Are the Silver Eagles coins?

[jackson64]

after reading a recent post about the release of the Buffalo (bullion...rounds...coins..?) gold pieces coming out again in 2008--I was curious...what constitutes a coin? a round?..are bullion pieces like the ASE coins?...if it has a monetary value inscribed ($50 gold piece buffalo) does this officially make it a coin?..it almost seems pointless to inscribe $50 on the 1 ounce gold buffalo....I'd like some opinions but also if anyone knows the official definitions that would be informative...thanks, Jackson

[DaveG]

Yes - a coin is money issued by a government.

 

Putting a denomination on it - even a nominal denomination - makes it money.

 

A "round" is a nickname for a disc of bullion issued by a private party, be it Englehard or SilverTown or even an unnamed manufacturer. A round isn't money, nor is it pretending to be money - it's a specific weight of precious metal.

[BULLY]

after reading a recent post about the release of the Buffalo (bullion...rounds...coins..?) gold pieces coming out again in 2008--I was curious...what constitutes a coin? a round?..are bullion pieces like the ASE coins?...if it has a monetary value inscribed ($50 gold piece buffalo) does this officially make it a coin?..it almost seems pointless to inscribe $50 on the 1 ounce gold buffalo....I'd like some opinions but also if anyone knows the official definitions that would be informative...thanks, Jackson

 

Most definitely, it's actual money, currency of the realm if you will.

 

While a Silver American Eagle, for instance, is $1.00 face value, and you could legally spend it as such, it's bullion value alone would make doing so a fools errand, though I'd love to be the clerk or cashier who got one of THOSE!

 

This is actually part of what makes coin collecting such an interesting and VALUABLE hobby, whether or not you happen to dabble in the bullion side of it, many collectors are likely to have precious metals in their collections, be it older coins in silver or gold, of whatever percentages (90% for instance).

 

So, coins carry the following values:

 

1. Face value: you CAN actually spend it, it is money after all. People still find all sorts of interesting collectible coins in change, silver coins, error coins, etc., and they got them for "face value" - no premium paid.

 

2. Numismatic value: As collectible items, limited editions, high quality items for those in high grades or "mint" conditions as it were, commemorative issues and so forth, these are of interest to collectors and while also are legal tender, are of value to collectors as the market demands it.

 

3. Intrinsic Value: For the value of the metal in the coins. If you're talking about the Silver American Eagle, regardless if you have it graded, and whether or not it's "Early Release" or a 69 or a 70 grade, etc. the reality is that Silver, for instance, closed Friday at $17.18 per ounce! So, that single Silver Eagle, just for its MELT VALUE as they call it, is worth $17.18!

 

Applied to other coins say a silver Washington Quarter Dollar that you may have found in change for 25 cents. Well, it weighs 6.25 grams, is 90% silver. and has a net weight of .18084 oz . pure silver. So, that small coin, doing the math, intrinsically is worth $17.18 x .18084 = $3.10! That's just for melt value of the silver in it! Much less if it's a good year, a good condition coin, or has anything noteworthy about it.

 

The question was posed about the 2008 Buffalo "Celebration" coin because in what was a very lengthy write-up about it from the US Mint, no where on the Mint's web site did they indicate if it was:

 

1. A proof coin (vs. a mint state/uncirculated coin)

2. Or actually mention the denomination (though the photo appears to show $50)

3. Or mention a mint mark or place of of mintage

 

They are usually a TAD more specific, after all, they've been at this for a couple hundred years.

[MTHead-migration]

Perhaps NCLT would be a better way of describing ASE's and similar Mint issues - non-circulating legal tender.

 

The Krause/Mishler/Bruce Standard Catalog of World Coins says "These coins fall outside the customary definitions of coin-of-the-realm issues, but were created and sold by, or under authorization of, agencies of sovereign governments expressly for collectors. These are primarily individual coins and sets of a commemorative nature, marketed at prices substantially in excess of face value, and usually do not have counterparts released for circulation."

[BillJones]

The silver eagle is a coin because it has a stated value of "one dollar" on it. You could spend it as a dollar, and in a court of law it would be recognzied as a legal settlement of a debt.

