IF I Were The US Mint...

I thought that I would start a thread about ideas of what we would do if we could run the US Mint. I thought that it could maybe spur on some new ideas and maybe we could even influence the future if we had good enough ideas. So this is what I would do...

What I think the Mint should do in the future is this:

1) continue to sell sets like as they did with the 2013 West Point ASE Two-Coin Set within a 4-week window and give everyone a chance to order one if they so desire.

2) end sales before they begin shipping sets (as they are with this set. It won't be shipped until August)

3) limit the number of sets per household

If the Mint can implement this third step, they will help the short and long term values of these sets. As long as someone can place an order for 100 sets tomorrow, there is a potential of killing the secondary market by the mere presence of hundreds of extra sets available from those with the means to order in bulk.

Case in point the 2012 set. The strong flipping opportunity was apparent and yet it survived because of household limits. The 2013 set, no limit, no flip opportunity. The 1999 Silver Proof Set is another prime example. There was a household limit of 2 and the set was (over)valued t $200 for years after.

Now, you may ask why I care who gets the flip opportunity and I will tell you plainly that I'd rather see Joe Average Coin Collector have an opportunity to sell his sets for a few bucks profit instead of a few bulk buyers. Let the people who enjoy the hobby crowd out the profiteers who are draining the monetary resources from our hobby. All in all, I think that if the collectors had to dictate the mintages, that they would more accurately reflect demand.

I also think that lately the Mint has been producing lots and lots of sets for collectors. New types of sets, like the Celebration Proof set. The Mint is constantly bringing out a variety of new products. An overwhelming majority of which will linger at or slightly below issue price in value for years if not forever. If there was a winner here and there, it would stimulate demand. Some of these new sets bring more people into the hobby. I think that a good value would better keep them in the hobby.

This is a hobby, first and foremost. Leisure. And I have said on many occasions that it is unwise to invest in coins, but a simple household limit by the US Mint will make it a more profitable hobby for a lot of collectors. That means growth for the hobby, which in turn breeds more demand, better values, and up the line.

Opinions?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If I were the US Mint I would LOOK AT THE COINS BEFORE SENDING THEM OUT!!! These are collector items and spots constitute unacceptable damage

 

I would raffle the expensive coins so lucky collectors would get them for almost nothing just like powerball or megamillions

 

I think quality control would be on the top of my list. Some of what comes out are pure dogs.

 

The mint should sell the coins for the silver value only.
We are asking for priceing to run out of control by allowing the mint to set a coins worth even before it is placed into circulation.
How can anyone say two coins are worth what these ASE set sold for.
If they were in control of the priceing of all coins from the day minted how many today could afford a morgan dollar or a trade dollar.
They should only be able to sell any coin for its content value.
Because it is goverment owned they should never be allowed to profit from taxpayers who pay the checks for the work they do.
If they had not made the ASE sets they would have gotton paid same as when they made them.

 

If I were the Mint, I'd get back to basics. End these 12 or more year runs of commemorative quarters. It was kinda fun the first time, but that mule is spent. Update and revise and hopefully implement new designs. I always hear how inefficient and cost prohibited higher relief coins are to mint, yet many, if not most, other countries still make coinage with far more relief than the wafers the US mint cheaply spits out. Cheap looking coins are often just plain cheap...in every conceivable sense. And finally, I'd either cut the reins lose on, or hire other sculptors to design eye pleasing coins. I think the biggest problem the mint has is the design process is dictated by officials with absolutely no sense of artistic merit. Let the artists they have hired be artists and not yes men to blind sewer rats.
Guy

 

Well said. It's great to see somebody who is in this hobby because they love the art of it.

We can criticize the Royal Canadian MInt and the Perth Mint all we want, and I do sometimes, but at least they try to be creative. The U. S. Mint, however, is usually pretty much of a snoozer in the products they produce.

 

If I were the US Mint, I would go around terrorizing the populace, because OMG WALKING TALKING BUILDING!

Sorry, guess Friday isn't out of my system yet...

 

if i were the us mint i would look at ways on how to make even more money. no product would be sold for less than 300$ and the 2 coin set now on sale would be priced at 999.99 with a mintage limit of 9999. i spoke to an old friend of mine yesterday and he said i need to become more capitalist if i want to make money

 

This.

Listen, does the mint REALLY think collectors would not pay $1 extra for a high relief, attractive coin? I cannot see how it would cost more than $1 each for proofs and commemoratives to be struck in high relief. Heck, I bet you it would be more like $.25 per unit higher costs.

