Maybe today will be the Big Day when we get some statements from the U.S. Mint about long outstanding issues. I found this in my email this morning from the Mint's Office of Public Affairs:
The United States Mint does not currently require delivery signature for packages. However, due to customer demand, the United States Mint is reinstating its former policy of requiring delivery signatures for all packages valued at $300 or more. In addition to reinstating the signature confirmation on orders of $300 or more, delivery signatures will be required for all packages containing precious metals (platinum, gold and silver coins, not including the United States Mint Silver Proof Set™ and Silver Quarters Proof Sets). We expect to have the signature requirement in effect by Friday, March 13, 2009.
Of course, we'd all like to know the answer to why the Mint dropped the signature requirement, but I'm not sure we'll ever get the answer to that, especially if it involves human error or the bad judgment of a Mint product manager or something similar. In any case, anyone who was worried about finding thousand dollar coin orders left lying on their doorstep will soon sleep a bit easier.
In fact, the Mint may already be imposing the new signature requirement. This morning, reader "rtc" posted the following:
2009 03-04W Just some info for you all. I placed my order on 01-22-09Tu at 12:07pm. I got my UHRDE last night about 8pm via UPS w/signature. Wrote PCGS. The first strike cutoff is 03-11-09W. Whether first strike is meaningful or not is a debatable subject, but the fact remains that first strikes do carry a little more clout. Just wanted to keep you up to speed on my end. rtc
The UHRDE is how some collectors are describing the UHR. It stands for Ultra-High Relief Double Eagle. For those unfamiliar with First Strikes, it is a PCGS label designation for a slabbed coin that means the coin was submitted for grading during the first 30 days of market availability. Despite the term "First Strikes," such coins are not struck first, nor do they have any other characteristics that distinguish them from regular coins. The U.S. Mint had to issue a consumer advisory about this misleading designation when it first came out, due to the confusion it causes.
A Personal Note to My Readers
I'd like to thank everyone for the supportive comments this morning. Sometimes I do get a little discouraged for a short time, like most people do when they bash their heads against the wall repeatedly to no obvious effect, but I'm never giving up my Mission! I'll spare everyone the story that inspired this belief (I've posted it in the Coin Collecting Forum for those who want to see it) but I do believe that major change can happen as the result of one single person, or small group of people, who persist in fighting for their beliefs.
The U.S. Mint is not a "typical government agency" and shouldn't operate like one. It is one of the very few government agencies that actually make a profit, rather than costing taxpayers money. The Mint needs to do away with its typical government bureaucracy, and begin to see itself as the manufacturing and sales business it really is, and relate to its customers accordingly. Once it views itself more realistically, I think the rest of the pieces will fall into place.
Although I have perhaps the loudest voice among the coterie of coin collectors who have gathered here at About.com to discuss recent events, what makes us powerful is our collective voice. It is all of you, taking the time and trouble to share your opinions and experiences, that might motivate the change in viewpoint we hope to see from the Mint.
As the UHRs begin to wend their way to customers finally, some of you might go your separate ways, but before that happens I'd like to encourage everyone to share some constructive advice for the Mint. What can it do to avoid these problems next time? What did it do right in all of this? How can it avoid another debacle like this? Please share your positive, constructive suggestions in the Comments below, and I promise you I'll make sure the right people at the Mint are made aware of your suggestions. Of course, I can't force them to read it, but I will make sure they know their customers have spoken.
Comments
My brother found his UHRC stuck in his door when he got off work. He thinks UPS left it there after 10:00 AM. He got home at 5:30 PM. I suppose it it too cold for crooks in northern Minnesota, but what about sticky fingered UPS persons?
I was lucky. I was home when the UPS person drove into my driveway.
I still cannot say enough about the beauty of this coin. I cannot decide whether to keep it on my display shelf or send it to PCGS to get it mumified? What do you think Susan?
Keep up the great work you do for all of us Susan. I’m not going anywhere and will continue to check your site daily.
You’ve got a new fan in me as well, Susan. You’ve done a wonderful job! Thank you.
Advice for The Mint:
1. Communicate – If you don’t feel there needs to be a press release, email Susan, or some other respected coin journalists.
