Got it, Major D, and super big thanks for that important clarification! Clearly, I had been operating with a rather serious misconception.

I live and die by the free market as I have experienced life in other countries where the free market does not hold sway and have seen the assortment of negative results that result from that major miscalculation.
That being said, it’s also obvious that there are many operators within the free market framework who bend the rules to their own advantage and convenience, so while I firmly believe in free market capitalism I simultaneously abhor manipulated capitalism. A simple example of those two varieties of capitalism as it exists in America would be exactly the situation with the Mint’s bullion program we are discussing here. On the one hand the retail sales of the Authorized Purchasers to the public are governed entirely by free market capitalism. To the contrary, the fixed artificially low premium rate sales by the Mint to the Authorized Purchasers are a classic example of manipulated capitalism in that the AP’s get a major preferential price break while the end customer pays the market rate.

Kaiser, the enabling legislation for the program set it up that way. Perhaps at the time the Mint didn’t have the ability or wherewithal to reach the public like the dealers could? It was before the internet began after all. The Mint only sells bullion ASEs to dealers. So, of course, the numismatic ASEs are going to have a higher “premium” if that’s what you want to call it- I have a hard time calling it a premium above spot for numismatic ASEs because that is not the purpose of these coins as these are higher quality collector grade. The Mint sells large quantities of bullion ASEs to dealers and then the dealers price it according to the free market. I thought everyone here loves the free market, no?

Kaiser, it’s only the numismatic program and bullion program that are self-sustaining and it’s a good thing, because without these programs making a profit there would be no Mint website or sales to collectors. The Mint’s original and primary mission is to produce circulating coins as mandated by Congress- and this is not self-sustaining.

As we can see, Major D, from the latest Circulating Coin Report the day of reckoning for the Mint and its continuing ability to adhere to its mandate to pay its own way is approaching ever so surely and ever more rapidly. At some point in the not too distant future it will become incumbent on the Congress to take some of the pressure of excess expenses that are now increasingly required to produce circulating coinage off the Mint by eliminating those specific circulating coin denominations whose production costs for the Mint far exceed the face value prices it can charge the Federal Reserve for them.

I’m not sure, Antonio, that the Mint loses any sleep over its inconsistent policies.

Caliskier, no organization is perfect and every one of them has room for improvement. I find it ironic that, if not for what the Mint produces, none of us would have a hobby and be chatting here. We can choose to buy or not buy whatever we want. So, what’s the real harm done to any of us collectors? The Mint’s numismatic and bullion programs are self-sustaining with no taxpayer money spent on them. The circulating coins are legislated and ordered by Congress, and if it costs more to make those coins than is the face value- that’s the fault of Congress.

Caliskier, I’d like to add that the Mint is often bound by legislation for the circulating coins as well (it’s not just the commemoratives). Take quarters for example- the States quarter program, America the Beautiful, and now American Women’s Quarters were all legislated by Congress. Likewise, the Presidential (“golden”) dollar program and the current American Innovation dollar program also were legislated. And going back to the Bicentennial coins in 1975-76, and the upcoming Semiquincentennial coins coming in 2026– all legislated as well. There are examples in the paper currency, too. I’d call all of this circulating currency “commemorative”, and even the Lincoln cent, Jefferson nickel, JFK half are commemorating the presidents depicted- so to say one is better than the other makes no sense to me. To clarify a point you attributed to me- I never said that silver medals are knock-off’s of known designs coming from the Presidential Medals. I’m not sure what you mean by that? They are completely different designs.

And although you’ve already preceded me in renewing its memory, Antonio, I too am a rather ardent fan, which is to say long-time admirer of, that gloriously unique coin otherwise known as the three cent “nickel”.

I very rarely pick up any Mint Commemoratives myself, Roger, unless the subject being featured is of special interest to me.
As for rolls of coins, I ordered them from the Mint for a couple of years until I realized the sheer weight alone was making them an impractical collectable. Decisions come in many ways.
At the risk of sounding like one of those old timers who claim they walked to school up hill both ways every day in a snowstorm, I did spend the first years of my life with six other family members residing in a fifth floor walkup studio apartment without hot water on tap, a shared bucket serviced commode in the hall, and a communal shower down the street once a week whether we needed it or not. And yes, Walking Liberty Half Dollars, Mercury Dimes and Buffalo Nickels were standard change. Ah, those were the days.