a possibly stupid question

i was wondering today ... why is it that the denomination stamped on the 1oz AGE gold coin is $50?

nobody is ever going to spend the coin for $50 face value.

why not stamp $500 or $1000 on the coin?

wouldnt it be interesting if they did stamp $1000 on the coin ... and then gold fell to $950 an ounce ... people might start spending them as legal tender ...
almost taking us back to a gold standard for currency.

it's sort of amazing how close we are getting back to that point ... all it would take is the US Govt stamping a higher face value on the coin

i suppose in the old days ... the coins had a melt value of close to it's face value ... for example for many many years gold was $20 an ounce ... and that was roughly the amt of gold in a $20 gold piece.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I've heard this reason over and over again but it may be rumor.
Essentially when the gov't confasticates PMS again they're going to reimburse you face value of the coin which would be $50.
It's out there but it's a theory

 

i never thought of that ...

 

No, he doesn't have a good point. He has a paranoid point that doesn't answer the question. The actual answer is that it's arbitrary and unrelated to the bullion value of the coin.

 

Well they've learned that it has to have a denomination in order to sell to colectors as a coin. They are NOT interested in having the coin actually in circulation so they want the denomination to be significantly less than the value of the metal. Also if the face value is well above the metal value you aren't going to be able to sell the coins because you would have to charge the face value rather than the bullion value. In 1985 when the gold eagle was authorized gold was around $400 and oz and a $50 face value seemed reasonable. They have simply kept that denomination rather than constantly changing it as gold rose or fell over the years.

 

Like Conder said, they want a denomination that would ensure they were never spent, but have to put a denomination on it to legally call it a coin. Collectors like coins not medals, which is what this would be without a denomination. I objected when they came up with this, since its silly and arbitrary and easily could have used historic denominations of $20, $10, etc.

 

I believe that the govedrnment would confiscate black powder and ammo before they would attempt to confiscate Gold. Just a thought.

 

They would have to confiscate my ammo before they could get my gold or silver! lol

 

$50 could be considered an historic denomination. They did make pattern $50 in 1877 and then there were the $50 Pan Pacific coins. The $50 denomination was, historically, the denomination of the largest and most valuable coins the US ever produced. While the AGE is not the largest coins we've made it is the most valuable.

The problem really comes with the fractions. The 1/2 oz $25 difinitely is not historical or traditional, and then the quarter oz should have been half of the half oz or a $12.50 coin and the tenth oz is a $5 coin which has traditionally been just under a quarter oz.

 

I'm not so sure it's a "paranoid" point, given the fact that the government has a known and factual history of confiscating the people's wealth (and even today they do it on different means by manipulation of the "money" system).

For some reason I believed that they did it to pay homage to gold coins of the past so-to-speak, but then again there were never $25 or $50 issues (excluding patterns and commems).

 

In addition to the thoughtful answers above, it does set a floor for the price of the coin. If the price of gold collapses below $50, you are certain to have a coin worth at least $50.

 

Would it really matter if a coin was technically considered a medal? I'm sure collectors wouldn't care if it's a coin or a medal, it's still an oz of gold/silver.

 

Fact. A few years ago -- must be ten now because I had money then -- I diversified by adding in two American Fine Arts Commission quarter-ounce medals. Frank Lloyd Wright was one. When it came time to sell, fortunately, I was me at bourse where I was known and I explained the medal to the dealer who never saw one.

That said, what is the British Sovereign? It has no money value on it and never has. The famed "Krugerrand" is the name of the coin, not its value, the ZAR being worth about 14 cents. The first US Gold coins, the first US silver dollars, etc., had no money value on them, either. Nonetheless, GD, I agree that the reality today is that US Mint coins are more marketable than US Mint medals.

 

Apmex regularly have the Commemorative Arts Medals in their 'Unique Gold Products' category, with PoG @ $1,349.70/oz., these medals are listed with this bullion dealer for $1,371.69 (1-9 pcs.) or $1,374.69 (10-19 pcs.). They currently have 12 in stock and never seem to run out unlike coin bullion: AGEs, Krugs, Aus Phil, et al.

 

The sovereign was (since its inception in 1489) a UK gold coin with a value of 20 shillings (£1) - always was, and still is.

For much of their time, many UK coins didn't specify their value on them, but they were (and are) worth that value ... eg, halfcrowns (2/6) didn't have the value inscribed on them until 1893 -but those minted before then were most assuredly coinage worth 2/6 (12½p decimal, approx 19¢) as much as those after. So, in the case of the sovereign, it never has stated its value - but it is a coin because it was minted to a set weight, alloy, size etc, as defined by the Royal Mint (and UK government, where to this day, the 'Trial of the Pyx' is carried out annually to assure the quality of UK coins). The UK also is the only country to not have its name on the coin either (like stamps). Doesn't make them less of a coin though.

The Kruger, on the other hand, is a non-circulating 'coin' minted purely for bullion purposes, with an attributed token value.

So what I'm saying is that a coin with no value inscribed thereon such as above is still a coin.

 

As far as not showing demonimation(s), much of the first US silver (e.g.,half dime, dime, quarter) and gold coinage did not have the coin's value marked on them.

 

Keep in mind, the US government's official price of gold in US lawful money is $42/oz. So placing $50 on this coin is about right. This is how the lawful $ is currently defined in terms of gold. It can be checked on the US Treasury website as well as the Federal Reserve's balance sheet on it's respective website. Keep in mind that a Federal Reserve Note $ is not = to a $ of lawful gold money. That link was broken in 1971.

 

When push comes to shove, is the Gov't going to take my Granny's gold tooth?



Granny also has caps with Lincoln, Elvis, Letterman, Woods & Washington on them.

It has been long standing that the US Treasury requires coins minted by the United States that are for circulation or to be sold to collectors/investors, be monetized with a denomination. Once that denomination is established, it is usually carried out through history.

Maybe one day we will have 1,000 cubits or 100 draconian rugas…but for now it is dollars.

Happy Collecting….btw, there is nothing stupid about any question.

 

Actually the Coinage Act of 1792, which established the US Mint and the US Treasurer, also defined the US dollar for the very first time. The dollar was simply defined as 371 4/16 grain of silver. (24.1g pure silver). In terms of minting higher denomination gold coins, gold's value was simply set to 15X that of an equivalent measure of silver, and thus a $2.50 gold 1/4 eagle had 4.01 g of gold.

Interestingly, at the time, anyone who had some gold or silver could take it to the Mint and they would assay and coin it free of charge.