Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;krispy, post: 869028, member: 19065&quot;]The Mint already has the correct term, &quot;mintage&quot;: 2009 mintage, 2010 mintage...</p><p><br /></p><p>This could be expressed as 2009 (X) coins minted in 2010 plus 2010 (X) coins minted&nbsp; in 2010 equals (X) number of coins minted (to date / in this year). Of those (X) number of coins minted in 2010, (X) number were sold so far this year (or in (X) month, or in (X) quarter of the current year). </p><p><br /></p><p>There gets to be too much confusion in expressing <i>sales</i> of coins as a particular coin issue&#039;s <i>mintage</i> because the sales figures are too approximate and do not accurately express the number of individual units actually Minted. This is obviously problematic as the figure of true mintage fluctuates throughout the year based on sales and isn&#039;t calculated with any accuracy for a few (or in some cases, several) years after minting has ceased for a given year. </p><p><br /></p><p>The term &#039;production&#039; really has no validity against &#039;mintage&#039; and &#039;minted&#039; when applied correctly in regards to the Mint and their activity. Yet, production is an accurate term, merely misleading as it <i>could be</i> used in place of &#039;mintage&#039; / &#039;minted&#039; but the context defers to <i>minting</i> terms. This isn&#039;t even a matter of semantics because context alone informs the correct diction.[/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