 

It does not matter that the metal content exceeds the the face value of the coin. Many other U.S. coins have had a higher melt value than face value at the time that they were minted. These include all of the U.S. gold that were minted from 1795 to mid 1834, and the silver dollars that were minted circa 1853. That year Congress was forced to reduce the metal content of all the silver coins from the half dime to the half dollar. The reductions were marked by the addition of arrows beside the date and in the case of the quarter and half dollar rays around the eagle on the reverse.

 

The silver dollar of the period had no such markings because its metal content had not been reduced. In a mistaken belieft that it would preserve the value of the dollar Congress did not lower the silver content of the dollar. That inaction only serviced to be one more reason why the coin would not circulate.

[bsshog40]

10-4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jackson64]

I had not looked closely at the reverse of the SAE coins..I knew they said 1 oz. of .999 silver--didn't know it said 1 dollar also...I guess if it has a monetary value (no matter how pointless) it counts as a coin..thanks all..good responses

[Conder101]

By my standards, no they are not coins. To me to be a coin it needs to be a piece issued by a governmental authority, usually made of metal, with the intent that it is to circulate as money. And that last point is critical. It doesn't have to show a denomination, and it doesn't even have to be legal tender, but it MUST have the intent to actually circulate. If it doesn't then it isn't a coin, it is just a fundraising novelty.

[IGWT]

Instead of saying that a coin must be intended to circulate, I'd say simply that it must be intended for use as money. That's a minor difference, but one that matters, for example, when it comes to Morgan $1s.

 

Conder -- Does a proof fall within your definition of a coin, or is it merely a fundraising novelty? Does it become a coin if it enters circulation and is spent as money?

[CoinCurious]

Conder -- Does a proof fall within your definition of a coin, or is it merely a fundraising novelty? Does it become a coin if it enters circulation and is spent as money?

 

Hmmm

[PerryHall]

The ASE' are given a nominal denomination value to make them legal tender money whose integrity is protected by this nations anti-counterfeiting laws.

[RWB]

Before the splurge of modern NCLT, the US Mint counted proof coins just like other coins. Defective and excess pieces were place in circulation. Only the surcharge for proofs was accounted for separately.

[Oldtrader3]

It is all kind of a cruel joke by the mint on the people of this country to call these coins currency. No one in their right mind would ever spend them as currency. Even the (2) different dollar denominations which are issued (in the millions) by the mint, can not be purchased from the mint at face value, nor do they circulate. It is all a game of bookkeeping and seignorage to make the mint's balance sheet look good and make money off the peasants (us!). The mint just keeps adding more redundant dollar, silver, gold and platinum issues in sets each year which 90% of coin collectors can not afford to buy, especially the gold and platinum sets.

 

IMHO, most of the coins are boring, uninspired designs that I don't even particularly want to own more than one of, let alone one for each year at a total cost of thousands of dollars per year. All I buy are a mint and proof set, plus a silver proof set each year for my collection. These mint and proof sets have been a fair investment since 1998, mostly because of collector interest in state quarters.

[rexcat]

It is all kind of a cruel joke by the mint on the people of this country to call these coins currency. No one in their right mind would ever spend them as currency. Even the (2) different dollar denominations which are issued (in the millions) by the mint, can not be purchased from the mint at face value, nor do they circulate. It is all a game of bookkeeping and seignorage to make the mint's balance sheet look good and make money off the peasants (us!). The mint just keeps adding more redundant dollar, silver, gold and platinum issues in sets each year which 90% of coin collectors can not afford to buy, especially the gold and platinum sets.

 

IMHO, most of the coins are boring, uninspired designs that I don't even particularly want to own more than one of, let alone one for each year at a total cost of thousands of dollars per year. All I buy are a mint and proof set, plus a silver proof set each year for my collection. These mint and proof sets have been a fair investment since 1998, mostly because of collector interest in state quarters.

 

(thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u

[bsshog40]

Not everyone is a collector. Bullion coins could be stolen and that person could take these coins and purchase items with them with no drawback or form of persecution due to the coins being "Legal Tender". It's stupid to go and spend these at face value, but not illegal.

[Zoins]

Were pieces like Saints designed to circulate? My impression is that they were designed for interbank accounting settlement or something like that. Is that true and, if so, does that qualify as circulating as money?

