My thoughts on the Kennedy gold coin fiasco

[Stephon-migration]

The US Mint was stupid to have come up with the idea of a relatively expensive gold coin to commemorate the 50th anniversary of a coin in the first place. I have said in previous posts on another board that the US Mint should have made a silver coin set with the original 1964 relief and the mintmarks on the reverse as was in 1964. It is embarrassing to this hobby that you have dealers hiring people to stand in line for them and dealers hiring people to cause a scene. It is great that there is great interest in the US Mint's product launches and it helps bring attention to this hobby, it is important that any attention to this hobby is channeled correctly and helps this hobby thrive. I also think coin show releases are a good idea and help to create greater interest into this hobby, as long as it is done right.

 

With that being said, I have NO plans to buy a Kennedy gold coin because I predict that once the buzz has subsided, the coins will only be worth bullion value for many years to come (I really feel bad for the person who paid $100,000 for that 1st gold coin sold at the ANA show). The mint shouldn't be making these types of commemorative gold coins because they cause a frenzy and cause people to spend a lot of money, only to lose a lot of money once the frenzy has subsided.

 

The more I think of it, the more I think the only way to curb this nonsense with the multitude of gold coins being offered is to have the mint standardize and trim their gold coin offerings so there are only 2 main gold coin options from the US Mint. These would be the commemorative gold coins which Congress authorizes (which already have restrictions on it because of past abuse), and a 24k St. Gaudens Ultra High Relief gold coin which would be 34mm in diameter which would be made for both collectors and investors annually. This should be done because the mint shouldn't be putting out way too many gold products, as they are more expensive, and the mint shouldn't be out to bankrupt people with all of the diverse offerings in gold. The US Mint has been putting out way too many product ideas, especially when it comes to gold coins.

 

The US Mint shouldn't be engaging in the monkey business that it does with their products with gold coins. At least if the US Mint does its monkey business with base metal or silver coins and prices the products reasonably, there is less money for people to lose out on.

 

The more monkey business I see coming out of the US Mint, the more I think the US Mint needs to standardize and simplify its coin products, particularly the more expensive products.

 

Stephon Leonard

 

[rrantique]

U.S. Mint and American Numismatic Association Suspend Sales of 2014 50th Anniversary Kennedy Half-Dollar Gold Proof Coin

 

 

 

 

 

WASHINGTON - The United States Mint and the American Numismatic Association (ANA) announced today that sales of the 2014 50th Anniversary Kennedy Half-Dollar Gold Proof Coin have been suspended at the ANA's World's Fair of Money in Rosemont, Ill. The Mint and the ANA made the decision to ensure the safety of those wanting to purchase the coin and the safety of their own employees.

 

The Mint also suspended sales of the 2014 50th Anniversary Kennedy Half-Dollar Gold Proof Coin at its three retail locations in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Denver.

The 50th Anniversary Kennedy Half-Dollar Uncirculated Coin Set, and other Mint products, will remain available for purchase at the World's Fair of Money. However, the set will not be available for purchase at the Mint's retail locations in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Denver.

 

The United States Mint also announced today that it has all the necessary raw materials to initially produce 75,000 2014 50th Anniversary Kennedy Half-Dollar Gold Proof Coins. The Mint will continue to procure additional raw materials in order to fulfill all demand for this product.

 

"The Mint is very proud to have produced over 40,000 of these beautiful coins," said Deputy Director Peterson. "We will continue to produce 6,000 of the coins per week for the next several weeks and continue to assess demand. We are committed to maximizing access to these products," Peterson said.

 

Customers interested in purchasing the coin are encouraged to visit the Mint's website (http://www.usmint.gov/) or contact the call center (1-800-USA-MINT), where they can purchase up to five coins per household.

 

[bsshog40]

I think the special struck gold coins strictly reduce the access to most collectors. There aren't many people than can afford these gold products. They should also have the special strikes offered in silver, so some sort of access to all collectors can be achieved. I also agree with the constant outpouring of new and revised products of coins coming from the mint has gotten out of hand. I love the SAE's, but with soo many of them out, I have to budget for just the ones I can afford and want to collect. The new sets in the past few years have gotten very pricey with the addition of 3-coin and 5-coin sets being priced at 200% over melt value. It's just too much anymore!!

