Official - 2016 Gold Centennial Coins to be SMALLER!

No, I just hate when governmental agencies look me square in the eye and lie to me when I have asked them specific questions. I asked mint officials at a meeting in Rosemont last August about these very dimensional issues, and they flat out lied. They just said "we have the best technicians to figure this out" when I told them they could not physically produce properly sized gold coins at the stated weights without making them unworkably thin.

Yes, the reduced size (which is MUCH BIGGER than the diameter difference between the cent and dime) will make a thickness much closer to the original dime, but still a bit thinner. It may work with the reduced diameter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I don't do citations for web discussion groups. For Petitions before the PA Supreme Court objecting to a redistricting plan? Yes. CoinTalk forums? No.

 

So, this means that the Standing Liberty coin will be roughly the same diameter as a nickel, because that's what the 1/4 oz Buffalo Gold coin was.

 

The thickness of the gold Merc will be 1.19mm, a silver Merc is 1.35mm, so the gold is .16mm thinner.

 

As usual, you are correct. My understanding is at 1/10 ounce, there was no diameter difference between the AGE and the Buffalos. The necessary adjustment was strictly in thickness. The others? They'll probably require even larger reductions from the original quarter and half dollar diameters. I know you own a 1/4 oz. Buff. You tell me, does it look excessively thick? Could it be "spread out" some?

I know for sure no one can do an accurate gold Walking Liberty with the hand exactly opposite the eagle's breast feathers without reducing the diameter extraordinarily.

Put simply, the Mint, and the CCAC (they may be more to blame than the Mint) oversold these pieces and underdelivered. The marketers wrote a check the technicians couldn't cash.

From the moment this program was announced, it was a lie. They only ever had two choices - make them a non-standard size, or make the weights .15, .375, and .75 ounces.

 

Actually, you did sort of cite it when you mentioned the Coin World article. Just playin' with ya Kurt. You are a good sport........

 

So the dimes will have the exact specs of the 2008 1/10 oz gold buffalo's. And the other two will likely match up with the other fractional 1/4 and 1/2 oz buffalo's. I don't think it's the end of the world for the tributes to be off the original coins specs a little, they weren't originally minted in gold after all. I'd probably feel differently if they minted them in silver at different specs than the originals. Actually I kind of like that they'll match up with the fractional gold buffalo's personally.

 

I do not believe that it could be flattened enough to make it the diameter of a quarter, but I'm no expert. They might be able to make them as thin as wafers with today's technology for all I know.

I am hugely disappointed that they might not be the proper sizes as they had originally intended, but it was questioned whether or not they could actually do it from almost jump street.

What we're seeing now is the Mint having to deal with what they know is going to be a huge buzz kill for these coins.

 

Almost as huge as the buzz kill of not being made in 90% silver.

 

Twenty grams of .999 gold can be thinned to a thickness of 1/10,000 inch and cover about 69 square feet as a foil. So the mint was within tolerances.

 

And rumour has it you can then wrinkle up that 69 square feet and wrap it around temperature critical equipment on the descent stage of an Apollo Lunar Module and leave 6 of them dotted around the lunar surface, too.

 

Come to think of it, when you include one of them that crash landed on the surface intentionally (Apollo 10), that makes seven. 13's LEM burned up in the earth's atmosphere after saving 3 brave men's lives.

 

I'd go well beyond "questioned" all the way to "were told it was impossible". I know they were told that because I told them. They denied it. They lied.

It happened at Rosemont at the Stephens Center at ANA 2015 at the meeting between the Mint and its bulk purchasers, which I "crashed" doing photos for the ANA.

 

Kurt. Why so slighted? You know exactly how bureaucracy works, better than most here actually

 

Maybe because I am a bureaucrat (not actually, no bureau here) who stands uncommon as someone who has no problem telling truth to power, which I do on a regular basis and am approaching my 8 year anniversary in the employ of the legislature. I don't do the lying "yes man" sycophant role. We have another guy for that.

 

@Vess1, what I can tell you for absolute certainty is that I personally wouldn't get within a country mile of these centennial issues. A complete waste of money that can be, and will be, directed to "real" coins that will be parts of "real" sets, not some marketing gimmick. In the funky marketing gimmick category, these compete for a new low with the reverse proof issues. It's all about how obscenely the Mint wants to extract cash from the gullible collector market, that the collector has ZERO hope of ever seeing again in a secondary market. See the gold 2014 Kennedy market for a prime example. You can buy them all day long for less than issue price. These will be exactly the same story.

 

That is somewhat a motto for moderators also

 

Depending on the cost I'll probably be buying them even though the sizes are not the same as the originals. The issue I generally have with these coins is that the Mint can't come up with anything more original than reusing classic designs. They're beautiful designs, don't get me wrong, but I do want classics to be created for current collectors. Wishful thinking I know

 

And also no trouble telling made up from whole cloth baloney to aggrieved users, too. Right?

 

I think I'll wait until the secondary market discounts the centennials and then grab a Merc. If it looks decent, which I doubt it will. I'm expecting a junky job.