[just-john]

circulating as money will be gone in our life times or at the very least any coins with a metal content . Think cents and nickels will go first .Think with debit cards I don't use coins or cash only the paper boy and the guy's that cut the lawn and clean the pool.

[BillJones]

Were pieces like Saints designed to circulate? My impression is that they were designed for interbank accounting settlement or something like that. Is that true and, if so, does that qualify as circulating as money?

 

Although Saints were mostly designed for inter bank transactions, you could go to the store and spend them if you so desired. By the early 1900s, gold and gold backed paper money had become interchangeable.

 

Oh and here's an interesting story. Back in the 1970s I worked for Allied Chemical as an accountant. There was fellow there who retired after 48 years of service. He knew that I was a coin collector so he related this story to me. One day circa 1927 he and a number of other young accountants were called into a room for a special project. When they entered they found a table piled high with $2.50 gold pieces. Their assignment was count them to make sure the payment matched the invoice for the chemicals that had been sold.

 

None of us would have been welcome to have done, but you imagine going through all of those coins looking for dates? It would have been interesting to have seen what was in “gold coinage” circulation in the mid 1920s.

 

[BULLY]

It is all kind of a cruel joke by the mint on the people of this country to call these coins currency. No one in their right mind would ever spend them as currency. Even the (2) different dollar denominations which are issued (in the millions) by the mint, can not be purchased from the mint at face value, nor do they circulate. It is all a game of bookkeeping and seignorage to make the mint's balance sheet look good and make money off the peasants (us!). The mint just keeps adding more redundant dollar, silver, gold and platinum issues in sets each year which 90% of coin collectors can not afford to buy, especially the gold and platinum sets.

 

IMHO, most of the coins are boring, uninspired designs that I don't even particularly want to own more than one of, let alone one for each year at a total cost of thousands of dollars per year. All I buy are a mint and proof set, plus a silver proof set each year for my collection. These mint and proof sets have been a fair investment since 1998, mostly because of collector interest in state quarters.

 

Others would argue that Mint Sets are a weak value, and have not held there value because they are produced in such massive quantities, there is nothing of note there in numismatic value, and further, some would argue, that the state quarters are of equally over-blown numismatic value, with artificially inflated prices, due to inexperienced collectors who only want "perfect" 70 grade coins, driving up prices beyond any realistic expectation, sort of like the real estate bubble, and that it's only a matter of time before the bottom falls out.

 

I am not saying that I necessarily agree, I am saying that these views have been expressed to me more than once.

 

Which dollar denominations did you mean are issued by the Mint but not at face value? Playing devil's advocate, State Quarters sets and proof sets (and mint sets) are sold by the TENS OF MILLIONS at significant mark-ups (directly from the Mint) as well.

 

As far as making money, I don't know about that. Here's an example:

 

Platinum closed on Friday at $1,888 per ounce. Until a few days ago, you could buy a leftover 2007 ONE OUNCE Proof Platinum American Eagle for $1,740.95! I just checked though, and they just raised the price to $1,979.95. Can't say that I blame them there. Luckily for me though, I got my order in on January 25th at the $1,740 price!

 

Heck, the Mint is still selling the 10th Anniversary 2008 Platinum Eagle Set for $1,949.95 -- we are talking $62 above melt for TWO coins, half an ounce each, one of which is a REVERSE PROOF (an EXTREME rarity), and which you can get certified as a 10th Anniversary Set from NGC (as long as you don't open the box from the Mint), and which comes in a GORGEOUS box, and which is a limited edition -- merely 30,000 sets issued. Who's getting soaked on that deal with the price of platinum skyrocketing?

 

I happen to agree with another poster that the term non-circulating legal tender is probably the more accurate description for these coins.

[Conder101]

No I do not consider proofs to be coins. Yes they CAN circulate but they are not meant to circulate. They are to be sold at a premium. As RWB says the early proofs would be a little iffy because the excess or leftovers were put into circulation by the government.

 

As to the Saints, they were intended to circulate, between banks. They may not have left their bags, but they did circulate bank to bank just as the smaller denominations circulated person to person.