[Stephon-migration]

I think that the Kennedy gold half is a waste of gold period. I'm with you 100% when you say that they should do special strikes in silver so that some sort of access can be achieved.

 

In any event, the US Mint has it really hard on gold coin collectors, between the AGB, the AGE, the HOF gold, the first spouse gold, and now the gold Kennedy Half. Plus, the mint wants to make gold Walking Liberty Half Dollars, SLQ's, and Mercury dimes in 2016, in addition to that high relief gold coin next year.

 

If the US mint kept the gold coin products it so that collectors wanting new designs are able to buy Congressionally authorized commems (which are restricted to 2 per year) and a 24k high relief Saint Gaudens gold coin which would be the official gold bullion coin which would replace the AGE and AGB, this would greatly simplify the gold coins and get a greater control over the amount of gold coin products.

 

 

[ethor-migration]

A Fiasco is rite.And its all about the Green backs,(or what ever colour thay are now).The Kennedy Gold Half is a waste.But some are making a lot of money from it.

[Stephon-migration]

A Fiasco is rite.And its all about the Green backs,(or what ever colour thay are now).The Kennedy Gold Half is a waste.But some are making a lot of money from it.

 

Not only that you have big dealers buying them who are only out for their money like Silvertowne. No one should forget that they bought lots of first spouse gold coins only to have them melted.

[BillJones]

I also think coin show releases are a good idea and help to create greater interest into this hobby, as long as it is done right.

 

I think that having the mint selling coins at the shows is a very bad idea. I can see that going in one of two ways.

 

The first way is to have issues like the HOF and Kennedy gold pieces where dealers buy up blocks of coins to have them placed in special show slabs for which some people are willing to pay a big premium. If they can sell these coins at a premium, the dealer - promoters are going to hire people to stand on line and buy them. The average collector, unless he is willing camp out all night with the paid stooges, will be left out the proceedings.

 

The other way comes about when the mint is selling a turkey like the 50th anniversary of the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill commemorative silver dollar. There won't be any lines for that one because only a small number of collectors want it. After spending my career as a white male who was always on the wrong side of the racial and gender based quotas which that law created, that coin has no place in my collection.

[19Lyds]

I never did support the production of a minimal effort (on the US Mints part) gold coin and as Stephon suggested, a 4 coin silver set where all 4 coins had the dual date, was all that was really needed.

 

Even the CnClad coins should have had the dual date as the modified and supposed High Relief Profile just isn't enough to identify these coins unless you're a Kennedy Collecting GEEK!

 

As a "Mint", the US Mint was woefully inept in the design, manufacture, and release of these coins.

 

As I felt with Moy, I feel that Richard A. Peterson is a bad selection for Acting Mint Director as his policies and ideas are causing problems within the coin collecting community.

 

But then, maybe "his" way of running things is just a reflection of the corporate greed which has infiltrated our country.

[19Lyds]

I almost forgot, aside from the poor design of the Kennedy, I think a big burdon of this fiasco belongs in the laps of the TPG's who have created a very tidy market for a "piece of paper" called a "label".

 

$100,000 (if that can even be believed) for the "First Sold"?

 

As a coin collector, this is just embarrassing.

 

Typically, the "provenance" surrounding a coin can have a significant affect on its value which it should. By that, I mean if a late President owned the coin and that was documented, then I could see and appreciate some significance in a slab label along with the accompanying documentation. But.....FIRST SOLD?

 

Do I feel sorry for the purchaser? Not for a second.

 

Do I have some concerns over where the TPG's are taking this hobby? Absolutely!

 

If you want to point fingers, point them at the folks that were actually creating the rush and it WAS NOT the US Mint! They stated all along that the coins would be minted to demand.

 

The "Label Makers" created this "false" rarity, the US Mint only gave them the means to do so.

