First Spouse
Beanie
coins, interest seems to have waned as the price of gold (and the Mint's
ludicrous markup) increased.
Checking the Mint web site, I notice that a BU Buchanan's Liberty is still
available.
The "Liberty" coins may prove to be the most popular sub-set of the series but
at $800+ a pop, the First Spouse series ingeneral is rapidly losing any consumer
appeal.
Bremick
"Beanie" <b...@ea.ne> wrote in message news:ije1hi$euv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
I dunno, there seems to be a lot of "collectors" out there itching to drop 2
or 3 thousand or more for a set of 5 ATB silver slugs. $800 is chump
change. Especially this year when the obligatory two 2011 US proof sets and
one mint set will require a $140 dollar bill. Just a browse through the
latest Trends prices shows what nice "real coins" that your $140 could buy.
How about an AU Large Cent, an MS63 Liberty Nickel, an MS65 Buffalo Nickel,
MS60 Barber Dime, an F+ 1875-S Twenty Cent piece, AU Barber Quarter, VF30
Bust Half Dollar, MS65 WL Half Dollar, VF20 Trade Dollar, and maybe even a
nice circ $2.50 Coronet gold. Investment-wise, one would probably be
better off buying some silver eagles.
oly
> "Beanie" <b...@ea.ne> wrote in messagenews:ije1hi$euv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
I think when you get down to the nitty-gritty, there are a large
number of U.S. Presidents who aren't truly worthy of the coinage
honor, let alone their wives.
And from the Springpatch viewpoint of the world, how do you rate Mary
Todd Lincoln???
If you can go another $20 to $60 on top of your stipulated $140,
remember those 1882, 1883 and 1884 "CC" dollars in GSA holders. You
even get the nice plastic, just like the modern proof sets.
oly
Beanie
"oly" <oly...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f5b6046c-076b-49ff...@a11g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>I think when you get down to the nitty-gritty, there are a large
number of U.S. Presidents who aren't truly worthy of the coinage
honor, let alone their wives.
"A large number" is a gross understatement.
Other than Teddy Roosevelt, there wasn't one POTUS in the 20th century worthy of
the honor.
The 19th century had Lincoln, Jefferson, Madison and John Adams - the rest are
forgettable.
Most Presidents have been political hacks, not even worthy of being on a postage
stamp.
Bremick
-------------------------------
Sounds like a setup question-- recalling that current Geico ad.
_____________________
If you can go another $20 to $60 on top of your stipulated $140,
remember those 1882, 1883 and 1884 "CC" dollars in GSA holders. You
even get the nice plastic, just like the modern proof sets.
----------------------------------
Bought one back then but later sold it. I didn't luck out and get
one of the better dates in the "lottery", but I still wish I'd've kept it.
oly
> "oly" <oly2...@aol.com> wrote in message
I think it's difficult to argue with FDR on the dime. Because he
brought us to the end of WWII successfully, not because of how he
handled the Great Depression.
Andrew Jackson and U.S. Grant both represent poor boys who made good.
Jackson's election to the Presidency was a watershed social moment in
American history - power was snatched from the East Coast aristocracy/
plutocracy and placed firmly in the hands of the man from the
frontier. Grant's Presidency was very weak, but his conduct of the
conclusion of the Civil War was masterful in both a military and
diplomatic sense. He rose well above whatever was expected of him in
life.
From the vast magnitude of his mistakes and his unfathomable personal
arrogance, Woodrow Wilson probably deserves to be on the $100,000
bill.
oly
Beanie
>I think it's difficult to argue with FDR on the dime. Because he
brought us to the end of WWII successfully, not because of how he
handled the Great Depression.
He's been on the dime for more than 60 years - time to move on.
> Andrew Jackson and U.S. Grant both represent poor boys who made good.
Isn't it enough they have their faces on currency?
I say it's time to go back to using representations of Liberty on our coinage
and get rid of all the dead presidents.
The only exception I would make would be the Lincoln cent, a humble coin that
seems fitting for a humble man.
If it was up to me, I'd go back in time and reinstate usage of the Buffalo
nickel, Mercury dime, Standing Liberty quarter and Walking liberty half, coinage
that was the most beautiful circulating coinage in US history.
Stop making those horrible Prexibux and Native American "golden" dollars and
issue a dollar coin using the $10 St. Gaudens Indian design and a $2 coin using
St Gaudens $20 design.
Stop printing $1 and $2 bills. Canada did years ago and they seem to be getting
along just fine.
Bremick
-------------------
I wouldn't mind seeing all our presidents retired from circulating coinage.
We don't have a monarch or ruler, per se, and most of the past US presidents
holding a prominent place in our history have already been saluted on
various numismatic media. My high school & college years were Ike and JFK
years, and regardless of what history might say about them, I thought these
were great, largely carefree years to have grown up, not that this was
necessarily of their doing. But had Ike not first been a popular WW II
general and JFK not been assasinated, I doubt we would have seen either one
on a circulating coin.
Jerry Dennis
> If it was up to me, I'd go back in time and reinstate usage of the Buffalo
> nickel, Mercury dime, Standing Liberty quarter and Walking liberty half, coinage
> that was the most beautiful circulating coinage in US history.
