A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Collecting newsgroups » Coins
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

First Spouse



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 15th 11, 03:10 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Beanie[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 209
Default 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  
Old February 15th 11, 04:25 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Bremick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 641
Default 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  
Old February 15th 11, 06:59 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
oly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,111
Default 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  
Old February 15th 11, 07:14 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Beanie[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 209
Default 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  
Old February 15th 11, 07:58 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
oly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,111
Default 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  
Old February 15th 11, 08:55 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Beanie[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 209
Default 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  
Old February 16th 11, 02:28 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Bremick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 641
Default 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  
Old February 16th 11, 03:08 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Jerry Dennis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,207
Default 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  
Old February 16th 11, 09:06 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Jud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,215
Default 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  
Old February 17th 11, 02:52 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
oly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,111
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.