[jtryka]

All this talk of ASEs and circulation reminds me of a story I read on this very board a few years ago about a person that bought 3 or 4 ASEs at a border crossing in Canada for FACE VALUE!!! It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

[RGT]

It does not matter that the metal content exceeds the the face value of the coin. Many other U.S. coins have had a higher melt value than face value at the time that they were minted. These include all of the U.S. gold that were minted from 1795 to mid 1834, and the silver dollars that were minted circa 1853. That year Congress was forced to reduce the metal content of all the silver coins from the half dime to the half dollar. The reductions were marked by the addition of arrows beside the date and in the case of the quarter and half dollar rays around the eagle on the reverse.

 

Don't forget the one cent and five cent coins circa 2008.

[okbustchaser]

Not everyone is a collector. Bullion coins could be stolen and that person could take these coins and purchase items with them with no drawback or form of persecution due to the coins being "Legal Tender". It's stupid to go and spend these at face value, but not illegal.

 

The fact that they are legally spendable has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they are coins. Nor does having a valuation. Chickens can be legally "spent" as long as the buyer and seller agree on a value. The only workable definition of a coin is that it was minted--usually by a govenmental enity--for the purpose of facilitating commerce. It doen't matter if it is "legal tender". It doesn't matter if it is intrinsically worth more than any stamped value. The test is "Was it meant to be used in everyday commerce?" The SAE's fail this test. They are bullion rounds, not coins.

[carson city]

Only the AT ones !

[BULLY]

The test is "Was it meant to be used in everyday commerce?" The SAE's fail this test. They are bullion rounds, not coins.

 

 

I disagree with this, and agree with a previous poster that a more precise definition is that it is Non Circulating Legal Tender.

[CoinCurious]

Coin : a piece of metal stamped and issued by the authority of a government for use as money.

[Zoins]

Not everyone is a collector. Bullion coins could be stolen and that person could take these coins and purchase items with them with no drawback or form of persecution due to the coins being "Legal Tender". It's stupid to go and spend these at face value, but not illegal.

The fact that they are legally spendable has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they are coins. Nor does having a valuation. Chickens can be legally "spent" as long as the buyer and seller agree on a value.

The Federal definition of a coin may be that it can be legally spent. The definition of a "coin" for legal transactions could be the exact angle they are using to go after the Liberty Dollar.

The test is "Was it meant to be used in everyday commerce?" The SAE's fail this test. They are bullion rounds, not coins.

If this is the case, then it seems Saints, other higher denomination classic US gold, most commems and proofs would be considered bullion rounds, not coins, as well.

 

Of course most ASEs do have a purpose in participating in the precious metals trade. It's primarily the proofs, burnished W pieces and reverse proofs that are primarily meant for collectors. I'm not sure many people thought ASE collecting would develop to the extent that it did when the coins were created for the bullion market.

[okbustchaser]

Saints, other higher denomination classic US gold

were released for the purpose of commerce. They circulated daily--not well, but much better than, for example, Morgan dollars.

 

As for commems and proofs, you are right...they aren't true coins. They are collector pieces released in an attempt to bring a profit to the mint and (with commems) the particular organization they supported. Although some were released into circulation that was never their purpose.

 

As for ASEs participating in the precious metal trades so do Santa Claus silver rounds from SilverTowne--and at the same rate as far as precious metal investment is concerned. Neither are coins, however.

[Zoins]

Saints, other higher denomination classic US gold

were released for the purpose of commerce. They circulated daily--not well, but much better than, for example, Morgan dollars.

What is your definition of "everyday commerce"?

 

I haven't fully bought into primarily made for inter bank transactions = everyday commerce yet but I'm working on it

 

Also, is it true that many late date Saints were never released?

[Zoins]

No I do not consider proofs to be coins. Yes they CAN circulate but they are not meant to circulate. They are to be sold at a premium. As RWB says the early proofs would be a little iffy because the excess or leftovers were put into circulation by the government.

How many early proofs were "meant" to be excess and leftovers to be put into circulation? My impression is that early proofs were not meant for circulation. If there happened to be extras, it was probably more convenient to dispose of them through circulation than to destroy them (no waffle machines at the time) or keep them in inventory. If the extras were not planned to be created and released into circulation, then it seems they would not be "meant to circulate."

 

I don't currently consider any early proofs meant for circulation but I'm open to seeing Mint / Treasury documentation ordering the production of extras for circulation.