> Stop making those horrible Prexibux and Native American "golden" dollars and
> issue a dollar coin using the $10 St. Gaudens Indian design and a $2 coin using
> St Gaudens $20 design.
> Stop printing $1 and $2 bills. Canada did years ago and they seem to be getting
> along just fine.
I agree with the exception of using St. Gaudin's double eagle design
on a two-dollar coin. It almost seems sacreligious. I would suggest
using Frank Gasparro's Flowing Hair Liberty design (from 1977).
Basically, it would be a somewhat new design for a new coin.
http://www.smalldollars.com/dollar/page04.html
Jerry
Beanie
"Jerry Dennis" <JDen...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0694cafd-b8c9-4292...@x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
http://www.smalldollars.com/dollar/page04.html
Jerry
------------------------------------------------------
I've seen that before. I like the obverse but the eagle on the reverse looks,
how shall I put it, a little fruity ;-)
I wouldn't mind seeing the Peace dollar obverse and reverse on a $2 coin
But this is all a pipe dream, since the Mint designers have little or no
experience in medallic art and the Civilian oversight committee is nothing more
than a group of emasculated rubber stampers.
The Mint will continue to turn out crappy, uninspired designs because nobody
there gives a shit what their product looks like.
Their two most attractive products (ASE & AGE) have obverse designs a century
old and completely pedestrian reverses.
I read in Coin World where the mint's customer base has dropped by 25% in the
last year.
The Mint's response? Jack up the prices! Yeah, that'll bring 'em back!
Bremick
"Beanie" <b...@ea.ne> wrote in message news:ijffsm$a1i$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Many of us remember the time when we would order every single collector
product the Mint produced each year-- usually a proof set and a mint set--
for the price of a case of beer. While the Mint's customer base may have
dropped by 25%, I'll bet its annual product $ale$ total may have increased
by 25%.
oly
> "Beanie" <b...@ea.ne> wrote in messagenews:ijffsm$a1i$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> > "Jerry Dennis" <JDen1...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're really old if you can remember when the U.S. Mint didn't sock
you an arm and a leg for postage. At age 51, I can just remember when
you added ZERO for postage.
oly
oly
> "Jerry Dennis" <JDen1...@aol.com> wrote in message
The first problem with design is largely that the present designers
equate coin art with poster art (i.e., they see it as two-
dimensional).
Coins are not two-dimensional, they are three dimensional. Thus, they
are a form of sculpture, not drawing or drafting.
The second problem is that coins designs nowadays are approved by
committees. The best coin designs (and usually the best of anything
in this world) come from rabid monomaniacs (like say, Benedetto
Pistrucci).
oly
Bremick
------------------------
I began ordering an annual proof set in 1953. It cost a buck something and
I don't remember if there was a shipping charge. I do recall typically
having to order early in the year and then waiting six months or so for the
set to arrive. At least we've come some way since then. I never thought
about ordering a mint set since shiny examples of all the latest coins could
always be found in circulation. As you probably remember, there was no MS
or Gem BU. If it was mint-shiny it was uncirculated and worthy of a place
in an album.
Today, I decide which sets I want to order from the Mint and once they're
all available I'll place a combined order with one $4.95 shipping charge.
Cheaper that way than with many mail order companies.
Jud
> I began ordering an annual proof set in 1953. It cost a buck something and
> I don't remember if there was a shipping charge. I do recall typically
> having to order early in the year and then waiting six months or so for the
> set to arrive. At least we've come some way since then. I never thought
> about ordering a mint set since shiny examples of all the latest coins could
> always be found in circulation. As you probably remember, there was no MS
> or Gem BU. If it was mint-shiny it was uncirculated and worthy of a place
> in an album.
>
> Today, I decide which sets I want to order from the Mint and once they're
> all available I'll place a combined order with one $4.95 shipping charge.
> Cheaper that way than with many mail order companies.
Correct me if I am wrong (yeah! Like you need to be told that in this
group!)
Back in the 'good ole days', you would place your order for the proof
set, and as Bruce said, you would get it months later. Seems like they
arrived in December. This year is the earliest I have ever gotten my
proof sets.
Question is...were these minted to order? If a million people ordered
proof sets, did they make a million (+ a few extras)?
IIRC (which is often not the case), the price was $1.91 or $2.10 per
proof set, including postage. Not bad for 91¢ face value, especially
when the silver content is currently worth close to $6.
I do my mint ordering at the end of each month to defray shipping
charges as well.
Bremick
"Jud" <numis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:77b39c3d-7aea-4d06...@y35g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
------------------------------
You're right. A check of my Redbook shows that proof sets in 1953 were
$2.10. With my 25� allowance, my folks helped out there and it usually was
one of my Christmas presents. I do remember worrying some times if it would
arrive in time. The extremely long wait does make you wonder if they were
"made to order".
This year I bit my lip and, since they're already available in February, I
ordered the 2011 silver & clad proof sets and the mint set for about $137
including postage. I refuse to spend for any of the other Mint products,
although I may opt for a proof silver ASE later in the year.
oly
Not quite sure what you mean about "silver content is currently worth
close to $6."???