 

The Market for this hobby, is slowing turning from coin collecting to slab collecting. Not that this is a bad thing but it does not take very long for a "Label Maker" to fall from the public graces. Just ask Alan.

[MJ]

The odds that $100,000 actually exchange hands and stayed there is remote at best

 

MJ

[BillJones]

The odds that $100,000 actually exchange hands and stayed there is remote at best

 

MJ

 

If that's true it's pretty embarrassing for the parties involved and might be the basis for them to lose their ANA membership numbers.

[19Lyds]

The US Mint shouldn't be engaging in the monkey business that it does with their products with gold coins. At least if the US Mint does its monkey business with base metal or silver coins and prices the products reasonably, there is less money for people to lose out on.

 

The more monkey business I see coming out of the US Mint, the more I think the US Mint needs to standardize and simplify its coin products, particularly the more expensive products.

 

Stephon Leonard

 

Stephon, during 2008, the US Mint examined ALL the products that they were offering (and clogging the system with) and decided to eliminate a bunch of programs. To name a few,

 

State Quarter Spoons.

Coin and Die Sets.

Presidential Dollar Signature Proof Coins

 

The goal was to "streamline" what they were offering which they did at the expense of folks who actually "wanted" these products. (I still have 8 of the Signature Sets which, IMO, were the absolute BEST of the Presidential Dollar offerings. They included a respectable Library Style Holder with a BEP Intaglio Print of the President.)

 

Fast Forward a couple of years and guess what? New products are added to the list. Annual SAE Anniversary or Special Sets, Uncirculated Quarter Sets. Uncirculated Branch Mint Quarter Sets,, blah, blah, blah.

 

As a business, the US Mint has a monopoly and they are definitely getting out of control.

[19Lyds]

The odds that $100,000 actually exchange hands and stayed there is remote at best

 

MJ

 

If that's true it's pretty embarrassing for the parties involved and might be the basis for them to lose their ANA membership numbers.

What about the "integrity" hit for the "other" slabber?

[BillJones]

The "other" slabber cannot control what people do with their product after they have rendered a grading opinion.

[MJ]

The odds that $100,000 actually exchange hands and stayed there is remote at best

 

MJ

 

If that's true it's pretty embarrassing for the parties involved and might be the basis for them to lose their ANA membership numbers.

 

If it happened then I would lose this bet and I still wouldn't believe it because it's just not believable.

 

MJ

[e1cnr]

The odds that $100,000 actually exchange hands and stayed there is remote at best

 

MJ

 

If that's true it's pretty embarrassing for the parties involved and might be the basis for them to lose their ANA membership numbers.

 

 

How will anyone 'prove' anything? and the possibility of losing their ANA numbers seems just laughable.

 

Many feel it is rather embarassing to hire actors to 'create' a stir but it all comes down to their 'business model', and clearly they felt it was worth it.

[BillJones]

How will anyone 'prove' anything? and the possibility of losing their ANA numbers seems just laughable.

 

That might seem laughable to you, but if you read The Numismatist having your name or the name of your company named there in the expelled area will not do your reputation any good. Those of us who have been collectors don't forget that sort of thing. It places some negative thoughts about that person or organization in your mind.

[delta]

In an earlier post in a separate thread, I accused the US mint of having primary responsibility for the ridiculous sideshow at Chicago, with the ANA, aggressive dealers, and TPGs as having lesser blame.

 

Considering the Chicago sideshow by itself, the above is probably correct.

 

However, I do agree with 19Lyds that the overall original sin is with the TPGs, those who perpetrated the fraud of "first strike," a false advertising gimmick, similar to various other marketing frauds.

 

First Strike has been profitable because of uninformed consumers, plus those who expect to ultimately take advantage of uninformed consumers.

 

In my opinion, coins in "first strike" holders generally should deserve lower value than those without that designation.

 

I almost forgot, aside from the poor design of the Kennedy, I think a big burdon of this fiasco belongs in the laps of the TPG's who have created a very tidy market for a "piece of paper" called a "label".

