of Coin, Bullion, & Money Collectors Royal Canadian Mint products, Canadian, Polish, American, and world coins and banknotes. Vancouvers #1 Coin and Paper Money Dealer Specializing in Modern Numismatics Shop for APMEX Bullion on eBay!Coin, Banknote and Medal Collectors's Online Mall








Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?


This page may contain links that result in small commissions to keep this free site up and running.

Welcome Guest! Registering and/or logging in will remove the anchor (bottom) ads. It's Free!

Mint Misses Money Making Opportunity!

To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 4 / Views: 1,125Next Topic  
Pillar of the Community
howell1018's Avatar
United States
718 Posts
 Posted 09/04/2021  4:51 pm Show Profile   Bookmark this topic Add howell1018 to your friends list Get a Link to this Message Number of Subscribers
Got my end of the month Coin World and read an article they had about the history of the quarter eagle which began with the 1796 issue. Did the math and realized that this was 225 years ago! We had reissues of the 1916 coinage, and this year Morgan dollars (assuming they get sent out). Why not a commemorative quarter eagle with the original design. They can change the design to 2021, or 1796-2021 or whatever they want because they're the mint. I think with gold around $1,800 $500 would be a fair price to charge, so set issue price at $1,000. Better yet, charge $3,000 and limit production to 1,796 pieces! Still 4 months to go in 2021, I think they can get it done.
Bedrock of the Community
ijn1944's Avatar
United States
19143 Posts
 Posted 09/04/2021  5:22 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add ijn1944 to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Maybe aim for the 250 year threshold.
Pillar of the Community
United States
1484 Posts
 Posted 09/04/2021  5:56 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add halfamind to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
225 years of the U.S. Mint got us a P on the 2017 Lincoln Shield cents. Probably too much to ask to do something special for 225 years of quarter dollars.
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
Winesteven's Avatar
United States
697 Posts
 Posted 09/04/2021  8:49 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Winesteven to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I believe one of the main reasons the U.S. Mint has such a poor reputation with collectors (and now we read that Congress authorized an investigation into many aspects of the Mint's practices) is because of the relatively recent practices of setting low production limits. In my opinion, all new issues should have a brief but open early ordering period, such as a week, perhaps with a household limit of two or three. This way, everyone who wants one can get one, yet with that limited period, it then lets the Mint know how many to produce. This method will then keep "the big boys" from squeezing out collectors!

Based on the above, I would not be in favor of the Mint limiting production to only 1,796, or any other small number, although I'm very much in favor of bringing back old classic designs (and mainly in the diameters and weights of the originals, or at least close to it). This concept of bringing back old designs can spur interest of some to start collecting those originals, and others like it!

Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!

My collecting "Pride & Joy" is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.PCGS.com/setregistry/ty...edset/213996
Edited by Winesteven
09/04/2021 8:51 pm
Bedrock of the Community
sel_69l's Avatar
Australia
21786 Posts
 Posted 09/04/2021  9:01 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add sel_69l to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
To very obviously distinguish between to original issue and a modern collectors' issue all that needs to be don e is produce the modern version in mirror proof cameo.

From the Mint's point of view, the minimum price that they can charge for the modern version
has to cover the costs of die preparation, production costs, packaging, precious metal costs, distribution and marketing costs, as well as a reasonable profit.
All of these costs have to be carried by the income that can be generated, by the total number of examples produced, and the price charged.

As I understand it, the U.S. Mint lost a considerable amount of money in their production of the 2009 gold Double Eagle.
Nowhere enough were produced, or a high enough price was charged, to cover all of the abovementioned costs.
  Previous TopicReplies: 4 / Views: 1,125Next Topic  

To participate in the forum you must log in or register.



    




Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us  |  Advertise Here  |  Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

Coin Community Forum © 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Forums
It took 0.28 seconds to rattle this change. Forums