2. Follow your own rules.
3. Efficiency.
4. Rectify mistakes.
I have just posted a message from the mint regarding the Track Order function over in the forums at U.S. Coins, Information from the US Mint. I also posted my feelings about the message there.
Lureuin and Mark, thank you for the compliments! It means a lot to know that all my effort matters to people!
Steve, I am not getting my own UHR slabbed (if it ever arrives). My thinking on this is that I can always get it slabbed later if it ever comes time to sell the coin and slabbing it would enhance the value. There may have been a small justification for getting the PCGS First Strikes at one point (for people who like this designation) but now that large numbers of UHRs will arrive in time for First Strikes, the designation will not be rare.
Bottom line: save your money and keep the UHR in its own world-class custom-designed packaging that the Mint worked very hard to develop and perfect.
Everyone, Clair just posted a statement from the U.S. Mint in the Coin Collecting Forum. I thought we’d give our regular readers a chance to see it ahead of the masses, so if you want to read the statement before I publish it on my home page tomorrow morning, head to the U.S. Mint Statement About Web Site Security. The statement is quite long (and practically calls me a liar, ROFL! More on that tomorrow!)
Susan,
Here are a few points for consideration:
1. Communication – I know Mark already mentioned it but it bears repeating. This should be the easiest part of their job yet right now it seems to be the most difficult.
2. Optional Signature Confirmation – I know a lot of the readers here want the signature but for me it’s a pain to have to go to the UPS or FedEx terminal and I live in a decent neighborhood. Perhaps they could let the buyer elect signature confirmation on an order by order basis. I could still see making it mandatory though for expensive shipments – over $1,000.
3. Proper Packaging – All too often I’ll get a Mint delivery in a box ten times bigger than what it needs to be, with inadequate padding (filler). A properly sized shipping box would adequately secure the items with the same amount of padding currently being used and the Mint would save money on postage (less shipping weight). Everybody wins.
4. Server Upgrade – To me this is not a major issue at this time since mad rushes are rare, but if the Mint wants to grow the numismatic cash machine then it might become a necessity.
5. Pre-Release Subscriptions – For releases like the UHR why not set up a one-time subscription for the coin where collectors could order before the release date? A pre-release rush wouldn’t be as strong since some don’t want to commit too far out. Pre-release orders would also help the Mint gauge demand.
6. Subscription Priority – People who have a coin subscription should be at the front of the line, not at the rear like some suspect. I currently have a couple subscriptions but I’m considering canceling them based on that speculation of others.
7. Quality – Please don’t sacrifice quality for the sake of quantity for numismatic products.
What the Mint does right:
The Mint does produce beautifully designed coins – fabulous artistry. Thank you.
I hope some day they’ll include bi-metallic and palladium coins to the product lineup.
Well, the mint has done it again! They put a pending charge on my CC for my subscription to the Presidential Dollar Proof Set. Now, a week later, it is gone. No ship notice. This is a single subscription for a total (including shipping) of $19.90. It has been three weeks since the coins were available to order and my subscription has not shipped. This business of precharging a CC without even being ready to ship has to stop. My CC should not be touched until the day they intend to ship, and then shipment should happen! Whatever was wrong with the previous fulfillment contractor to have the mint dump them after only one year of a multi-year contract can’t compare to the ineptness of PBGS. They are setting new lows in service. They should be paying penalties for their performance so far. If they do not improve dramatically soon, they should be sacked. Whoever approved the change of contractors should be sacked. ARRRGH!
Hello Everyone,
I must say the posts are, well, interesting. I’ve enjoyed reading all of them across several strings & forums too. I’ve posted my own thoughts regarding the issues as well. I’ve even played the devils advocate just to see the response it would generate. I’ve been complimented for some posts, while being ridiculed for others. Doesn’t surprise me, though, since that’s what playing with fire usually results in. LOL
My overall opinion…
YES, the Mint needs changes and issues addressed, from order in to order received, the whole system is in disarray, but as with most bureaucracies it will take time, and lots of it, to bring it around.