 

$100,000 (if that can even be believed) for the "First Sold"?

 

As a coin collector, this is just embarrassing.

 

Typically, the "provenance" surrounding a coin can have a significant affect on its value which it should. By that, I mean if a late President owned the coin and that was documented, then I could see and appreciate some significance in a slab label along with the accompanying documentation. But.....FIRST SOLD?

 

Do I feel sorry for the purchaser? Not for a second.

 

Do I have some concerns over where the TPG's are taking this hobby? Absolutely!

 

If you want to point fingers, point them at the folks that were actually creating the rush and it WAS NOT the US Mint! They stated all along that the coins would be minted to demand.

 

The "Label Makers" created this "false" rarity, the US Mint only gave them the means to do so.

 

The Market for this hobby, is slowing turning from coin collecting to slab collecting. Not that this is a bad thing but it does not take very long for a "Label Maker" to fall from the public graces. Just ask Alan.

[Walkerfan]

In my opinion, coins in "first strike" holders generally should deserve lower value than those without that designation.

 

Although I agree that this 'first strike' nonsense is not worth much, how do you explain your above statement, which goes in the OPPOSITE direction?

[JJSingleton]

I almost forgot, aside from the poor design of the Kennedy, I think a big burdon of this fiasco belongs in the laps of the TPG's who have created a very tidy market for a "piece of paper" called a "label".

 

$100,000 (if that can even be believed) for the "First Sold"?

 

As a coin collector, this is just embarrassing.

 

Typically, the "provenance" surrounding a coin can have a significant affect on its value which it should. By that, I mean if a late President owned the coin and that was documented, then I could see and appreciate some significance in a slab label along with the accompanying documentation. But.....FIRST SOLD?

 

Do I feel sorry for the purchaser? Not for a second.

 

Do I have some concerns over where the TPG's are taking this hobby? Absolutely!

 

If you want to point fingers, point them at the folks that were actually creating the rush and it WAS NOT the US Mint! They stated all along that the coins would be minted to demand.

 

The "Label Makers" created this "false" rarity, the US Mint only gave them the means to do so.

 

The Market for this hobby, is slowing turning from coin collecting to slab collecting. Not that this is a bad thing but it does not take very long for a "Label Maker" to fall from the public graces. Just ask Alan.

Excellent post. I agree with you 100%.

[delta]

In my opinion, coins in "first strike" holders generally should deserve lower value than those without that designation.

 

Although I agree that this 'first strike' nonsense is not worth much, how do you explain your above statement, which goes in the OPPOSITE direction?

 

Okay, the first basis is that I believe "First Strike" coins were on average lower quality than ordinary submissions, within any particular grade. Let's use the grade of 70 for example. No individual coin graded 70 is absolutely perfect, under magnification all will show at least microscopic imperfections. Because FSs are submitted sealed or without much time for scrutiny, they won't be as good, on average, as coins for regular submissions, where many of the coins have been carefully examined in advance by numismatists. The 70s of FSs can be expected to average lower quality than ordinary 70s.

 

When the ploy of FSs was relatively young, the lower quality of FSs was shown by the early population reports, with usually a lower % 70s. That changed later.

 

Later on, FSs became more of a mass marketing strategy, with some major bullion dealers submitting batches of thousands of new issues for FS 70 designation. In "sweetheart" under-the-table dealings, coins not judged suitable for getting a 70 were usually left ungraded, to be eventually sold as raw. This has two main implications: there was obviously an incentive by the TPG involved to maximize 70s in order to collect the FS fee, thus easier standards. And buying raw coins from the major bullion dealers usually meant you'd be getting culls.

 

In practice here's how it works. At the Chicago ANA show I wanted to purchase a 2014 bullion one ounce platinum eagle. Naturally I wanted to get a 70, raw or graded, since it's somewhat nicer to have, possibly more valuable in the future, and could presumably be gotten reasonably. I first checked the raw coins I saw being offered, and all were plainly flawed. I then had to look through stacks of slabbed FS 70s until I found one without clearly visible flaws. Mass marketing has lowered average quality of 70 so badly it's now become a serious error to buy a FS 70 sight unseen. On ebay, try to buy a 2014 gold buffalo, they are almost all FS70, you can almost never find a gold buffalo on ebay graded 70 that's not also FS.

