Official - 2016 Gold Centennial Coins to be SMALLER!

That's a summation if I ever read one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Huh. I trust Coin World more than I trust the Mint's publicity arm, but it's still possible that there are crossed wires somewhere.

Regardless, I find myself slowly losing enthusiasm for this issue. Of course, if everyone else feels the same way, it'll sell poorly, which means limited mintage, which means... oh, never mind.

I'll be staying tuned for Mr. Carr's products, though.

 

Wow jeff. That sums up my feelings so succinctly that I could have written that myself. I think many are starting to share this exact pov

 

We already know the prices, at least by formula. It will sell for EXACTLY what the equivalent gold 1/10, 1/4, and 1/2 ounce gold Eagles in numismatic form do.

 

"Face it, you screwed up. You trusted us."

 

And yet, I still may end up buying in. Just because I understand the rational POV doesn't mean I can always maintain it.

 

See above. "I know he'll be different this time..."

 

Anyone have a link to the Coin World article? I have only read that they will be thinner.

 

If we continue to support cynical lies like these coins, we will keep getting lied to even more.

 

Yeah? Think those marketing geniuses at that mint won't gouge us even more?

 

Oh for crying out loud, SQG, GOOGLE it!!!! I'm on an iPad and the browser can't copy URL's, but I just found it in 2 minutes!! SHEESH! Paul Gilkes wrote it, it's dated 3/10/16, and the specs are about halfway down the article. Link, schmink!

 

The prices, like the prices on ALL bullion issues are on a pre-printed grid, available on the Mint's own website. You really need to start flipping coins less, and start READING more.

Trust me, dude, these blanks have been spec'ed out EXACTLY the same as the 2008 fractional gold Buffs were, AND will have the same diameters they did... GUARANTEED!

 

I did google it, but no hits. I just checked the most recent CW, 3/28/16 and found an article, page 1 & 36, that says 16.5mm.
http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/ODE/CoinWorld/default.aspx

 

Found the specs and you are correct. But, I'll bet you the mint goes off the grid for pricing.

 

And violate the very same law that gives them the authority to mint these without Congressional authority or involvement? Think! You really do have to stop thinking of these as legally being commemoratives. Legally, they're NOT; they're bullion coins, plain and simple.

 

I don't know is gold different than silver? They sure are gouging on the 5oz P Pucks. Are the 2016 centennial coins bullion or something else?

 

Gold bullion is UTTERLY, THOROUGHLY, and COMPLETELY different from silver, under the law. The pucks are authorized/mandated by the same law that created the ATB quarter program.

Maybe CoinTalk needs to keep a database of passed coin legislation, so their readers can be informed. I myself make my living reading and writing legislation, but the CT owner and mods don't care for my language or humor. They've already banned me once and taken down countless posts on what I believe are bogus reasons.

Oops! Maybe talking about what laws say and do not is too "political" for some moderator, huh?

 

And your link only works for a digital subscriber. Links are the most overemphasized part of web culture. I won't even DEAL with anyone who posts "link, please." Do your own stinking research. I found it. You can too. Even the courts have found links to be unacceptable because they go away.

 

Then let me word it another way.........citation please.

 

Kurt you seem to be quite passionate in trying to spoil the occasion. Are you this overzealous in attacking all of the mint's issues or do you only have issue with these one time bullion offerings?
I admit, this issue might've lost a little steam for me with the dimension issues but I'd still like to give it a chance. 1.4 mm is less than an 8% difference to the diameter and likely is barely noticeable side by side with a real one. Maybe the thickness will be closer to the original? It's not ideal but I think they still have a chance to be decent and desirable. I guess I'm just wondering what your agenda is and what I'm supposed to take from it? Is it your contention that we should all just pass on the centennial offering?