Why? Well as some have stated “we need to voice our opinions”. This is true, just keep in mind that there are other voices in opposition that have weight too. This is what clogs up progress. Not everyone is going to be happy, no matter what any particular plan outlines, regardless if it’s the Mint, health care, housing, etc. Somewhere out there, there’s going to be opposition no matter how great the ideas or how carefully the plans are made. Sad, but true.
Most of the ideas for a better Mint are excellent ones & I couldn’t agree more on them. You folks are well versed on the issues, no doubt. Just keep in mind that very few (if anyone) has ever accused the Government of having any common sense and it usually takes years to reverse even the simplest of items needing attention. The lower the priority the longer it takes & for some reason I’m thinking that “Coin Collecting” isn’t exactly on their HIGH priority list, ya know?
With that said let me again make it perfectly clear that I do understand the issues & have high regards for every ones opinion. Now whether or not I might like that opinion,(and vice-verse) well that’s just life, I suppose, and that’s also what keeps these strings and forums alive, huh?
Y’all be good
~The Yankee~
p.s. Way ta go, Susan, for sparking up the heat here. It’s been a while since the blog has generated this much interest on a particular subject. Good Job!
I received my UHRDE yesterday morning (I ordered in the first hour of the sale). It, too, was dropped off by UPS on the doorstep at around 10:30am to wait there all day until I came home from work. The shipping box is a bit smaller than typical packages so maybe it more easily escapes notice. However, it is in a white box so perhaps that negates the smaller size. Anyway, it is now safe and sound.
A friend of mine also received his yesterday from UPS on their doorstep at around 9:00am, and it sat there all day until they came home. His coin was also loose inside the coin box.
Susan – Since the Mint does not provide an easy way to give them good or bad feedback (this is probably intentional since most other government entities don’t want to hear from their clients either), I really think that what you are doing is a valuable service to coin collectors. Just the fact that the Mint is talking about changes means that they are hearing it from somewhere, and I think you and Michael’s forums do provide a venue for the Mint to hear their customers’ experiences with their products. Thanks for all the hard work on behalf of us coin collecting minions out there.
I ordered the UHR from mint within an hour of release on Jan 22. It is now March and still no email or package. talked twice with mint reps and no definite answer just that orders are shipped first come first sent basis, but I know for a fact people have received their UHR coins before me the ordered after I did.
I have never been so upset with the US mint.
What is going on?
Did anyone else notice that when the mint updated the price of the UHR today (back down to $1289) that they removed the first-come, first-served promise? That is how they fix the problem, they rescind the promise entirely. Like they never said it in the first place.
Doesn’t surprise me.
The following 2 items are on the Mints’ website:
Changes and Termination:
The United States Mint reserves the right to change or discontinue all or any content or features of its Web sites and services, or to change all or part of this agreement, at any time. Changes will be effective upon posting on this site or upon other notice to users. This agreement will be effective until terminated by us or by you. You may terminate this agreement at any time by ceasing your use of this Web site and destroying all materials (other than purchased products) you obtained from it.
Terms of Use:
NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE UNITED STATES MINT’S WEBSITES OR SERVICES SHALL CONSTITUTE A REQUIREMENTS CONTRACT OR A GUARANTEE OF DELIVERY OR AVAILABILITY. ANY CONTRACT OR COMMITMENT MADE TO THIRD PARTIES RELATING TO UNITED STATES MINT PRODUCTS TO BE ACQUIRED OR DELIVERED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THROUGH SUCH SITE OR SERVICES IS ENTIRELY AT THE PURCHASER’S OWN RISK.
~The Yankee~
Yankee, I am fully aware of the mint’s statements. The problem I have with them is that they are utterly meaningless. It is not acceptable to cover your ass by issuing a blanket statement that absolves you of any wrongdoing. “Noting we ever say should ever be interpreted as the truth. We routinely lie to encourage our customers to purchase our products. Any promises we make, whether or not they are in writing are false and should not be believed. We will not honor them and we will change the rules of engagement at our whim.”
There is no question that the mint has the right to change its policies, but it has an obligation to honor any promises made (first-come, first-served should be honored for every order made while that statement was present). They have a greater obligation to tell their shareholders (all of us) the truth, and they have more than failed in this regard. It is simply not acceptable to solve every failure by dumbing down. How long will it be at this rate before ordering published products from the mint will be a crapshoot? Is it the intention of the powers that be at the mint to return to the numismatic policies it practiced in the 19th century? Do they intend to make outstanding special coins for the director to distribute to his friends and family, in such small quantities that in a generation or two they can all retire on the proceeds from these gifts?
