Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Opinions on ATB 5 oz. coins?
49 views
Skip to first unread message
Trevor
Oct 31, 2014, 4:11:24 PM10/31/14
to
I've sort of been in and out of this hobby over the years. I recently
discovered the 5 oz. ATB series. I bought one of the Arches coins,
because it's a National Park that's close to me, and I've enjoyed
visiting many times.
What are the opinions on this series? It turned out to be a lot larger
than I expected. And I find it interesting that it still appears to have
a 25 cent face value. Would this still be considered legal tender, or is
it technically just a large silver round? Is it likely to have long-term
numismatic value?
discovered the 5 oz. ATB series. I bought one of the Arches coins,
because it's a National Park that's close to me, and I've enjoyed
visiting many times.
What are the opinions on this series? It turned out to be a lot larger
than I expected. And I find it interesting that it still appears to have
a 25 cent face value. Would this still be considered legal tender, or is
it technically just a large silver round? Is it likely to have long-term
numismatic value?
Michael Benveniste
Oct 31, 2014, 4:57:56 PM10/31/14
to
On 10/31/2014 4:10 PM, Trevor wrote:
> What are the opinions on this series? It turned out to be a lot
> larger than I expected. And I find it interesting that it still
> appears to have a 25 cent face value. Would this still be considered
> legal tender, or is it technically just a large silver round? Is it
> likely to have long-term numismatic value?
They are legal tender for $0.25 as mandated by the enabling
> What are the opinions on this series? It turned out to be a lot
> larger than I expected. And I find it interesting that it still
> appears to have a 25 cent face value. Would this still be considered
> legal tender, or is it technically just a large silver round? Is it
> likely to have long-term numismatic value?
legislation. Except for a few legal corner cases, it has little
meaning. Consider it a large silver round or a thin hockey puck
as you please.
Long-term numismatic value is harder to guess. I guessed that the
2010 issues would have numismatic value due to the botched release
process, but as with the First Spouse Gold Coins, most of these trade
at near melt. Expect to pay a premium for coins slabbed PL, DMPL, or
SP70; I suspect that premium will endure as long as the registry set
game remains popular.
--
Mike Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
You don't have to sort of enhance reality. There is nothing
stranger than truth. -- Annie Leibovitz
Peter Irwin
Nov 1, 2014, 7:50:16 AM11/1/14
to
Michael Benveniste <m...@murkyether.com> wrote:
> On 10/31/2014 4:10 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> What are the opinions on this series? It turned out to be a lot
>> larger than I expected. And I find it interesting that it still
>> appears to have a 25 cent face value. Would this still be considered
>> legal tender, or is it technically just a large silver round? Is it
>> likely to have long-term numismatic value?
>
> They are legal tender for $0.25 as mandated by the enabling
> legislation. Except for a few legal corner cases, it has little
> meaning.
The face value is primarily intended as an attempt to have the coin
> On 10/31/2014 4:10 PM, Trevor wrote:
>> What are the opinions on this series? It turned out to be a lot
>> larger than I expected. And I find it interesting that it still
>> appears to have a 25 cent face value. Would this still be considered
>> legal tender, or is it technically just a large silver round? Is it
>> likely to have long-term numismatic value?
>
> They are legal tender for $0.25 as mandated by the enabling
> legislation. Except for a few legal corner cases, it has little
> meaning.
protected by international monetary law. Almost all countries are
signatories to agreements to prosecute forgeries of foreign money
under the same terms as they prosecute forgeries of their own money.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Message has been deleted
Michael Benveniste
Nov 2, 2014, 11:43:10 AM11/2/14
to
On 11/1/2014 12:38 PM, oly...@aol.com wrote:
> No, the denomination is necessary because American coin collectors
> have had it drummed into their heads for more than fifty years that
> round thingie WITHOUT a denomination is a medal, and that medals are
> absolutely and totally worthless, even more worthless than foreign
> coins which are also worthless.
You're both partially right. Adding a denomination makes the legal
status of "replicas/counterfeits" a lot easier to define, both
domestically and internationally. It's also true that U.S. collectors
seem to prefer coins with dates. For bullion products, that preference
was reinforced by the American Arts Commemorative Series medals, which
are not IRA eligible.
On the other hand, the 1992 Ben Franklin Firefighters medal has done
somewhat better in the secondary market than the 3 commemorative
dollar coins issued that year. And let's face it, coin collectors
are treating the First Spouse coins _and_ medals with equal disdain.
In terms of collector appeal, the ATB series not only suffers from the
"design by 2 committees" process of all non-legacy designs for new
U.S. coins, but also due to the virtual impossibility of coming up
with designs which looks good on both a standard-sized quarter and a
3" hockey puck.
> No, the denomination is necessary because American coin collectors
> have had it drummed into their heads for more than fifty years that
> round thingie WITHOUT a denomination is a medal, and that medals are
> absolutely and totally worthless, even more worthless than foreign
> coins which are also worthless.
