U.S Mint still out of control (another basketball commem thread)

I gave up on keeping up the modern commemorative coins five years ago. It's just impossible to keep buying this foolishness. It's really worse now than it was during the "old commemorative" era 1892 - 1954.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

1995 and 96 were the crazy years. I believe there were 46 different Commemoratives for those two years.
In 1996 folks lost interest because of the quantity of new designs. Less bought the coins and today several of those bring a strong price compared to most of the other modern Commemoratives.

 

It's a repeat of the early commemorative debacle. Subjects which serve no legitimate reasoning, poor designs and over inflated. This is not to say that I don't like or buy them, I do. Just those of importance worth commemorating.

 

If you like it, buy it. Otherwise pass. Coin collecting means you buy what you enjoy.

 

Yes, thanks for posting that. I sometimes start snarky threads like this one but I intend them to be light (although they may not come across that way) and wholeheartedly agree with "collect what you enjoy".

I have a ton of modern U.S. and Canadian commem's that will never be worth diddly and will probably buy a few more before I expire. My collection will never be legendary but it's mine and I enjoy it. Have fun with the hobby.

 

So, will they just pick out some of the regular strikes to be "colorized", or will there be some difference in preparation for those coins, leading to the exceedingly rare and desirable Missing Colorization Error (not to be confused with any "Acetone-Dipped to Remove Unsightly Foreign Deposits PMD" examples)?

And, for heaven's sake, where are our colorized GOLD commems?

 

I'm just glad they decided to colorize the proof dollar and not the unc so I don't have to worry about it.

Sure they can, it is just a bimetallic coin snf they did that with the Library of Congress $10. In the case of the Austrian Niobium coins the center niobium insert is anodized to the color they want before the coin is assembled and struck. It isn't something done afterward. But sure anyone capable of making bimetallic coins could do it, and that is probably just about any mint.

 

Yep.

The color of anodized metal depends on the thickness of the anodized layer. That thickness is comparable to the wavelength of light, less than one micron. I'm absolutely astonished that you can strike up an anodized surface without visibly disrupting that layer's thickness -- I would've thought it would be stretched thinner around at least some of the design details. Apparently not, though.

 

The classic commem period suffered two issues. The first was double-dipping in the early years of the program. The Pilgrim, Missouri, Alabama, and Grant all succumbed to this where the mint issued the original commem, everyone who wanted one bought one, and then they came back later in the same year and added a star or number to the obverse to create a second "variety" to entice collectors to buy a second issue to keep their collections complete. Then there was the fiasco of 1936 where 20 different designs were issued in the same year. Collectors couldn't keep up and sales suffered. This effectively killed the classic commem program with the exception of a few lingering designs and the BTW issues in the 50's.

Looking at the modern commem program -- it ALMOST suffered the same fate. The 95/96 season was the proverbial straw when 23 designs where issued. Comparisons to 1936 were made. But thankfully a limit was put on the program going forward so no more than 2 issues per year were released.

Since 2000, this 2-program-max limit has been observed. And in 2 years, there was only one design (if the 2020 basketball remains the only design for this year, that would make 3).

I actually don't mind this. I enjoy collecting the modern commems. With a few rare exceptions (Dolley Madison, Buffalo), they will never be considered great works of art but the massive array of designs is what draws me to them. I would like to see the program limited to 1 program per year instead of 2 but that's a small quibble. And, just for variety sake, I would like to see some shakeup in the normal "clad half, silver dollar, gold $5" combination. Perhaps a gold $1 or gold $2.5. Or how about a bi-mettalic $2 commem similar to the Canadian Twonie?

To each his own, but I rather enjoy the modern commemorative series and look forward to each year's offerings.

 

Former mint "slave" buyer, now mostly reformed....A definite pass on an uninspired coin that they are trying to salvage with comic "trickeration".

 

I'll second that. We did get a couple of gold $10 commems.

I suppose the same type of legislation we'd need to get gold $1 or $2.50 coins would also support a commemorative $3. Or how about starting the wheels in motion for a 150th anniversary Stella...

 

yes, a 2029/2030 two-coin offering with both flowing hair and coiled hair designs. That would be nice since precedent has been set with the 2016 dime/quarter/half offerings and looks like the 2021 Morgan might become a reality.

 

Well, no fantasy dreamland bi-metallic coin I was hoping for. I read an article in CoinWorld that said the U.S. Mint was contracting out the coloring of the coins. Quite unfortunate. Enamel it is.

 

Hello, PB-70 (Paint Booth State) slabs!