Right now today (2/16/2011), any 90% silver U.S.A. half dollar alone
is worth $10.00; the silver quarter and silver dime have proportional
values, of course.
The people who bought 1964 and earlier proof sets directly from the
Mint are quickly passing from the scene too, not many of those folks
left who still have their original sets purchased way back then.
oly
Bremick
---------------------
I got rid of mine long ago. IIRC, in the 1953 and 1954 sets the individual
coins were in cloudy vinyl-like baggies that were stapled together. Mine
clouded up and spotted after a couple years. The next flat pack cello
holders weren't much better. So I quit buying proof sets until later in the
1970's. It's been hit and miss since then.
oly
> "oly" <oly2...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've had some estate stuff sent my way for liquidation during 2010,
and I paid the relatively low prices to keep the 1964 Proof sets for
myself. The gentleman who died no doubt bought these direct from the
Mint at the time of issue; he was a very casual collector but was most
active in 1964-1966 when everybody and their dog was pulling silver
coin out of circulation. Almost all of the later copper-nickel proof
stuff he bought went for much lower prices than hoped, certainly lower
than if they had been sold a year or two earlier.
Now, a 1953 or 1954 set, that would be much better, even with some
spots.
oly
Richard L. Hall
"Beanie" <b...@ea.ne> wrote in message news:ije1hi$euv$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
$11.95 for a 4 medal yearly set.
(They were only about $3.50 when the series started.) I did see an
advertisement a while ago.in Numismatic News for the first 4 medal set for
$70 for the set. It made me wish I had bought a few more sets.
I like the First Spouse Liberty medals so I bought a second one of each.
(There have been 4 so far.) Where else can you buy a mint produced Draped
Bust, Clasic Head or Seated Liberty "coin". I think the Liberty Medals are
cool.
And the First Spouse medal set is a nice compliment to the Presidential
medal set that I bought a few years ago.
I'm wondering when they are going to come out with the Barack Obama
Presidential medal. I thought it would have been out by now.
--
Richard
http://coins.richlh.com/MyCoinLinks.htm
http://www.richlh.com
The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of
thinking we were at when we created them. (Albert Einstein)
Richard L. Hall
"Bremick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ijgh5h$vmd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> product the Mint produced each year-- usually a proof set and a mint
>> set--
>> for the price of a case of beer. While the Mint's customer base may have
>> dropped by 25%, I'll bet its annual product $ale$ total may have
>> increased
>> by 25%.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You're really old if you can remember when the U.S. Mint didn't sock
> you an arm and a leg for postage. At age 51, I can just remember when
> you added ZERO for postage.
> ------------------------
>
> I began ordering an annual proof set in 1953. It cost a buck something
> and I don't remember if there was a shipping charge. I do recall
> typically having to order early in the year and then waiting six months or
> so for the set to arrive. At least we've come some way since then. I
> never thought about ordering a mint set since shiny examples of all the
> latest coins could always be found in circulation. As you probably
> remember, there was no MS or Gem BU. If it was mint-shiny it was
> uncirculated and worthy of a place in an album.
>
> Today, I decide which sets I want to order from the Mint and once they're
> all available I'll place a combined order with one $4.95 shipping charge.
> Cheaper that way than with many mail order companies.
either Uncirculated or Proof sets. Those were the only options. You placed
an order and paid for proof sets in February (there was usually a two week
ordering period or so) and, if you were lucky, you got them by Christmas.
Mint sets were ordered a month or so later. The sets were delivered by
registered mail. I think I paid $5 for the proof set which included
postage.
I often laugh at people on here who complain that they ordered something
from the mint yesterday and they didn't get it yet.
I also wait now and order everything I want at once so I only pay one
shipping charge. But, last year, I missed out on the Boy Scout
commemorative. C'est la vie!
--
Richard
"Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and
leave a trail."
Richard L. Hall
"Beanie" <b...@ea.ne> wrote in message news:ijefpb$k6e$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> "oly" <oly...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:f5b6046c-076b-49ff...@a11g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>I think when you get down to the nitty-gritty, there are a large
> number of U.S. Presidents who aren't truly worthy of the coinage
> honor, let alone their wives.
>
> "A large number" is a gross understatement.
> Other than Teddy Roosevelt, there wasn't one POTUS in the 20th century
> worthy of the honor.
Of course, TR was the first president to advocate a National Health Care
system.
> The 19th century had Lincoln, Jefferson, Madison and John Adams - the rest
> are forgettable.
Grover Cleveland, 22nd and 24th President of the United States was
interesting, I liked his comment about giving everything to the rich: "He
mocks the people who proposes that the government shall protect the rich and
they, in turn, will care for the laboring poor." To bad we didn't listen to
him. He also inherited, in 1893, one of the worst depressions on record.
> Most Presidents have been political hacks, not even worthy of being on a
postage
> stamp.
Yeah! But, all of the dead presidents were honored on postage stamps a few
years ago.
--
Richard
http://www.richlh.com