I also agree with the "art by committee" idea. No great idea ever came out of 30 people's input. Great art is single handedly the vision of a great artist. Put the parameters down, and let artists be artists. It is sad when Canada beats us artistically when they only have one side of the coin to design, and we cannot beat that with two sides.

 

I think many design issues, but not all, are not caused by lack of appreciation of artistic merit, but simply the need and limitations of operational needs. The mint prioritize's production first. Rather than slowing down the machinery and improving quality, which may be needed for more interesting designs, they reduce and simplify the detail and appearance of the coins instead. Then the general quality of their production is sacrificed through out. I would take just one mint and gear it towards the production of commemorative and special issue coinage. Perhaps even look at specialized equipment purchases to accomplish this. Let the others run the business and mass production sets for consuption. You would have two distinct design divisions at the mint, each with its own goals and production criteria.

 

That's a great idea, Sam, but if they did that, that would mean they wouldn't be able to keep producing the same tired crapola with so many different mint marks.

Seriously, though, I think that idea would definitely be a step in the right direction in keeping both the design lovers as well as the more standard collectors happy.

 

Here's my three point plan in case they decide to hire me as director:

1. Far fewer special sets and such. To make up for it, I'd throw in a lot more errors and varieties in the Mint and Proof Sets for folks to look for.

2. Get out of the bullion business and put that into the hands of private enterprise.

3. Get the products into Walmart and Target.

 

Lol. That is the part of this hobby that when I step back truly strikes me as funny. I think it has directed me to collecting the way I do.

"Yeah, its a 1914 cent, but see that tiny D under the date? That makes this coin worth $800 versus $.15". I understand the point as a coin collector, but to the average person on the street is must sound just as geeky as, "yes, its a luke Skywalker with a blue light saber, but do you see how his shoes are black and not brown.....?".

So, I moved to collecting more type coins. Yes, I see how there is a Epsilon control mark in the field, don't care, don't care, don't care. I like the coin as a TYPE, I just don't want to get all super geeky about the tiniest details.

 

1. I don't want to see them create any errors intentionally. The "oops, we forgot the mintmark" has happened so many times that it makes you wonder.

2. No, I'm good with the way this is handled. It is nice to have confidence in the purity of the bullion, and I would never buy anything that wasn't from the U.S. mint or another government mint.

3. Now, that idea I like! That would be a tough balancing act for them though. The margins that coin dealers get on mint products would not be high enough for Wal-Mart or Target. And if they reduced the price for the big box stores they would need to do it for everybody.

Also, theft would be a big problem for those stores. I think it could be done. Maybe only offer only one product - the standard proof set - just before Christmas. The mint could leave the pricing the same, but throw the stores a bone buy offering to pay for a portion of the Sunday circular mailing if they put the proof set on the front page of the ad.

It would be a short term money loser, but a long term winner because it would get people interested in the hobby.

 

They did something like that back in 1987 with the Constitution commemoratives. They had them at K-Mart.

K-Mart had them for $235 a set and had people lined up out the door buying them. I was in the coin shop down the street where we had them for $120 and we eventually ended up scrapping them for $110 because we could sell a one of them. The difference? K-mart took credit cards, we didn't. K-Mart got theirs at a discount from the mint, we purchased ours on the secondary market. (The secondary market for these things was that bad that they were selling for melt while they were still being sold by the mint at a big premium.

 

Is the credit card thing in order to keep the buyer/seller in anonymity or is it because of the percentage they take on the sale? If the later, why not just add the 3% on to the total transaction? Dealers are already charging a premium to spot, so the customer seems willing to do that.

 

I would tell the CCAC and the CFA to take a hike, see ya.

I would then put up 8-10 coin designs and let the "collectors" vote on which ones they want.

 

But the CCAC was supposed to be collectors. I believe they formed it after some truly gawdawful designs came out.

I would remake these committees. Let them have input, but only between designs. They should never be allowed to suggest "improvements", only vote on design A, B, or C. I am with you completely that committees will destroy art, but I do not think it a bad thing to let them veto BAD art, and we have had our share of that from the mint.

What I always hoped for with the mint was they could create a lab of higher education for young artists in this country. Recruit young, talented artists, teach them the specifics of designing for coinage, and have them submit designs for 5-10 years. After that replace them with a new batch of new talent. One it could reinvigorate our coinage with fresh ideas, and two create a pool of talented artists to craft medals and similar items.

 

After this years ATBs maybe they ought to form another one....