The mint can change or cancel product offerings at any time, so can anyone else, unless they have already made specific pledges that dictate otherwise. They should not be permitted to alter the terms of orders already placed other than to cancel them because the product is no longer available to anyone. Their behavior in the past months has been abysmal. They have broken written promises, lied about the reasons for problems with order fulfillment, and alienated a large and powerful client base. Do they not realize that many of the people responsible for purchasing their bullion products in large volumes are also avid coin collectors?
I am forced to conclude that they are hiding something. What it is or why they are doing it I do not know and won’t guess at in public just yet. I am very concerned with the direction they are going and have serious concerns about the future of US Mint numismatic products. Their actions are putting millions of dollars that are intended to benefit some good causes (the commemorative coin programs) at risk.
From the mint’s main website: “Since the modern commemorative coin program began in 1982, the United States Mint has raised over $418,000,000 in surcharges to help build new museums, maintain national monuments like the Vietnam War Memorial, preserve historical sites like George Washington’s home, support various Olympic programs, and much more.” This entire program is in danger of collapsing under the weight of the mint’s misdoings.
I really want the mint to succeed! I have been an avid collector of their products for much of my adult life and am actively encouraging that same spirit in my children. The US Mint produces some world class products. It is high time they started acting like a world class mint. Honesty, integrity, quality, and openness are absolute musts.
Two little words, said a few weeks ago, would have gone a long way to preventing all of the animosity that the mint has brought upon itself. “We’re sorry” would have worked wonders.
Clair
Why would anyone EVER post personally identiftying information (such as a US Mint order number) online? To brag on their position in the que? I really can’t feel sorry for people with such disregard for their own security.
In my case, not to brag, but to discuss with fellow coin collecting friends whether or not the FIFO policy was being observed.
Unfortunately it was not a private discussion, but available to anyone to read. Never in my ten years of purchasing and working with hundreds of vendors has an order number been considered private information that a third party could use to break the contract.
Check out the mint website on the SAE’s for this year. They state they dont have enough blanks and have suspended Proof and Uncirculated SAE’s until such time as they can overcome supply vs demand.
Rogerb1009,
Thank you for telling us about this important statement! It would be easy for most people to miss, buried as it is on the Silver Eagle detail pages in the eCommerce portion of the Mint’s Web site.
I called the Mint to check on this, since the statement is undated, and they said that the statement has been there for awhile, and refers to the production problems that the Mint faced in 2008 when it couldn’t get enough coin blanks due to record demand for Silver Eagles.
The Mint assures me that they still plan to strike the numismatic Silver Eagles this year once demand frees up sufficient blanks. Already, things are looking up as Silver Eagle premiums have dropped by $2 to $3 over the highs seen late last year. Hopefully the Silver Eagles will be added to the upcoming products listing soon.
Susan Headley
About.com Guide to Coins
Roger: It in not really that they don’t have enough blanks. The mint has already produced 4.5 million bullion SAEs this year, putting them at a pace to coin 25 million for the whole year, 20% above last year’s record setting 20 million. The problem is that someone in power at the mint has chosen to interpret the congressional mandate to meet the demand for silver bullion coins to mean that they can’t divert any planchets for numismatic purposes. I personally think this is bull. I really don’t think that congress meant to provide low profit bullion to the total exclusion of high profit collector coinage. It would only take 1% or 2% of the planchets the mint has been using to fully supply the collector market, and that would probably kick profits up 10% or 20%. The gold situation is even worse. The mint is on a pace to produce 1.2 million ounces of gold bullion coins this year compared to 850 thousand ounces last year, a 41% increase. Again, 1% or 2% of those planchets would supply numismatic needs nicely.
The mint has all of the planchets they need but they have chosen to use all of them for bullion production. I do not think that is what congress intended and it is certainly not in our best interests to sell all of our available silver and gold through the low profit channels. They are supposed to try to meet demand for bullion coins, but to interpret that as an absolute is something new, and it is not at all clear that that interpretation is appropriate.
