A $1 gold coin at todays rates would be a tiny 1/666 of an ounce.

quote:

---

SOME OF US HAVE A THEORY
THAT HE MIGHT ONCE HAVE BEEN A
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,


BUT THAT HE DID SOMETHING
HORRENDOUS...


SO THAT ALL RECORDS, EVERYTHING
WAS WIPED OUT ABOUT HIM.


THERE IS NOTHING IN HISTORY
BOOKS. THERE ARE NO PICTURES
ON STAMPS OR MONEY.


YES, HE ACTUALLY WAS
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,


BUT WHENEVER HE USED
TO LEAVE THE WHITE HOUSE,


THE SECRET SERVICE
USED TO COUNT THE SILVERWARE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:
That would be a "gold-coloured" coin, not gold.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:
A $1 gold coin at todays rates would be a tiny 1/666 of an ounce.

---

The Canadian Mint releases a silver "dollar" coin each year - priced at $40+

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:
Why is this surprising? Did you notice that the list had a lot of presidents on it, and every modern one in chronological order?

---

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:

The denomination of a coin typically has nothing to do with the value of the material it is made of.

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:
Please check your facts before correcting. An actual gold coin is not "typical" and is traded, at a minimum, for its bullion value--though a rare collectors gold coin could trade for much more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:
I repeat, an actual $1 gold coin at todays bullion prices would be absurdly small and not minted.

---

However, as I was saying, a "dollar" coin can be made out of gold (and, based on its gold content, valued at much more than $1). It would, of course, not enter general circulation but would be a collector's item - just like a silver "dollar" coin.

Are you trying to say that this coin ($5 gold coin commemorating 400th anniversary of Jamestown) contains no more than $5 of gold, at current market prices, when in actual fact, it contains 0.24 troy ounces of gold, worth $160?

That said, it does not appear that versions of the presidential coins are to be released in gold.

Please check facts before correcting, and all that good stuff

[ 15 February 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

My suggestion that you "check your facts" might, just maybe, have induced you look at the original site provided by the original poster where you might, maybe, have seen the following:

"The Presidential $1 Coin Program

The United States is honoring our Nation’s presidents by issuing $1 circulating coins featuring their images in the order that they served, beginning with Presidents Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison in 2007. The United States Mint will mint and issue four Presidential $1 Coins per year, and each will have a reverse design featuring a striking rendition of the Statue of Liberty. These coins will feature larger, more dramatic artwork, as well as edge-incused inscriptions of the year of minting or issuance, "E Pluribus Unum," "In God We Trust" and the mint mark. Although the size, weight and metal composition of the new Presidential $1 Coin will be identical to that of the Sacagawea Golden Dollar, there are several unique features that make this coin distinctive."

The Sacagawea Golden Dollar is a circulating non-gold dollar. These, of course, go for more than the cost of the metal for collectors, but not as if they were actual gold.

Most real gold coins minted today are bullion coins for investors which equate closely (with a small premium)to "the value of the material it is made of"--not the rare and limited-edition collectors coins I allowed for earlier.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:
The denomination of a coin typically has nothing to do with the value of the material it is made of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
This statement is quite correct, both in the case of circulating and collectors' coins, the fulminations of contrarianna notwithstanding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:
At the very least, for coins made of precious metal, the actual value of the metal must not be significantly higher than the face value of the coin-- or it will end up getting melted down and sold elsewhere (which is what happened to with our silver coins a few decades ago).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by glasstech:
I wonder if these will have any more success than the Susan B Anthony or Sacaguwea dollars did.

---

I doubt it. Personally, I think they need to make the coin small (but thick) like the British one-pound coin. I hate change in my pocket generally and to have a dollar coin that is larger than a quarter just means more to drag around.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[QB virtually none are made of precious metal any more.
So the statement is quite correct, even without your "lots of qualifications".[/QB]

---

Note the original thread topic I responded to was a new "gold dollar" which was in fact a circulating coin--so thanks for remaking, although with much more solemnity, my first remark:

"That would be a "gold-coloured" coin, not gold."

You said:
"virtually none [circulating coins] are made of precious metal any more"
And why would that be if not for my previously stated "downward limitation to the notion that circulating denomination "has nothing to do with the value of the material it is made of"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:
Canada even changed the composition of the penny in 1997 as the "value of the material it was made of" (copper) exceeded the face value significantly. If you do not call that a relation between composition and denomination I guess you can repeat once more: "The denomination of a coin typically has nothing to do with the value of the material it is made of".

---

As you pointed out, the 1997 penny had to be changed to bring the value of its metal composition below its face value. The fact that the metal used in a penny was worth more than one cent in 1996 and less than one cent in 1997 only goes to prove that the denomination of the coin has nothing to do with the value of the material it's made of. A 1997 penny buys exactly the same amount of goods and services as a 1996 penny, and that fact has nothing to do with their respective metal compositions.

Our quarter dollar has less than 25¢ worth of metal in it.

I'm not sure how to make this clear enough so you are able to understand but here goes:
IF there was no relation between denomination and the value of metal compostion, there would be no reason to change the composition of a coin with the changing prices of metal, would there?

Or put another way, because there IS a relation between the denomination and coin composition, if the denomination of the (once) copper coin called the penny was altered to 25 cents there would have been no pressing need to change the composition.

[edited for typo]

[ 16 February 2007: Message edited by: contrarianna ]

In the case of collector coins, the "relation" is qute the opposite! The face value of the coin is intentionally set at a small fraction of the value of its metal. The value of the metal may fluctuate thereafter with market condition, but the face value remains unchanged.

Not much of a "relation", is it?

Once more I will say: "The denomination of a coin typically has nothing to do with the value of the material it is made of."

quote:

---

And you can buy a 2007 pure silver dollar from the Mint for $43, containing much more than a dollar's worth of silver but much less than $43 worth of silver

---

Not really accurate. A silver or gold Maple Leaf is a bullion coin that demands a premium over its silver content because the mint guarantees its purity. It is easily disposed of at a similar premium.

Silver or gold bars are not sold at this premium because they may need to be assayed before sale due to the lack of mint purity guarantee.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
The only "relation" between the denomination and the metallic composition of a circulating coin is that, for practical reasons, the value of the metal should not significantly exceed the face value of the coin. There is no reason, however, why the value of the metal in the coin may not be only a small fraction of its face value (as in the loonie).

---

Oh good, you've acknowledged the obvious.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

Not much of a "relation", is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
Not really accurate. A silver or gold Maple Leaf is a bullion coin that demands a premium over its silver content because the mint guarantees its purity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I wasn't referring to bullion or "Maple Leaf" coins, which you can buy for more or less $20.

I was referring to a numismatic silver dollar containing an ounce of pure silver (less than $20 worth) and selling for $42.95 plus GST from the Mint. Go to http://www.mint.ca and enter the number 6240007 in the search engine.

---

This coin is roughly .75 troy ounce with 92.5% silver content worth about $9.65 with silver at $13.00/ounce. With a face value of $1, circulation of 65k, what gives this coin a value of $43 other than the mint asking price? Why would numismatists pay that price?

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
Why would numismatists pay that price?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
With metals prices at historic highs in 06, the US penny was worth more for its copper content than its face value.

---