Question on the new Wright Brothers commems

[jtryka]

I just saw them posted in the Mint website, and they listed all of them in single coin options available after August 1st, does anyone know if they will be offering them in sets? I know that it would be very unusual for them not to offer sets, but I saw nothing listed.

[EZ_E]

I'm sure that you have your answer by now: They are sold individually with a discount until the end of September. I've seen no mention of sets what-so-ever.

[BillJones]

It's a shame if they have stopped selling the sets. I really enjoyed them and thought that the sets made the coins more attractive as a group.

 

I wonder what prompted this change?

[jtryka]

That is very disappointing, especially as a fan of the large sets (I have several of the old 6-coin sets in the cherry wood boxes, I loved those things!). I suppose that this also means the end of prestige proof sets (since I don't collect those, they might have ended those a long time ago for all I know).

[keithdagen]

If I had to guess on the change, it is a cost-saving measure. By selling the coins individually, they don't have to worry about additional costs of the 2 or 3-coin set packaging and can estimate package orders based on a single configuration.

[BillJones]

If I had to guess on the change, it is a cost-saving measure. By selling the coins individually, they don't have to worry about additional costs of the 2 or 3-coin set packaging and can estimate package orders based on a single configuration.

 

If that is true, I'd describe that idea as penny wise and pound foolish. The mint might just sell more coins if they are in sets.

[keithdagen]

I don't disagree. People might balk at a 3-coin set because of the gold piece price, but a 2-coin set of the half and dollar would seem like an easy sale.

[jtryka]

I am the opposite, I would buy the 3-coin set, but without the set, I'll probably just buy an eagle and maybe a silver dollar.

[keithdagen]

I'm thinking of buying the gold piece, but not the others. The design just doesn't do enough for me on them.

[EZ_E]

I'll buy them all. Hey, for less than $800 one can have the entire set and I feel that modern commemoratives have lots of potential. IMHO. of course.

[291fifth]

I ordered only the silver dollar proof. In terms of design quality the modern commems are not as bad as they were in the 1984-1994 period but still lack any real artistic merit. They have the bland look of private mint medals of the 1970's.

[BillJones]

As I have written at other sites. It's a shame that Congress put a $10 gold piece into this set rather than $5 piece. You don't that much more surface area for a design, and doubling the amount of gold in the coin also doubles its price.

 

I hope Congress learns a lesson from this as (I think) they learned from the Atlanta Olympics when they put WAY WAY too many coins in the set (16 or 32 if you bought the Proofs and Uncs).

 

My advice to Congress, "Don't do that again."

[jtryka]

Well BillJones, I have to disagree with you. I like the idea of an eagle, despite the higher price. I don't think that every set should have an eagle, but it's nice to have one occasionally (it took 20 years since the last eagle commem!). I would also like to see other gold denominations for commems, just to mix it up a bit. How about a commem double eagle? It's never been done before. Or a quarter eagle or $1 gold piece, if the mint could do them at the turn of the 20th century why not today? Personnally, I think there are lots of room for creativity on the gold commems, like how about an incuse design on a quarter eagle? Or a high relief design? Or even another half union or union? Granted, they might be expensive, but if the mint could sell over 40,000 quarter eagles and 1,000 half unions for the Pan-Pac exposition in 1926, they could sell them today. The only problem is getting the mint to actually be creative in their designs.

[gmarguli]

I'm sure these commems will be a stunning failure like most of the commems. An average design at best and over inlated prices.

 

I'd like to see the mint make coins like they used to - out of .900 gold and silver and not in flawless condition. These aren't coins, but gold and silver rounds.

[Elcontador]

I just want to correct an historical misconception. While it is true the Wright Brothers flew the first manned heavier than air machine, they did not invent the airplane. The first machine recognizable as the airplane was designed and flown by Alberto Santos Dumont, in Paris France, in either 1905 or 1906.

 

He was from Brasil. The domestic airport of Río De Janeiro is named in his honor, and he is a national hero. For some reason, very few people outside of Brasil know about him.

[MAULUMALL]

We have better P.R. Men

[291fifth]

The Wright Bros. were the first to fly and DOCUMENT a manned heavier than air flight. A man from New Zealand probably flew in late July of 1903 in what would be considered an ultralight today. ( I can't find his name at the moment). He used a very advanced engine of his own design that the Wright Bros. would have envied. He flew largely in secret because of opposition from religious types who insisted that man had no business flying. There were, however, witnesses to his flights.

[EZ_E]

Not to mention the fact that there were model planes around long before 1903.