Clair
Isn’t one of the varying definitions of bullion [Gold or silver considered with respect to quantity rather than face value]? And don’t the Eagle coins only “sort of” fit any definition of bullion since they are not pure gold? I’m not sure of the exact wording of the law mandating that the Mint supply bullion in sufficient quantity to satisfy demand, but I question why they’ll shelve the proof coins but still allocate silver for commemoratives. Who wrote that law? What if the bulk of bullion demand is coming from other countries while the bulk of proof coin demand comes from U.S. citizens. Is the Mint required to put the desires of other countries higher than that of its own citizens? So many questions…
I agree Clair. They should allocate some planchets for numismatic coins.
Implement internal oversight for their fulfillment vendors whom the customers can contact with vendor complaints.
Own the problems and seek solutions. Transparency (see next item)
Communicate without spin. If there is an issue, isn’t it more Obama to just say that there is an issue, explain the issue, and say we’re working on it? Transparency.
Offer a “reminder” e-mail service to alert collectors about impending new release dates. I often forget and the post-release “new release” mailings don’t do me much good when trying for a first day order.
Seek public comment when Congress asks about new bills for any mint product, circulation or numismatic.
Allow more than 2 boxes of presidential direct ship dollars. Perhaps make a time frame of 2 boxes a month or every two weeks.
Improve quality control. I already returned for replacement my UHR due to minting problems. All 20 of my Lincoln Commemorative Proofs had minting issues. I kept one with an odd minting error, but sent the rest back for replacement.
Dave T, Clair, and all:
I wish they woud allocate some planchets for non-bullion products, but without knowing the law it could be just a wish.
I guess, not knowing the coin laws, a FOIA request might be a revealing read. I can’t help but wonder about the spirit of the bullion law as compared to those for the silver, gold and platinum eagle numismatics.
I found this on the web. The federal website does not go back to laws made by the 99th congress in its online database.
“thanks to Congressman Philip M. Crane, you NOW have Gold and Silver Coin pursuant to Public Law 99-61 (July 9, 1985) and Public Law 99-185 (December 17, 1985). These two Public Laws made it possible for the minting and distribution of American Gold Eagles and Silver Eagles”
It is public law 99-61 that directs the mint to produce these coins “in quantities sufficient to meet public demand . . . .”
When I find the whole text, I’ll see if it says anything about “… to the exclusion of all other products …”
And, yes I suppose that does mean any demand, including foreign individuals and governments.
Holy smokes! While digging into this stuff an email from the Mint popped up saying they shipped my UHR! I feel like kissing someone. Got an email earlier from a friend saying he got a box of the new Lincoln pennies that I can have. Things are looking up.
Here’s a little more regarding the two acts that Clair discovered:
The Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-185 of Dec. 17, 1985, 99 Statutes At Large 1177, 31 USC 5101, 5111, 5112) provided for minting the American Eagle ounce, half ounce, quarter ounce, and tenth ounce gold coins. Section 2(3) provides, “For purposes of section 5132(a)(1) of [Title 31], all coins minted under this subsection shall be considered to be numismatic items.” The Liberty Coin Act of July 9, 1985 (Public Law 99-61 of 7/9/85, 99 Stat. 115, 31 USC 5112) authorized the one ounce silver coin commonly called the Silver American Eagle. At section 202(g) it contains identical language. By statutory definition then, the American Eagle gold coins and the silver American Eagles are “numismatic” coins. (31 USC Section 5132(a)(1) requires the Secretary of the Treasury to apply proceeds from selling “numismatic” items to cost of making them.)
BTW – When I referenced the purity of the Eagles in post 19 it should said gold and silver.
**Improve information provided by vendor phone reps. The wait isn’t so bad if only the information on the other end were reliable. “lies, lies, lies” sums up the UHR information provided even as late as the early part of the last week in February.
**Send subscription order e-mails and make them appear in “My Order History.” I get the reminder that the subscription is impending and a ship notice. Generally, I don’t see a subscription order e-mail. I don’t recall, but can’t confirm at this time, if the subscription orders appear in “My Order History.”