 

Without pursuing that angle any further for now, although there's more to be said, having a FS labeled coin in your collection can make it appear you are an ignorant fool who has fallen for the phony hype of that fraudulent designation. The FS label should therefore be shunned as one which may expose you to being ridiculed. That should reduce FS value, shouldn't it? As opposed to having 70s made on their own merits in your collection.

 

I'd have more to say except this is already much too long.

 

[Walkerfan]

In my opinion, coins in "first strike" holders generally should deserve lower value than those without that designation.

 

Although I agree that this 'first strike' nonsense is not worth much, how do you explain your above statement, which goes in the OPPOSITE direction?

 

Okay, the first basis is that I believe "First Strike" coins were on average lower quality than ordinary submissions, within any particular grade. Let's use the grade of 70 for example. No individual coin graded 70 is absolutely perfect, under magnification all will show at least microscopic imperfections. Because FSs are submitted sealed or without much time for scrutiny, they won't be as good, on average, as coins for regular submissions, where many of the coins have been carefully examined in advance by numismatists. The 70s of FSs can be expected to average lower quality than ordinary 70s.

 

When the ploy of FSs was relatively young, the lower quality of FSs was shown by the early population reports, with usually a lower % 70s. That changed later.

 

Later on, FSs became more of a mass marketing strategy, with some major bullion dealers submitting batches of thousands of new issues for FS 70 designation. In "sweetheart" under-the-table dealings, coins not judged suitable for getting a 70 were usually left ungraded, to be eventually sold as raw. This has two main implications: there was obviously an incentive by the TPG involved to maximize 70s in order to collect the FS fee, thus easier standards. And buying raw coins from the major bullion dealers usually meant you'd be getting culls.

 

In practice here's how it works. At the Chicago ANA show I wanted to purchase a 2014 bullion one ounce platinum eagle. Naturally I wanted to get a 70, raw or graded, since it's somewhat nicer to have, possibly more valuable in the future, and could presumably be gotten reasonably. I first checked the raw coins I saw being offered, and all were plainly flawed. I then had to look through stacks of slabbed FS 70s until I found one without clearly visible flaws. Mass marketing has lowered average quality of 70 so badly it's now become a serious error to buy a FS 70 sight unseen. On ebay, try to buy a 2014 gold buffalo, they are almost all FS70, you can almost never find a gold buffalo on ebay graded 70 that's not also FS.

 

Without pursuing that angle any further for now, although there's more to be said, having a FS labeled coin in your collection can make it appear you are an ignorant fool who has fallen for the phony hype of that fraudulent designation. The FS label should therefore be shunned as one which may expose you to being ridiculed. That should reduce FS value, shouldn't it? As opposed to having 70s made on their own merits in your collection.

 

I'd have more to say except this is already much too long.

 

That's an interesting viewpoint----Thanks for explaining. I also I want to edit to add that I meant to say 'first day' in my OP but you already knew that.

[Stephon-migration]

The US Mint shouldn't be engaging in the monkey business that it does with their products with gold coins. At least if the US Mint does its monkey business with base metal or silver coins and prices the products reasonably, there is less money for people to lose out on.

 

The more monkey business I see coming out of the US Mint, the more I think the US Mint needs to standardize and simplify its coin products, particularly the more expensive products.

 

Stephon Leonard

 

Stephon, during 2008, the US Mint examined ALL the products that they were offering (and clogging the system with) and decided to eliminate a bunch of programs. To name a few,

 

State Quarter Spoons.

Coin and Die Sets.

Presidential Dollar Signature Proof Coins

 

The goal was to "streamline" what they were offering which they did at the expense of folks who actually "wanted" these products. (I still have 8 of the Signature Sets which, IMO, were the absolute BEST of the Presidential Dollar offerings. They included a respectable Library Style Holder with a BEP Intaglio Print of the President.)

