Petition for US Mint to change their gold coin lineup

These would not be one time offerings like the 2009 UHR. These offerings can extend over a multiple number of years.

The bullion coins would not change in my petition.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Then I wish you luck in your petition endeavors, but I will not be signing it.

It is possible for you to "have your cake and eat it too" by encouraging (not demanding) the US Mint to release commemorative versions of these coins that would be available for one year each (like the 2009 UHR), while leaving the American Eagles as they are, or possibly redesigning them with a fresh new design instead of a historical design.

 

The American Eagle bullion coins would be as they are

 

Understood, but most bullion collectors don't give a flip about the design on their bullion coins. Collectors seek the numismatic and proof versions issued straight from the Mint, which under your plan would be re-hashed vintage designs.

As I said before, I could support a one time reissue of historical designs, like what happened in 2009 with the UHR. I do not wish to see any old designs replace an existing design and become an annual release. If that is going to happen, I want to see a completely original design, preferably artistically stunning and able to stand the test of time.

 

At the same time, I don't want to call for new designs and then get my wish and have the US Mint come up with absolute crap. I'd rather stick with something that's tried, true, and tested.

 

That has been known to happen. The Girl Scout Commem comes to mind.

Have you seen the thread in this section about SAE reverse design proposals? I don't know if it'll happen or not, but I do believe they are taking a very constructive approach to the task.

 

But I don't think that they should change the ASE reverse design. I think that with bullion coins you need consistency.

 

Fair enough, but it was more the process I was referring to.

 

I understand, I just thought I'd put my 2 cents in on that whole redesign proposal.

 

You have put in your 2 cents in. First as vcc and now as Peter. Both are new, same avatar and mood and once vcc left peter is here with a very similar message. Both have petitions . Vcc is gone. We tend to notice the little things were coin collectors we pay thousands of dollars for very minute changes we are detail orientated.

 

Wouldn't that be $0.04 ?

 

"Your Petition"? I thought it was VocalCoinCollectors (aka VCC) petition?

Never mind. I found "your" petition.

Since its unavailable, what is the text or "your" petition?

 

Instead of attacking me, we should focus on coins. I'm really amused that CoinTalk is becoming more like Peter Rosconi Talk

 

OK. Great.

Now, if there's an ice cubes change in hades of any of the petitions ever going through, someone will have 5, similar yet different, petitions to sort through.

It appears to me that the best efforts of you two will be completely lost in a muddy stream of information with which neither of you fully understands, nor explains as exampled by the myriad of petitions being thrown at "The US Mint".

Presuming that neither of you falsified your birthdates on your CT membership profiles, one could assume that a couple of 21 year olds are going to sweep in from the relative unknown and change the way that the US Mint is required, by law, to operate.

My 65 years of experience in this lifetime is telling me that this is just not going to happen since "confusion" does not generate change. Confusion generates confusion.

I suppose we'll get another account here in a day or so expounding on the feasibility of modifying this or modifying that so I'll just wait.

 

I'm sure you'd like to think so. I mean, with all 14 posts and all.

You're not the first person to get an account, login and proceed to define your position, under the guise of discussion, until everybody see's it your way.

And yes, I find it a bit frustrating that, at times, the young pay no attention to what the more experienced folks are saying. Those that do, actually learn about what they are discussing and earn a bit of respect along the way.

 

Reading this thread, I see that you are more committed to attacking me and VCC for bringing up an idea rather than discussing the idea. I was not intending to generate confusion, I was intending to take VCC's efforts a step further and cut the nonsense that VCC posted about the mint sending coins to NGC and PCGS which isn't the greatest of ideas and the 1/20th ounce coin which isn't also one of the best ideas.

You seem to like confusion as a member of the United States of Confusion, so I don't see the problem if there was to be any confusion, which I don't think there is any.

 

It's not that I'd like to think so. It's that you make it seem the discussion about COINS is not really important and that my and VCC's affairs and making attacks on us are more important. What are we going to gain by that?

Having said that, let's go back to discussing a revival of classic coins instead of posting nonsense.

 

I've already said why I won't sign any of those at other forums.

But I do think it would be nice if the Mint offered "select" coins at a higher price - coins you would expect to grade MS70.

 

Well VCC has a petition which you saw and I have one that built upon VCC's petition by dropping the NGC/PCGS US Mint submissions and the 1/20th ounce gold coin and focusing on the classic coin design revivals.

 

It still wouldn't make some folks happy. They'd still find a hair, thumbprint, squirrel dropping in the holder somewhere.........