Ok, well now the US mint sells things like SQ rolls, Sac rolls, Nickel rolls, and many many other things. Here is what I was wondering. Lets say 20+ years ago, what did they sell? Mint, proof, silver proof sets and thats it right? With the occasional comm and Kennedy rolls, right? I would find that boring. Did the mint sell something that would increase selection and stopped doing it in the future or what?
I almost get the feeling that until recently the mint was almost afraid to allow much variation in coinage and products; almost as if there was some sort of hidden risk to it. Maybe there was a deeply ingrained feeling that gold and silver content was important to the acceptance of coinage, and once it was removed they didn't want to risk doing anything to make the money less "respectible." This is just a guess.
I think the marketing department in the US mint has really taken off in the last five years or so. Now they have all the westward journey stuff, and varous non-numismatic items for sale - which they attach to certain strikes (like the native american pouch / peace nickel thing, which made quite a bit of people roll their eyes). If you strip these things away, and went back 20 years, I think you would still find the same sort of things for sale - mint sets, proof sets, the introduction of the gold and silver eagles - bank bags and rolls of uncirculated issues. Same stuff, just not so many variations because of the state quarter program and nickel varieties. Other than that - what's new? Beyond this, and I could be wrong, I don't think the mint really much cared about it's sales. People purchased them or they didn't, but I don't think it was ever a real aggressive marketing program.
I wish they would go back to what they once did...all they do now is hype up coins and rip collectors off...back in the 40's and 50's mint and proof sets were just a few dollars over face if even that much...some were just a few cents over face... Speedy
I think I saw in the red book, the set(50's) cost about $.18 over face and look at its value today!!!!!!!!
Yep...I wish they would charge the same now as they did back then...just think...I paid about $74 bucks for a 1954 PF66 NGC Franklin Half...back then the guy only paid a little over $0.50!!!!! Speedy
Right...(I thought you would do the math...and save me the problem!!!) So in other words...if the same guy that got it in 1954 just sold it to be he got a nice little $$ back!!!... Speedy
What you two guys are forgetting is that you wouldn't be buying these sets with 2005 currency/value. A little difference you may care to figure in with you math problem. As for shoes Spider, I never wore them personally and have very few (if any ) friends who did. So can't tell you the price of a shoe shine in those days.
Rick you would be wrong. If you go back over 23 years you would find you could buy Mint sets and proof sets period. That would be before the start of the modern commemoratives. There were no rolls, no bags, no nothing. for the most part the mint didn't care about the collector at all. Often you would get the impression that they would be just as happy if the collector would go away. From 1968 to 1981 the only thing they sold other than mint and proof sets were 40% silver Ikes in Unc an proof from 1971 - 1974. Something else about ordring from the mint back then. No internet ordering, no phone orders, all orders by mail only. No credit cards, checks or money orders only. No customer service, and orders could not be cancelled by the customer. Wait times from order till receipt often 8 months or more. If you were notified that it sold out and you weren't getting your order it might take four months to get a refund check. the only advantage was that shipping was included in the price of the set. And that wasn't much of an advantage because it meant that if you ordered multiple sets you paid for the shipping multiple times as well.
I wish the mints didn't care about the collector. There's too much hyped up trash out there that's never gonna see circulation. It might come as no surprise that i don't collect, proofs, mint sets, BU sets, specimen sets, commems, bullion, or any other exonumia peddled off as a coin. My rule if it was minted to circulate then it's in, if it wasn't then it's not.
I'm not particularly concerned with the question of whether or not something was minted for circulation or for collectors. A commemorative proof coin made of gold or silver has an intrinsic value that a post-1964 clad coin made for circulation can never have, will probably be more scarce, and frequently will have a more interesting design. Now the clad coins will always have collection value in the same sense that stamps do, but they are essentially modern tokens. I have trouble getting excited about a clad coin with a mintage of 100million+ just because it was made to circulate, but didn't.
To be honest i'd have to hold up my hands and admit i'd rather take the clad. Dunno why maybe it's because i'm interested in the history of the coins and what they've seen when they're out there jingling in pockets, rather than the intrinsics. Some might think i'm mad, even i do at times, but there you go. I love 17th century British tin coins, a highly problematic series due to being made out of an unsuitable metal but when i see a decent well preserved specimen of one of those i get far more excited about it than i would about a UNC 1686 Crown. Which is truly rarer? Same with my German coins, a zinc 5 reichspfennig with mint lustre is far more entertaining than a BU Silver 5 Reichsmark. Simply because zinc is less resistant to corrosion, and therefore a BU 5 reichspfennig is something to marvel at.
