Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;gxseries, post: 2322032, member: 4373&quot;]I&#039;m strictly using looking at the material cost of coin production. Agreed, labor cost in Australia is another matter which will complicate this discussion. The current article mentions that the metal cost alone is driving the costs up which I strongly disagree. If this article was written during the peak metal prices, I would have understood.</p><p><br /></p><p>At one stage, nickel and copper prices were so high than the material cost of Australian 5, 10 and 20 cents coins nearly exceeded their face value, maybe 10 years ago. The production of these coins were actually offset by the dollar and 2 dollar coins and hence saved the Australian coins from a major overhaul design. I am certain that you can understand my view of why the 2 dollar coins are just too profitable to make especially after handling some from circulation.</p><p><br /></p><p>Around the same time, New Zealand was forced to make the change as all their coins had to be manufactured overseas - from Australia to South Africa. New Zealand has a mint but it is private owned and does NOT strike local coinage. The smaller denomination coins, 5, 10 and 20 cents were exactly the same specification of the Australian coins. It was not strange to see New Zealand coins circulating in Australia from time to time. As the Kiwi currency value was worth less than the Australian coins, this meant that the melt value of the coins were definitely higher than the face value. No government would continue to allow such coins to circulate only to see them melted down. South Korea 10 won also had a similar problem in 2006. </p><p><br /></p><p>To sum it up, metal prices do affect decisions on how mints produce coins. Some of the alternatives is to substitute with cheaper metal and or reduce the size of coins, getting rid of the smaller denomination coin, striking higher value coin to offset costs of smaller denomination coins and increase productivity. And of course, rising the price of non essential mint products and NCLT. I&#039;m certain the US mint would have already looked at productivity. Given that the other options are likely &#039;ain&#039;t going to happen&#039; - is it not a surprise that the last option is to continue creating cost benefit analysis reports just to ensure that there are no stones left unturned? In this sceanrio, continuing to write reports just seem to be the easiest and cheapest solution.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in