Should the US Mint follow the USPS lead???

No.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well, nobody is holding a gun to your head, making you buy them.

Yet.

 

I would urge the mint not to go the "insert" route. That strategy basically ended up killing the trading card hobby. The final straw came when one company made an insert of which only one existed. In other words, only one complete set was possible.

 

Did anyone check with the buyer that spent $977,500 for a single inverted Jenny in 2007? I doubt it. I wonder if he is a little upset with this? All are selling in the 6 figure range according to the article I read. Will the added 600 lower the current value? If not, maybe I'll take a chance and buy a sheet for $12. I can't wait to see what the first selling price is on eBay.

 

I don't think that killed the hobby. Now that there are tons of 1/1 cards....they are very popular. I'm not a fan, but a lot of people like them.

That said, I am not a fan of this idea. Lets not try and drive up sales using the "win the lottery" plan.

 

I doubt it will change anything. Had the US Mint released 484,000 2009-S VDB cents would that have affected the 1909-S VDB value? The answer is no. They are different issues...the same with the stamps.

 

No, no, no, no.

I think they are trying to kick start interest in stamp collecting again. They did this in the coin hobby with the state quarters program. We don't need this at all.

 

Where do you get that idea? If that was the case we would have gotten rid of the cent, nickel and dollar bill a long time ago. And all of the special programs that the Mint has created in order to increase profit lately have all been things they could do WITHOUT having to get Congressional approval.

 

True, but there are just as many programs that Congress did approve, much more so than prior to the 1980's/1990's when the mint became a business that supported itself without tax dollars.

 

What is the difference with the new stamp release and how do you tell? I thought they were identical. The penny example has obvious date differences.

 

The new Jenny design is a $2 stamp, the original is a 24 cent stamp.

 

Some may say the US Mint already has done so, 50 state quarters, presidential dollars, silver proof sets, anniversary ASEs, etc.

 

True, but not with a super rarity, the way the USPS did it.

 

How long has that been the law? Haven't they minted coins with prior years on them in the past - I believe during times of shortage???

 

That's interesting. Then they are not reproducing the "original error" but an updated version of it, $2 verses 24 cents. Not being a stamp collector, I wasn't aware of that. It causes me to rethink the question a bit. By definition, an error is the unintentional deviation from accuracy. This is far from being unintentional. So it's more a limited production stamp than anything else. The uniqueness is in the way they are marketing it? That could be okay. Many collector pieces have limited quantities, including coins. Food for thought.

 

But the mint did not go to Congress asking for those programs, they were pushed for by outside organizations.

It has been the law since the Mint Act of April 2 1792. Back in the 18th and 19th centuries sometimes a dated die would be used in a subsequent year and technically yes those would have been illegal. Die were expensive and die steel was scarce, they weren't going to discard a perfectly good die just because it had last years date. Frankly I think they stopped doing that by the 1830's. Later cases such as the 1964 date freeze, the 1974 date freeze of quarters, halves, and dollars, and the Bicentennials struck and released in 1976 were all specifically provided for in legislation passed by Congress. A newly passed law that specifically exempts something from a previous law takes precedence.

Coinage Act of April 2 1792 Section 10
Section 10. And be it further enacted, That,
upon the said coins respectively, there shall
be the following devices and legends, namely:
Upon one side of each of the said coins there
shall be an impression emblematic of liberty,
with an inscription of the word Liberty, and
the year of the coinage;

 

The US Mint would most definitely profit since profits are generally higher with the more products produced.

I could easily see their profits doubling from such a venture.

BUT, I also do not see this occurring simply because their goal is NOT to produce rarities but to produce a quality product. Occasionally, something goes wrong and rarities are created. Remember the 2008-W Rev of 2007 SAE's?
Remember the 90% Silver Kennedy's in the Birth Year Sets?

 

Their goal is not to produce rarities??? What about the 2011 ASE 25th Anniversary Set?

 

I don't think it matters much who asks for it, if they can convince congress the program will show a profit that helps reduce the debt, it will probably be approved.

To add to your list of coins produced with last year's date in the next year, weren't the 2010 5oz silver ATB's produced in 2011?

 

Conversely, suppose the US Mint did what the US Post Office did in 1962
with the Dag Hammarskjold invert stamps, which was to deliberately print
error stamps after a set of error stamps turned up.

One of the strangest decisions of the Kennedy administration.