One of Many Classic Commemorative Slippery Slopes

[coinsbygary]

The following post is based on my opinion of things I learned through collecting classic commemoratives:

 

In one respect, the introduction of die varieties to commemorative coins in 1921 represented the beginning of the end for classic commemorative coins. Intending to artificially increase sales of the 1620-1920 Pilgrim Tercentenary Half Dollar, 1921 was added on the obverse of coins struck that year. This commemorative had a good run in 1920 but in 1921 sales of this coin quickly waned and were sold almost exclusively to collectors. Sales were so poor that only about 1/5 of the coins minted in 1921 representing some 20,000 coins survived the melting pot. Technically speaking, overall sales did increase but the addition of die varieties to commemorative coins became a point of contention among collectors by forcing them to buy extra coins of the same design to complete their sets.

 

Now as the commemorative coin program slid further down the slippery slope of die varieties, so also did the justifications for adding them. The justification for the 2(star)4 variety on the 1921 Missouri Centennial Half Dollar was to help defray production costs. While on the surface this seemed like a good idea, reality was quite different. Yes, all the 2(star)4 coins sold out but beyond that there was very little interest in this coin as evidenced by a very low final mintage. Low mintages can only mean low or no profit.

 

Next in rapid succession came the 2X2, 1921 Alabama Centennial Half Dollar. In the middle of this quagmire are both Frasers, James as a member of the Commission of Fine Arts and Laura as the sculptor who prepared the models for the Alabama commemorative. In fact it was James recommendation that the 2X2 be included on the Alabama Centennial Half Dollar as a means to increase sales.

 

Naturally, all the parties involved in the 1921 Alabama Centennial Half Dollar had an interest in creating a popular commemorative with strong sales; congress, the US Mint, the Commission of Fine Arts, the local commemorative committee, and finally the artist. As a member of the Commission of Fine Arts, James Fraser had a greater stake in the success of this coin since it was his wife who submitted the models. (Laura’s first coin and the first woman ever for any coin.) With a previous precedent already established, suggesting the 2X2 die variety wouldn’t have seemed out of order. Interestingly, the popularity of this coin among collectors was less than enthusiastic.

 

This brings me to the 1922 Grant Dollar and Half Dollar die varieties and the end of a five coin consecutive run of commemorative die varieties. The U.S. Grant Centenary Memorial Commission originally requested 200,000 commemorative gold dollars. Instead, the final authorization was for 250,000 half dollars and 10,000 gold dollars. With the original intention of an all gold dollar commemorative, there is speculation that the star was added to the half by mistake. Regardless, the final mintages for the Grant with star half dollar is 4,256 and 5,016 for the Grant with star gold dollar. Today, of the five aforementioned die varieties, only the Grant with star half dollar commands a hefty premium over its plain counterpart.

 

The collecting community including myself (the owner of an MS-62 Grant gold dollar with star) owes dealer B. Max Mehl a huge debt of gratitude. For it was B. Max Mehl who bought thousands of the Grant gold dollars at just over face value when scarcely anyone shelled out the $3.00 and $3.50 respectively for the plain and with star Grant gold dollar.

 

Currently most of the classic commemoratives are very collectible. It seems that time has mostly forgiven the collector abuses of the past. Today the mint is engaging in some of the same shenanigans of the past by introducing varieties to the Silver American Silver Eagle, Presidential Dollars, Sacagawea Dollars, and a number of miscellaneous other issues. This frustrates todays collector and turns them off to collecting moderns. Will future collectors forgive the marketing gimmicks of today like todays collectors have largely forgiven the gimmicks of the past? Only time will tell.

 

All the facts listed in this post were gleaned from, “Commemorative Coins of the United States, A Complete Encyclopedia” by Q. David Bowers.

[RWB]

Responsibility for abuses of the commemorative programs of the past rest with the sponsoring organizations (or individuals), and Congress for authorizing them. The Mint simply did what it was ordered to do.

 

Most of today's abuses also fall squarely in the lap of sponsors and Congress, although today's Mint is responsible for the excesses of bullion junk and "special" surfaces.

[coinsbygary]

Responsibility for abuses of the commemorative programs of the past rest with the sponsoring organizations (or individuals), and Congress for authorizing them. The Mint simply did what it was ordered to do.

 

Most of today's abuses also fall squarely in the lap of sponsors and Congress, although today's Mint is responsible for the excesses of bullion junk and "special" surfaces.

 

Thinking about it a little more, you're right Roger. The mint only acts as directed by congress. I have a tendency to blame the mint because they are the first point of collector contact even though in the past the local sponsors distributed the coins making them the first point of contact. In my post, I did suggest that the mint had some culpability in the abuses of the past.

[World Colonial]

Currently most of the classic commemoratives are very collectible. It seems that time has mostly forgiven the collector abuses of the past. Today the mint is engaging in some of the same shenanigans of the past by introducing varieties to the Silver American Silver Eagle, Presidential Dollars, Sacagawea Dollars, and a number of miscellaneous other issues. This frustrates todays collector and turns them off to collecting moderns. Will future collectors forgive the marketing gimmicks of today like todays collectors have largely forgiven the gimmicks of the past? Only time will tell.

 

I agree with your comment but at the same time don't believe the collector base will ever concurrently both be large enough and willing to pay much higher prices where the financial potential starting with today's price levels will ever be meaningful. Some collector already owns these coins now, so whether they are forgiving or not from a collecting aspect is of secondary importance.