 

Fast Forward a couple of years and guess what? New products are added to the list. Annual SAE Anniversary or Special Sets, Uncirculated Quarter Sets. Uncirculated Branch Mint Quarter Sets,, blah, blah, blah.

 

As a business, the US Mint has a monopoly and they are definitely getting out of control.

 

There's nothing we can do to change the fact that the US Mint has a monopoly. But someone should be out there saying that there needs to be changes to their product lineup that makes it easier for collectors to buy their products because if they get way out of control with the amount of products and the type of products, then this will really hurt the mint's business because collectors who don't have really deep pockets will not buy their products as much anymore. I understand the US Mint needs to make a profit and needs to create buzz about their products, but they have to listen to the people who buy their products and who are buying their products with whatever disposable income they have too and understand the position that their customers are in.

[Stephon-migration]

How will anyone 'prove' anything? and the possibility of losing their ANA numbers seems just laughable.

 

That might seem laughable to you, but if you read The Numismatist having your name or the name of your company named there in the expelled area will not do your reputation any good. Those of us who have been collectors don't forget that sort of thing. It places some negative thoughts about that person or organization in your mind.

 

When I heard Ken Pines of Coast to Coast Coins got expelled from the ANA, I thought bad of him, but he has since cleaned up his act and he has a lot of NGC and PCGS certified stuff that I am willing to buy if the coin is nice enough and it is what I am looking for.

[Stephon-migration]

I also think coin show releases are a good idea and help to create greater interest into this hobby, as long as it is done right.

 

I think that having the mint selling coins at the shows is a very bad idea. I can see that going in one of two ways.

 

The first way is to have issues like the HOF and Kennedy gold pieces where dealers buy up blocks of coins to have them placed in special show slabs for which some people are willing to pay a big premium. If they can sell these coins at a premium, the dealer - promoters are going to hire people to stand on line and buy them. The average collector, unless he is willing camp out all night with the paid stooges, will be left out the proceedings.

 

The other way comes about when the mint is selling a turkey like the 50th anniversary of the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill commemorative silver dollar. There won't be any lines for that one because only a small number of collectors want it. After spending my career as a white male who was always on the wrong side of the racial and gender based quotas which that law created, that coin has no place in my collection.

 

Speaking of coin show releases being done right, a system like a lottery system where people who pre-register for the ANA show get to participate in a lottery to get a spot on line to buy the Kennedy gold coin or any of those big coin show releases wouldn't be a terrible idea.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I also think coin show releases are a good idea and help to create greater interest into this hobby, as long as it is done right.

 

I think that having the mint selling coins at the shows is a very bad idea. I can see that going in one of two ways.

 

The first way is to have issues like the HOF and Kennedy gold pieces where dealers buy up blocks of coins to have them placed in special show slabs for which some people are willing to pay a big premium. If they can sell these coins at a premium, the dealer - promoters are going to hire people to stand on line and buy them. The average collector, unless he is willing camp out all night with the paid stooges, will be left out the proceedings.

 

The other way comes about when the mint is selling a turkey like the 50th anniversary of the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill commemorative silver dollar. There won't be any lines for that one because only a small number of collectors want it. After spending my career as a white male who was always on the wrong side of the racial and gender based quotas which that law created, that coin has no place in my collection.

 

Speaking of coin show releases being done right, a system like a lottery system where people who pre-register for the ANA show get to participate in a lottery to get a spot on line to buy the Kennedy gold coin or any of those big coin show releases wouldn't be a terrible idea.

 

Should anyone that has a Table, or is in an official capacity of the ANA or U.S. Mint, or any TPG or 4PG employees/representatives be allowed to participate in the Lottery?

 

Should it be limited to collectors that are members of the ANA?

 

As to your comments concerning the social aspects connected to the coin, and while I understand your sentiments, I think you may find the number of collectors that would like to have the coin is not so small.