I think the most constructive thing the Mint might want to do is put a few more COLLECTORS in charge. A prime example of a totally mis-managed issue are the new Lincolns. It would seem no one at the Mint is paying attention to the very excited collectors clammering for information as to the bronze issues. This is a very exciting coin series for the copper heads out there and all I am seeing are questions, no answers. Lets just hope they handle the distribution and production with a bit more competence than the UHRDE issue. With all the people out of jobs lately, I bet you would find several extremely well qualified folks to step in and handle the marketing and consumer relation aspects with a bit more enthusiasm. If not, just let me know where to send my resume
.
***Communicate more information about the order process. The phone reps can say it is “@Pick” why can that be displayed on the web?
***Improve, greatly, the refund/replacement/exchange process. Currently, It takes a long time to even acknolwedge the receipt. Additionally, it does not appear on the web site. Furthermore, a web based notification of
“refund/replacement/exchange” could be implemented. Tracking numbers could even be given by the customer for the recipient to view. Feedback could be obtained on the form.
***Seek more consumer feedback. USMint.gov website survey form.
***Improve, greatly, subscription fulfillment. Subscribers are regular and returning customers the mint can rely upon. +I see now a subscription order from Oct. is online.
+I received a “sub. to be processed” in Sept.
+I received the shipping e-mail on Feb. 13/2009
+The online order shows Oct. 22
==> Why was there no “Sub. Order placed # xxxxxxxx on 10/22″ e-mail sent?
I might like to cancel the order.
Why? I could save shipping by combining that product into a new release order.
-or-
==> Subscriptions seem to be handled on a second class basis instead of the first class basis that they deserve. (returning, regular cust.)
Example:
+I cancelled my Presidential Proof subscription.
+I placed an order on 2/12/2009 for a set.
+The set was shipped on 2/17/2009
Meanwhile…
+coins.about.com member “Clair” has a subscription
+that order shows it was entered 2/24
(two weeks aftre release)
(after mine had shipped)
+two weeks later, it has not shipped.
(four weeks after release)
Subscription orders need to be entered at 12:00 on the first day of release, nt days later.
I received my uhr on 3/6/09 it was left in a bag tied to my mail box at the bottom of my driveway ,I told ups to put it on my back porch,they said they would try to tell the driver ,NO signature required
Still haven’t received my large quantity subscription of 09 Presidential Proofs either.
I’m still waiting six weeks later (I placed the order Feb. 5) for my order of circulating presidential dollars, and I have been given *no* useful information both times when I called trying to find out the status.
The website says orders should take 1-2 weeks; the first time I called the mint I was told to allow 3-4 weeks; the second time I called I was told 4-6 weeks. I just checked the website–order status information is again available online with only a username and password *and* the option to cancel is still available–and my order status is showing “In Process” (the same thing it has been saying all along.)
Chuck, the ability to access order history has changed. You now have to log in with your username and password. Previously you could get to an order status page and cancel an order with only an order number and a last name, two things that are not normally considered secure information. That ability has been blocked (why it took the mint weeks to do a 1 hour job is not known). The mint and its fulfillment contractor do seem to be spiraling out of control, getting worse with every passing day. They have not admitted to any real problems even though their own data gathering has to show them that they are failing in every aspect of fulfillment. I still think it is wrong to inject an additional profit center by contracting out order fulfillment. Clearly, based on my personal experience and what I have heard from others, PBGS is simply not qualified to do the job at hand. They either way underbid or they are demanding too much profit from what should be a very marginal business. Order fulfillment is all about volume and efficiency, two things that PBGS has utterly failed to deliver. I am extremely disappointed with the people in command at the mint, for not coming down hard on PBGS and for being considerably less than forthcoming with its customers. A whole bunch of heads and at least one contract should roll and the mint should take a breath and reset. Unless they do something dramatic and start being open and truthful, I fear they have no way of recovering from this monster of their own making
***Investigate and Reform return troubles Immediately.
Good News!
They have my UHR return “cataloged” in their system as of 4 days after receipt.
Bad News!
Received on the same day and signed for by the same person…. my Lincoln Commem’s are not showing as returned as of 1 week after receipt!
Go PBGS!
At first the rep didn’t seem worried.
