Demise of numismatics

I used to agree. Fortunately, I bought only one First Spouse gold before realizing the error of my ways...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Had gold not spiked that series may have fared better, would have been interesting to see at least.

 

Hmmm? Unfathomable. I guess for some it would be preferable to pay a higher price for a coin that they can get at a lower price. I hear the rich like paying more for something that they can get elsewhere for less just because they can. Since I'm not rich, it's not something I'm familiar with.

 

I wasn't referring to anything modern, Pre 1933 Gold, Also coins that have always been in high demand for a collector such as 1955 DDO, and so on and so forth, I personally don't buy anything modern unless it do it for looks

 

The link to the U.S. Mint annual report was to dampen the notion that the U.S. Government will stop making coins and medals one day in the future.

Like it or not, buyers (note: I did not specify collectors) of "current and future" U.S. mint products will continually fund U.S. Mint operations and the Public Enterprise Fund.

Here is just one example of how the Public Enterprise Fund is used on an ongoing basis (text taken from page 16 of https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30076.pdf).

 

Such a shame. He is not taking advantage of a resource from all over the world.
Plus maybe he's too busy gaming? I know of young people who in their of time essentially spend all their hours before sleep playing games with others on line.

Would you be saying the same thing about your child if your child was a 22 year old daughter? Or did this happen because you wanted to bond with your son in your way? Hos many of your in person activities have attracted women in large percentages? I personally think that the rise of internet numismatic opportunities has finally allowed women to feel like they really fit in. That is really difficult in the old model.

 

Here you are absolutely correct and I have said the same thing often. My problem with you is that whenever I read any of your posts, I feel like I'm reading something from a marketing campaign. It's like interstitial advertising. It REALLY is okay to put down the "pitchman" schtick every once in a while.

 

Thanks for the data, very interesting. Even though for Kurt the significance is "BELOW ZERO" [typical PA exaggeration]. I'm not sure why Kurt, if the hobby is in its death throes, is still buying coins.

 

Auctions that I go to offer LOWER prices han any other selling venue of any kind. Most of the bidders ARE dealers and by outbidding them by 1 dollar, you get the lot. How many dealers do you know that work on a $1 spread? NO shipping charges, NO bidding on one coin and getting another, and in today's auction, NO BUYER'S PREMIUM!!!

It's foolish to buy from dealers - in person or online, when you have options like these auctions.

 

I don't have a choice but to buy online, I love my job so I have no complaints. If I could go to a Auction in person I would love to.

 

In researching Bureau of the Mint operations from 1958 through 1962 (I limited this period specifically for an ongoing writing project), it can be concluded that the Bureau of the Mint operated with a manufacturing triad. (Source: Director of the Mint Annual Reports from 1958 - 1962)

This manufacturing triad is ideal in explaining U.S. numismatics to those focused on the result from a single manufacturing function (e.g. coins for commerce). When you look-up the definition of numismatics, it does not specify "coins only" nor does it specify particular year(s) nor identify specific metal(s) nor does it specify particular design(s).




The red text just revealed a research growth area in U.S. numismatics that has been asleep for over a half-century.

U.S. numismatics is not dying.

 

Demise? I've seen no demise of any kind except maybe money spent on plastics and hype, instead of the actual coin and paper. Imagine how much is spent each year on the like, there is the difference you're missing.

 

Marketing campaign for what the internet? It sells itself at this point. There's no pitchman for anything, you just don't like how things are and have been moving.

 

I totally agree with how a 20 something collector would feel going into a room with a bunch of 70 year olds. Sometimes I wonder if it would be better to get a bunch of younger collectors together to start a new club than try to infuse them into an old club. I joined my current club after retirement and moving 1000+ miles. To be honest the meetings are boring as I get the impression that the core of members have been together for decades and don't have much else to share with each other; it's now more of a social gathering of old friends. Even at 62 I feel a bit an outcast, even though the people are friendly. I haven't gotten much satisfaction, numismatically speaking. The club had a member auction at one of the recent meetings in which only a few members participated. Nobody seemed to want to buy anything or even show any interest in the items being auctioned. My feeling is that most of these guys no longer care about adding to their collections. About all we do is plan for our annual coin show.

 

Amen to that!

 

And having spent a lot of time on other coin-related forums, CT actually has a pretty sterling reputation as far as willingness to share knowledge and a lower snob-factor towards new members. This makes it an even more valuable slice of the data.

 

... and not only that! We also have the advantage of not hearing as often from "RWB", the man that an Eastern District of Pennsylvania federal court jury (I have also had the pleasure of being a jury foreman in that same court, 31 years ago.) (And a secondary named defendant in my professional capacity in 2002.) found to be "not credible" in the Langbord case.

 

What does the Mint report have to do with numismatics?

 

Where might we find corroborating reference for that?