Didn't want to hi-jack another thread, but the idea of the mint re-issuing classic designs came up recently. The possibility of driving down the values of existing coins is a valid concern. Here's an alternative idea to try on for size. How about minting classic coins that never existed? For example, there never were 1933 quarters or dollar coins from 1905 to 1920. Such coins could be made to the original specs and would be legal tender, but NIFC. Without the need for tremendous mintages, the original relief could be used, which would be preferable to the flat stuff we get today. The precedent has been set with Kennedys and the dollar coins, and especially with the S-mint business strike quarters. I, for one, would be happy to pay a premium to get 1932 and 1933 mercury dimes. I would imagine that they could do one coin (or year's coins) each year and include them in silver proof sets (or in regular proof sets for nickels and cents). From my perspective, coins such as these would much more welcome that the "commemorative of the week". I get the feeling that they are really struggling to come up with new things to commemorate. I get all revved up just thinking about a one year proof set with a 33 Washington quarter and mercury dime, or with 32 mercury dime and walking liberty half. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting making things like a 1965 Peace dollar that would extend a series, just coins that would fill gaps in existing series. This seems like a win-win for all concerned. Since the coins never existed, they would not impact the prices of existing coins. They could be a money maker for the mint. They could be collected or not, depending on one's tastes, just like the modern commemoratives. I can't wait to get my hands on a 1815 large cent proof.
why would they mint coins with old dates on them? i would like to see classic designs dated 2014, but that would probably force the value of the older coins down
How about re-strikes? The mint did a few way back when. I'm sure they've still got a few old dies lying around.
Please don't suggest another dollar coin to our Congress. Hasn't it been bad enough with the continuation of the SAC's and PRES dollars at the same time? And we're not even talking about the ASE's, which they would probably end because it would piss me off. Since we all know that we're not ready to end the greenback, let's suggest a simpler life without the useless dollar and half dollar coins. Enough is enough already.
Wow! I thought the idea was quite clever and an alternative to the endless string of commemoratives, but looks like I struck a nerve. As far as the Dan Carr stuff goes, what I suggested is nothing like that. The stuff he makes, while pretty, is little more than novelty items. What I am suggesting is legal money with appropriate denominations, just like the commemorative and bullion coins (emphasize the word coins). As for the dollar question, it is unlikely that dollar coins minted solely for the collector market, BUT WITH attractive designs and metals value beyond face value would circulate much more than do commemoratives. As for ending the ASE's, while it is a possibility, I think there would generally still be a strong market for 1 oz. bullion coins as. I'd bet that a significant portion of the ASE's go to non-collectors. What I'm talking about is 90% silver Basically, something more akin to restrikes is more along the lines of what I was thinking. The downside to doing actual restrikes is that it brings up the issue of lowering value for the originals. Oh, well. Back to the drawing board.
You are suggesting minting a coin in 2014, that has a date on it that is 80, 90, 100 years old? Hmm. No. No. Not even a little.
I agree with most people, minting past dated coins shouldn't happen. When people ask me about my collection I say oh my oldest coin is 1842. So If I buy a coin they minted in 2014 and it said 1840 what would I say? It would just be a whole big mess. Dates should be locked into a year. Only 2014 coins should be minted in 2014. (I know about the bicentennial being minted in 1975 that's an exception because they didn't release them till 1976)
Ya think ? What you are suggesting has been done before, and done both ways. All one need to do is look at the 1804 dollar. Not a one of them was minted in 1804, and only some of them were minted by the mint. The others were minted by private parties, just like those coins minted by Carr. So what is the difference between the 1804 dollars and the coins minted by Carr ? My answer, there is no difference. They are both novelty items.
They would have to have 2 dates, the missing year and minted year, so that way we could have a mini-missing year series.
I agree, but would have no problem with minting say, a Peace dollar dated 2014 or something along those lines. I have nothing against reissuing some classic designs, but keeping them dated the year they're actually minted.
