Is us collecting for future down tubes

How about the WW2 era German coins that are made out of IRON! I got 2-3 really crappy examples - they sure didn't hold up very well!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Are those few 1974 Aluminum Cents that are secretly traded for hundreds of thousands of dollars not collectible anymore??

What about those plastic tax tokens? Or maybe those Bank Notes of the colonial era?

Folks need to understand that pride can be a very expensive proposition unless of course, you don't really mind the US Government continuing to produce cents at twice the cost or nickels at nearly twice the cost and then passing that COST off to you at income at time?

Let's see? Last year the US Mint produced 86,640,000 thousand nickels at a cost on .09 cents a piece. That means, the US Tax Payer owes the US Government $3,465,600 to cover the cost of those .04 cent overage for each nickel.

How much do you want to pay in 2010 so that they can balance their budget? And thank God it was a short year since the production in 2008 was 640,560,000 coins at a $25,622,400 loss!

Actually, the figures are much higher than that since I only calculated a $.04 cents per coin loss. The government should be able to produce these at $.01 cents or less apiece meaning the loss figures should acutally be doubled. ($.08 cents per coin)

 

I an not a hoarder but every time I hear about this loss with the nickel I want to save my nickels because they will eventually have to change the composition. Back to the OP's question: IMO, some people by nature collect and will do so regardless of the metal composition of the coins. Even if we switch to no coinage and only use plastic debit/credit cards, people will start to collect them too. TC

 

Well, not really. You have to remember the mint made even more quarter dollars than nickels and sold them for more than three times their cost to produce them, so they still come out way ahead. Like any business anywhere, you lose money on some things but make up for it double on others.
Guy~

 

No. 19Lyds was correct in the overall idea, but I think the production figures might have been incorrect. The bottom line is that the US Mint made money for the US government last year, but the amount of money it could have made if it had not minted nickels would have been far more. The US Mint is not a private corporation or publicly traded stock, but rather funnels its profits into the US budget, which means that minting those 86,640,000 nickels at nine cents each cost the US budget almost $3.5 million in losses. This is the difference between the production cost at nice cents each and face value purchase power at five cents each for those 86.64 million nickels. It really doesn't matter that the US Mint made money on the production of quarters or other issues since the loss on the production of nickels took away $3.5 million of the profits generated by other coinage.

Additionally, since the US Mint has a monopoly on the production of legal tender coinage and currency within the US, there is no need to have a loss leader such as seen in the more open market and to which you refer in your post. Every denomination should be able to make money for the US government so that the profits can help reduce the national debt. Of course, a $3.5 million loss is trivial compared to our national debt. However, it is a loss that did not have to occur and is a loss that either raised the tax burden of current tax payers or raised the tax burden of future tax payers.

 

mabey they will figure out how to make them out of scrap cardboard then they will save loads.

 

billy ray where did you get that mabey that will be a good design and material for government to save billions

 

Tom, I assume that production total is for business strikes only, but does this also take into account the premium the Mint charges for the nickels in bags and rolls? What about the satin finish nickels for the Mint Sets. Is there an offset for these?

Chris

 

sure it is costing the mint more to make cents and nickels, it costs less to make dimes, quarters, halves and dollars, it all comes out in the wash.

 

Plus there is no law saying the mint has to make 50 kajillion cents every year, or twenty buzillion nickels, there is no coin shortage, none, nada, zip.

 

You go Chip

 

This was a very well thought out post. You made an excellent point here, and I couldn't agree more :bow:

 

It's all about economics. It doesn't make sense to keep using the same alloy if it costs more than one cent to make a cent, or more than 5 cents to make a nickel. That's why silver was removed from coins after '64, and most of the copper from the cents after '82. While you might take issue with the pedestrian designs of our coins and currency, you can't argue with the quality of the workmanship. Now if we can just get them to quit making the cents...but that's a subject for another discussion.

 

i am glad the US Mint still makes silver, gold, and platinum coins ... even if we have to pay a premium to get them. Someone correct me if I am wrong but I think from 1971 to 1985 ... there were no silver or gold US coins produced by the US Mint (am i right???)

 

Thats how I feel phubanks

 

1982 George Washington (half dollar)

1983-1984 Los Angeles Olympiad (silver dollar)

1984 Los Angeles Olympiad (10 dollar gold)

 

It costs ~ 1.4 cents to make a cent because of high copper costs. Copper isn't going down anytime soon, so I say it would be reckless to keep the composition as it is. Bring on some new change!

 

Counterfeit coins from China represent the slow death of numismatics.

 

As long as the current availability of new gold and silver coins remains, a change from a non PM to another non PM will have a non affect on collecting.

 

In my opinion, yes it did. I have no interest in collecting post 64 coins. Collecting probably did not go down overall, but i guess most collect pre 64 much more than post 64.

Only to the uneducated collector