You're both partially right. Adding a denomination makes the legal
status of "replicas/counterfeits" a lot easier to define, both
domestically and internationally. It's also true that U.S. collectors
seem to prefer coins with dates. For bullion products, that preference
was reinforced by the American Arts Commemorative Series medals, which
are not IRA eligible.
On the other hand, the 1992 Ben Franklin Firefighters medal has done
somewhat better in the secondary market than the 3 commemorative
dollar coins issued that year. And let's face it, coin collectors
are treating the First Spouse coins _and_ medals with equal disdain.
In terms of collector appeal, the ATB series not only suffers from the
"design by 2 committees" process of all non-legacy designs for new
U.S. coins, but also due to the virtual impossibility of coming up
with designs which looks good on both a standard-sized quarter and a
3" hockey puck.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Michael Benveniste
Nov 2, 2014, 1:46:11 PM11/2/14
to
On 11/2/2014 12:18 PM, oly...@aol.com wrote:
> You write very long but still dodge the question regarding placing
> meaningless denominations on round pieces that would have been
> issued as medals years ago.
I guess you missed the part where I wrote "They are legal tender for
$0.25 as mandated by the enabling legislation." That's just as
true for the various U.S. mint "rounds" today as it was for classic
commemoratives and the 1925 Norse Medal. If Congress says it's a
medal, it's a medal. If Congress says it's a coin, it's a coin.
> The Franklin Firefighter silver medals (and the Teddy Roosevelt
> National Parks/ Wildlife medals) can very frequently be purchased for
> next to nothing, simply because the poltroons can't look them up in the
> Red Book. Conversely, they are often wildly overpriced for the same
> reason.
Generic $1 Modern Commemoratives are available retail at about $4 per
coin over spot. If you can find the Franklin at $5 over spot, please
let me in on the secret. After you make your pile, that is.
But I guess it still is 1993 here on Usenet, if people are still
using the Red Book instead of online sources or following what
stuff actually sells for at auction.
> You write very long but still dodge the question regarding placing
> meaningless denominations on round pieces that would have been
> issued as medals years ago.
I guess you missed the part where I wrote "They are legal tender for
$0.25 as mandated by the enabling legislation." That's just as
true for the various U.S. mint "rounds" today as it was for classic
commemoratives and the 1925 Norse Medal. If Congress says it's a
medal, it's a medal. If Congress says it's a coin, it's a coin.
> The Franklin Firefighter silver medals (and the Teddy Roosevelt
> National Parks/ Wildlife medals) can very frequently be purchased for
> next to nothing, simply because the poltroons can't look them up in the
> Red Book. Conversely, they are often wildly overpriced for the same
> reason.
Generic $1 Modern Commemoratives are available retail at about $4 per
coin over spot. If you can find the Franklin at $5 over spot, please
let me in on the secret. After you make your pile, that is.
But I guess it still is 1993 here on Usenet, if people are still
using the Red Book instead of online sources or following what
stuff actually sells for at auction.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Michael Benveniste
Nov 2, 2014, 2:53:50 PM11/2/14
to
On 11/2/2014 1:51 PM, oly...@aol.com wrote:
> You get high marks for your repeated use of the phrase "enabling legislation".
> Very sophisticated.
Obviously too sophisticated for you, since you missed it the
first time. Should I use shorter words?
> You get high marks for your repeated use of the phrase "enabling legislation".
> Very sophisticated.
Obviously too sophisticated for you, since you missed it the
first time. Should I use shorter words?
Message has been deleted
Michael Benveniste
Nov 2, 2014, 3:11:17 PM11/2/14
to
On 11/2/2014 1:58 PM, oly...@aol.com wrote:
> And BTW, the Red Book still establishes what it accepted into the
> standard United Stares numismatic "canon". An item not being in
> the Red Book is the kiss of death. Nobody was suggesting using
> it for anything but the roughest pricing purposes.
"You write very long" but still dodge the question about the
relevance of the Red Book today or any evidence of your assertions.
Who promotes this "United Stares[sic] numismatic canon?" It would be
just as accurate and just as inaccurate to assert that PCGS registry
sets control what people do and don't collect.
And in case you didn't notice, _you_ suggested using the Red Book
for pricing. Quoting, "simply because the poltroons can't look them
I know how I'm betting.
> And BTW, the Red Book still establishes what it accepted into the
> standard United Stares numismatic "canon". An item not being in
> the Red Book is the kiss of death. Nobody was suggesting using
> it for anything but the roughest pricing purposes.
"You write very long" but still dodge the question about the
relevance of the Red Book today or any evidence of your assertions.
Who promotes this "United Stares[sic] numismatic canon?" It would be
just as accurate and just as inaccurate to assert that PCGS registry
sets control what people do and don't collect.
And in case you didn't notice, _you_ suggested using the Red Book
for pricing. Quoting, "simply because the poltroons can't look them
up in the Red Book. Conversely, they are often wildly overpriced for
the same reason." I guess that makes your "veteran dealer" a poltroon.
I know how I'm betting.
Michael Benveniste
Nov 2, 2014, 3:13:32 PM11/2/14
to
On 11/2/2014 3:00 PM, oly...@aol.com wrote:
> Carry on. I keep several dictionaries close at hand.