Then I pointed to my earlier order that was “never found.” I had to get docs from FedEx to prove they delivered it to the right address. They insisted it wasn’t delivered to them.
Rep says to give it another week. (Earlier said it could take 30 days… but others have said 2-3 weeks.)
Next _Urgent_ Reforms – Return Processes!
Code of Federal Regulations for minting coins…
url to come in next comment. hopefully the spam filter won’t grab it.
TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE IV > CHAPTER 51 > SUBCHAPTER II > § 5112.
Denominations, specifications, and design of coins
(How Current is this?
(Title 31 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 3, 2007, and it is this version that is published here.)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00005112—-000-.html
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall mint and issue, in quantities sufficient to meet public demand, coins which—
(1) are 40.6 millimeters in diameter and weigh 31.103 grams;
(2) contain .999 fine silver;
(3) have a design—
..(A) symbolic of Liberty on the obverse side; and
..(B) of an eagle on the reverse side;
(4) have inscriptions of the year of minting or issuance, and the words “Liberty”, “In God We Trust”, “United States of America”, “1 Oz. Fine Silver”, “E Pluribus Unum”, and “One Dollar”; and
(5) have reeded edges.
(f) Silver Coins.—
(1) Sale price.— The Secretary shall sell the coins minted under subsection (e) to the public at a price equal to the market value of the bullion at the time of sale, plus the cost of minting, marketing, and distributing such coins (including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, and promotional and overhead expenses).
(2) Bulk sales.— The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the coins minted under subsection (e) at a reasonable discount.
(3) Numismatic items.— For purposes of section 5132 (a)(1) of this title, all coins minted under subsection (e) shall be considered to be numismatic items.
=====================================
(k) The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.
=====================================
(q) Gold Bullion Coins.—
(1) In general.— Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005, the Secretary shall commence striking and issuing for sale such number of $50 gold bullion and proof coins as the Secretary may determine to be appropriate, in such quantities, as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe.
(2) Initial design.—
..(A) In general.— Except as provided under subparagraph (B), the obverse and reverse of the gold bullion coins struck under this subsection during the first year of issuance shall bear the original designs by James Earle Fraser, which appear on the 5-cent coin commonly referred to as the “Buffalo nickel” or the “1913 Type 1”.
..(B) Variations.— The coins referred to in subparagraph (A) shall—
….(i) have inscriptions of the weight of the coin and the nominal denomination of the coin incused in that portion of the design on the reverse of the coin commonly known as the “grassy mound”; and
….(ii) bear such other inscriptions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
(3) Subsequent designs.— After the 1-year period described to in paragraph (2), the Secretary may—
..(A) after consulting with the Commission of Fine Arts, and subject to the review of the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, change the design on the obverse or reverse of gold bullion coins struck under this subsection; and
..(B) change the maximum number of coins issued in any year.
(4) Source of gold bullion.—
..(A) In general.— The Secretary shall acquire gold for the coins issued under this subsection by purchase of gold mined from natural deposits in the United States, or in a territory or possession of the United States, within 1 year after the month in which the ore from which it is derived was mined.
..(B) Price of gold.— The Secretary shall pay not more than the average world price for the gold mined under subparagraph (A).
=====================================
(Re: state quarters)
..(B) Silver coins.—
Notwithstanding subsection (b), the Secretary may mint and issue such number of quarter dollars of each design selected under paragraph (4) as the Secretary determines to be appropriate, with a content of 90 percent silver and 10 percent copper.
from the way the gold buffalo and platinum language reads as compared to the silver coin language, I’d say the language is much more strongly worded for the silver indicating an high level of importance for them over even the silver state quarters. (i.e. The wording is intentionally strong.)
However, I’d have to scour this section of the law to find out why minting proofs and unc’s can be set aside for the mass market bullion silver they are making.
Show order information online from phone orders. I placed a phone order today for the Lincoln Formative Years set and the order number is in my order history. However, as of the time of this post, clicking on the order number only takes me to a page saying:
“The United States Mint could not find the page you are looking for. If you would like to place an order you can always call 1-800-USA-MINT (872-6468). Sorry for the inconvenience.
Click here to return to the Catalog home page. “
for above: the same happens with the track order button.