 

 

 

[BillJones]

I also think coin show releases are a good idea and help to create greater interest into this hobby, as long as it is done right.

 

I think that having the mint selling coins at the shows is a very bad idea. I can see that going in one of two ways.

 

The first way is to have issues like the HOF and Kennedy gold pieces where dealers buy up blocks of coins to have them placed in special show slabs for which some people are willing to pay a big premium. If they can sell these coins at a premium, the dealer - promoters are going to hire people to stand on line and buy them. The average collector, unless he is willing camp out all night with the paid stooges, will be left out the proceedings.

 

The other way comes about when the mint is selling a turkey like the 50th anniversary of the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill commemorative silver dollar. There won't be any lines for that one because only a small number of collectors want it. After spending my career as a white male who was always on the wrong side of the racial and gender based quotas which that law created, that coin has no place in my collection.

 

Speaking of coin show releases being done right, a system like a lottery system where people who pre-register for the ANA show get to participate in a lottery to get a spot on line to buy the Kennedy gold coin or any of those big coin show releases wouldn't be a terrible idea.

 

A lottery? That is a terrible idea! Why can't the collectors who want these coins get to buy these coins? Why should "the winners" only this opportunities?

[coinman_23885]

I also think coin show releases are a good idea and help to create greater interest into this hobby, as long as it is done right.

 

I think that having the mint selling coins at the shows is a very bad idea. I can see that going in one of two ways.

 

The first way is to have issues like the HOF and Kennedy gold pieces where dealers buy up blocks of coins to have them placed in special show slabs for which some people are willing to pay a big premium. If they can sell these coins at a premium, the dealer - promoters are going to hire people to stand on line and buy them. The average collector, unless he is willing camp out all night with the paid stooges, will be left out the proceedings.

 

The other way comes about when the mint is selling a turkey like the 50th anniversary of the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill commemorative silver dollar. There won't be any lines for that one because only a small number of collectors want it. After spending my career as a white male who was always on the wrong side of the racial and gender based quotas which that law created, that coin has no place in my collection.

 

Speaking of coin show releases being done right, a system like a lottery system where people who pre-register for the ANA show get to participate in a lottery to get a spot on line to buy the Kennedy gold coin or any of those big coin show releases wouldn't be a terrible idea.

 

A lottery? That is a terrible idea! Why can't the collectors who want these coins get to buy these coins? Why should "the winners" only this opportunities?

 

I had thought about the same thing that Stephon speaks of, and while it has some potential limitations, it is the only effective way that I can see to limit a handful of greedy (in my opinion) dealers from paying actors to stay in line as their buying agents. Even if dealers tried to add additional entries, it would make it less effective and more cost prohibitive.

[RWB]

Milk cows following the bell.

[19Lyds]

I also think coin show releases are a good idea and help to create greater interest into this hobby, as long as it is done right.

 

I think that having the mint selling coins at the shows is a very bad idea. I can see that going in one of two ways.

 

The first way is to have issues like the HOF and Kennedy gold pieces where dealers buy up blocks of coins to have them placed in special show slabs for which some people are willing to pay a big premium. If they can sell these coins at a premium, the dealer - promoters are going to hire people to stand on line and buy them. The average collector, unless he is willing camp out all night with the paid stooges, will be left out the proceedings.

 

The other way comes about when the mint is selling a turkey like the 50th anniversary of the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill commemorative silver dollar. There won't be any lines for that one because only a small number of collectors want it. After spending my career as a white male who was always on the wrong side of the racial and gender based quotas which that law created, that coin has no place in my collection.

 

Speaking of coin show releases being done right, a system like a lottery system where people who pre-register for the ANA show get to participate in a lottery to get a spot on line to buy the Kennedy gold coin or any of those big coin show releases wouldn't be a terrible idea.

Some folks just do not get it.

 

The US Mint should NOT be RELEASING ANY Coins at a Coin show and instead should readopt their old policy of No Over the Counter Sales until the Household Limits have Been Lifted".

 

Anything else will be circumvented and abused by collectors, coin dealers and TPG's.