First Red Books and now "Dictionaries close at hand"? Yep,
it's 1993 here.
> Carry on. I keep several dictionaries close at hand.
First Red Books and now "Dictionaries close at hand"? Yep,
it's 1993 here.
Message has been deleted
Michael Benveniste
Nov 2, 2014, 5:46:00 PM11/2/14
to
On 11/2/2014 3:22 PM, oly...@aol.com wrote:
> Something really bad happen to you in 1993? Not that I'm offering any
> condolences or anything.
You might want to look up "Eternal September," but I doubt it'll be
in your dictionary.
> I have nothing but books and some coins around this joint. Always
> gonna have books to refer to, I'm that kind of dinosaur.
The world has moved on whether you have or not. I'm enough of a
dinosaur to have been on Usenet pre-1993, but I doubt I've used a
"dead tree" dictionary in this millennium.
> Something really bad happen to you in 1993? Not that I'm offering any
> condolences or anything.
You might want to look up "Eternal September," but I doubt it'll be
in your dictionary.
> I have nothing but books and some coins around this joint. Always
> gonna have books to refer to, I'm that kind of dinosaur.
The world has moved on whether you have or not. I'm enough of a
dinosaur to have been on Usenet pre-1993, but I doubt I've used a
"dead tree" dictionary in this millennium.
Message has been deleted
Michael Benveniste
Nov 3, 2014, 8:10:36 AM11/3/14
to
On 11/2/2014 7:35 PM, oly...@aol.com wrote:
> I did encounter some of the very earliest computer "touch screens" at
> Champaign-Urbana in 1977-1978. They had a popular Star Trek Game
> that us undergraduates weren't typically allowed to access.
Actually, undergraduates _were_ allowed to access games like =empire
and =trek at UIUC on PLATO at that time. But you did need an
account which granted such permission. Such accounts were quite
easy to get, at least for off hours use.
> We undergrads had some beginning Computer Science requirement, but I
> was hopeless at COBAL and FORTRAN and my IBM punch card programs
> never did work. Not even once.
I'll just say that I'm more than familiar with those required courses at UIUC.
Credentials on request. While I'm certain they don't require FORTRAN courses
for business students any more, if you can't do online research and use
business software (including spreadsheets) well, one is going to find it hard
to graduate or survive in business.
> I didn't realize people still measured their personal worth according
> to how much goofy shit they know about computers.
You miss the point, almost certainly deliberately. What was exotic
in 1977 (like PLATO) or mass market in 1993 (like Usenet) doesn't
define reality today. The same is true of your claims of the Red
Book defining the collecting "canon." That was almost certainly true
in 1977, although the "Coin Dealer newsletter" had been around since
1963. The c. 1980 bubble market in coins and precious metals
changed that permanently.
> Today, computers are a throw-away commodity.
So what? It's the information that matters, not the hardware.
> The Internet actually seems to be regressing nowadays, not
> progressing.
If you judge "the internet" by Usenet, I think you're right.
But the internet has moved on. Coin collectors and dealers have
moved on as well, whether you have or not.
> I did encounter some of the very earliest computer "touch screens" at
> Champaign-Urbana in 1977-1978. They had a popular Star Trek Game
> that us undergraduates weren't typically allowed to access.
Actually, undergraduates _were_ allowed to access games like =empire
and =trek at UIUC on PLATO at that time. But you did need an
account which granted such permission. Such accounts were quite
easy to get, at least for off hours use.
> We undergrads had some beginning Computer Science requirement, but I
> was hopeless at COBAL and FORTRAN and my IBM punch card programs
> never did work. Not even once.
I'll just say that I'm more than familiar with those required courses at UIUC.
Credentials on request. While I'm certain they don't require FORTRAN courses
for business students any more, if you can't do online research and use
business software (including spreadsheets) well, one is going to find it hard
to graduate or survive in business.
> I didn't realize people still measured their personal worth according
> to how much goofy shit they know about computers.
You miss the point, almost certainly deliberately. What was exotic
in 1977 (like PLATO) or mass market in 1993 (like Usenet) doesn't
define reality today. The same is true of your claims of the Red
Book defining the collecting "canon." That was almost certainly true
in 1977, although the "Coin Dealer newsletter" had been around since
1963. The c. 1980 bubble market in coins and precious metals
changed that permanently.
> Today, computers are a throw-away commodity.
So what? It's the information that matters, not the hardware.
> The Internet actually seems to be regressing nowadays, not
> progressing.
If you judge "the internet" by Usenet, I think you're right.
But the internet has moved on. Coin collectors and dealers have
moved on as well, whether you have or not.
Trevor
Nov 11, 2014, 3:37:41 PM11/11/14
to
Thanks for the insights. This at least fits in with my collection of
Utah coins and stamps, and silver is hopefully nearing an inflection
point. Maybe it will be worth something by the time one of my kids
inherits it. :)
Utah coins and stamps, and silver is hopefully nearing an inflection
point. Maybe it will be worth something by the time one of my kids
inherits it. :)
0 new messages