If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
First Spouse
After an initial run on the Mint for the limited edition First Spouse 1/2 ounce
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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
First Spouse
"Beanie" wrote in message ... After an initial run on the Mint for the limited edition First Spouse 1/2 ounce 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. 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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
First Spouse
On Feb 15, 9:25*am, "Bremick" wrote:
"Beanie" wrote in .... After an initial run on the Mint for the limited edition First Spouse 1/2 ounce 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. 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. 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
First Spouse
"oly" wrote in message ... 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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
First Spouse
On Feb 15, 12:14*pm, "Beanie" wrote:
"oly" wrote in message ...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. 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
First Spouse
"oly" 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. 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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
First Spouse
"oly" wrote in message ... On Feb 15, 12:14 pm, "Beanie" wrote: "oly" wrote in message ...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. 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. ------------------- 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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
First Spouse
On Feb 15, 2:55*pm, "Beanie" wrote, in part:
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
First Spouse
On Feb 16, 7:49*am, "Bremick" wrote:
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
First Spouse
On Feb 16, 2:06*pm, Jud wrote:
On Feb 16, 7:49*am, "Bremick" wrote: 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. 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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1st Spouse Gold | Bob F.[_4_] | Coins | 2 | April 11th 09 04:11 AM |
Will First Spouse gold retain its value??? | RF | Coins | 1 | October 13th 07 02:05 AM |
First Spouse comeONS, er commems. | [email protected] | Coins | 2 | July 10th 07 07:30 PM |
First Spouse Gold: That was fast! | Jim Seymour | Coins | 8 | June 21st 07 07:36 PM |
Presidential $10 Spouse Coins | Squat | Coins | 1 | May 3rd 07 03:10 AM |