| Author |
Replies: 17 / Views: 3,317 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2200 Posts |
In 1986 we started minting $5, $10, $25, and $50 gold coins with the famous St. Gaudens obverse. In 2008, we began minting a $50 gold piece with the Buffalo nickel design. In 2007, we started making $10 gold coins featuring the presidential spouses. And thanks to my new Red Book, I've just learned (I've been away from the hobby for a while) that we've also been making platinum bullion coins for a while, too, in all sorts of denominations. My question is, Why? Despite the fact that they are minted in familiar, spendable denominations, I don't think anyone would ever put them into circulation. (Maybe someone's crazy uncle would for a joke--"Hey! Look at me! I'm using this $5 gold coin to buy an ice cream cone!") And why stamp them with denominations when their metals are worth hundreds times more than their face value? Maybe someone can tell me all about these odd coins and why they exist. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1231 Posts |
Just a way to invest in PM's (precious metals. And something for the US mint to make money on
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
672 Posts |
Simple... because "coins" sell better than "rounds"
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1450 Posts |
Actually,some folks have tried to use the face value/bullion value difference to their advantage. One fella was paying his employees in gold coins so they could claim face value for tax purposes but sell them for much more. The IRS was not amused but it ended up in court,one judge said face value is the value of the coin,of course it was appealed and the second judge said the value was the bullion value for tax purposes. I believe it is still to be decided in a higher court. Seems to me,the face value should be the value. If we all got paid in nickels and pennies would we have to claim melt value as our income? I have noticed that most other nations(but not all of them)put the metal weight and purity only on the bullion coins.It makes sense if they are not intended to be circulated ie. released by the Fed to banks for use in general commerce. In the old days,a $10 gold piece contained $10 worth of gold since currency was backed by gold and could be cashed in for gold. Since we are no longer on a gold standard for currency it makes no sense to put a denomination on the bullion coins. Thank you,I will now dismount my soap box and go home!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
2200 Posts |
So basically these "coins" are really ciphers. They appear to fill a monetary function as currency when in fact they are not really money at all.
What about back in the day with the original (19th/early 20th century) gold coins? I believe they were used in circulation, correct?
|
|
Valued Member
United States
108 Posts |
I recently read that there are 11 states with bills up for vote on using gold and silver as payment for everyday needs.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2830 Posts |
gold circulated widely upto WW1: thereafter, governments held their gold and issued paper. Silver was replaced by CuNi, etc. The "coins" in the original post are "non-ciculating legal tender" (NCLT). So, as a matter of strict law, they are legal tender, but as a matter of practicality, they do not get used in circulation. Mostly because the mint sells them at a big premium above their face value. Also, the Mint prices them well above their bullion or "melt" value.
Who buys them ? People who like shiny pieces of metal. Certainly not investors. There is another thread on CCF about NCLT issued in England - if you paid the Mint's asking price; held it for 40 years, and then put it on the market in 2011, you still wouldn't get your money back. That illustrates how overpriced they were when first sold.
I don't waste my time or money on NCLT, but there are plenty who follow that path ...
Peter in Oz
|
|
Valued Member
United States
307 Posts |
Bullion coins are exactly what the name implies. They are valued for the content of the precious metal they contain. Commemorative are coins that the mint produces for the public and they are usually not considered bullion coins.Their value being determined by the price set at the mint and after issue determined by the supply and demand of those selling or collecting those issues. The market is crazy right now fueled by people wanting to buy gold just to buy gold. There are 1/10 gold American Eagles selling for $239.00 and higher. The true value being $140/$150. This is a bullion coin. It does not make sense to me, but apparently there is a lot of money to be spent on gold. Buyer Beware there is plenty of gold to go around. LOL
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16809 Posts |
Quote: My question is, Why? Despite the fact that they are minted in familiar, spendable denominations, I don't think anyone would ever put them into circulation. ... And why stamp them with denominations when their metals are worth hundreds times more than their face value? The government does not want them to circulate, and does not expect them to. When people do actually spend them, deposit them in banks or otherwise attempt to use them as money, it creates all sorts of red tape for bank staff and Treasury officials to get them recalled and melted down again. And this is the answer to your second question: putting the face value far below the actual bullion value is the government's way of making sure they don't circulate. It's all based on Gresham's Law: "Bad money drives good money out of circulation". Suppose you owned both a $50 coin that contained $1000 worth of precious metal and a $50 banknote containing 2c worth of paper. Which one are you likely to keep, and which one are you likely to use to pay your $50 grocery bill? You will of course want to keep the "good money" - the precious metal coin - and get rid of the "bad money" - the banknote. So banknotes circulate, and bullion coins do not. Occasionally you will find a country that will give you precious metal coins at face value. There's a new one out from Canada. France and Germany have a long tradition of issuing silver coins at face value. Mexico even attempted to re-introduce silver into mainstream circulation in the early 1990s. All of these governments run the risk of people redeeming all their silver coins when the metal price falls again, effectively forcing the government to "buy back" the silver from the general public at a loss. Larger economies such as France, Germany and Canada can absorb this cost; smaller countries cannot do so and some, such as the Cook Islands and Marshall Islands, have had to declare some of their NCLT bullion "coins" they issued at the height of the craze to be not legal tender anymore. If a government issued precious metal coins with face values far above the bullion value, the coins would circulate - this is in fact the situation that happened with silver coins prior to 1964. But as governments learned with silver in the 1960s and with copper in the 1980s, a rise in the price of the metals used to make coinage out of can mean that those coins become "good money" and disappear from circulation, as people hoard them. In order to maintain a stable money supply which people will not hoard, governments were forced to make "bad money" coins out of worthless metals. Quote: I have noticed that most other nations (but not all of them) put the metal weight and purity only on the bullion coins. Not true. Most nations that produce coins intended for bullion sale put both a weight/purity measurement and a nominal face value on them. South African krugerrands and Mexican onzas are the only coins I can think of that are not denominated in the regular currency unit of their country.
Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
2200 Posts |
Another thing I don't like about these coins is how they stole the St. Gaudens/Fraser designs from the original coins.
Why couldn't they have found talented young designers to craft new designs? My guess is that no one who was in charge of producing these "coins" had the artistic thoughtfulness to do so. They just thought, "Oh yeah, why don't we resurrect some of them nice designs from 100 years ago? They look purty and everyone loves 'em. Sure-fire sellers!"
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
Quote: And something for the US mint to make money on
No matter who says what or why, I think this is the simplist and best explanation for most or all of the coins not for usage by our Mint.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
511 Posts |
Putting any kind of a face value on a planchet is one of the requirements for legal status as a coin, at least in the U.S. Otherwise, it's a bullion round.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
757 Posts |
does anyone know the name of that case? i'd be really interested in reading the decisions.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
757 Posts |
also, I'm not so sure that getting all that gold for a year's work wouldn't be taxable, albeit not necesarily via income tax. it would be a huge disadvantage to the employees if they had to pay, for example, capital gains tax on the sales of those coins.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12437 Posts |
Quote: Why couldn't they have found talented young designers to craft new designs? Because the Mint is limited by the legislation that authorizes coin programs. The legislation authorizing the bullion Buffalo specifically called for it to bear the classic Buffalo nickel design created by James Earle Fraser. Most complaints about the Mint's practices should, in reality, be complaints about Congress and the lousy numismatic legislation they sometimes write.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
187702 Posts |
Quote: does anyone know the name of that case? i'd be really interested in reading the decisions. You want to do a search for Robert Kahre.
|
| |
Replies: 17 / Views: 3,317 |