1987 Gold content

I have a 1987-W proof Constitution $5 gold coin and a 1987 1/4 ounce unc $10
gold coin. I guess 1987 was a good year for me.

The bullion coin is engraved with 1/4 ounce fine gold-10 dollars on the
reverse.

The proof coin is the same size, unless it is thinner--can't tell through
the plastic holder) but is engraved with 5 dollars. However the COA states
..900+/-.002 fine gold: .2687 troy ounces which I take to mean also 1/4 ounce
of fine gold.

Assuming the gold content is the same, why is one minted as $5 and the other
as $10?

The five dollar commemorative is based on the specs for the old five dollar
gold pieces, so the .24687 weight X 90% gold = .24187 oz pure gold, or less
than a quarter of an ounce.
The 1/4 bullion pieces are denominated in the strangest fashion (and
actually contain a full quarter ounce of gold), for purely marketing
reasons. So, the 1 oz. piece is denominated $50, while the quarter ounce
piece is denominated at $10 (vs. $12.50?).
Kooky stuff, but it sells.

"Mike" wrote in message
...
I have a 1987-W proof Constitution $5 gold coin and a 1987 1/4 ounce unc
$10
gold coin. I guess 1987 was a good year for me.

The bullion coin is engraved with 1/4 ounce fine gold-10 dollars on the
reverse.

The proof coin is the same size, unless it is thinner--can't tell through
the plastic holder) but is engraved with 5 dollars. However the COA states
.900+/-.002 fine gold: .2687 troy ounces which I take to mean also 1/4
ounce
of fine gold.

Assuming the gold content is the same, why is one minted as $5 and the
other
as $10?

Thanks for your reply, that does explain things. My thinking was the mint
would be consistant in this type of production for the same year but
obviously we're dealing with two distinct animals.


"Phil DeMayo" wrote in message
...
"Mike" wrote:

I have a 1987-W proof Constitution $5 gold coin and a 1987 1/4
ounce unc $10 gold coin. I guess 1987 was a good year for me.
The bullion coin is engraved with 1/4 ounce fine gold-10 dollars on
the reverse.

The proof coin is the same size, unless it is thinner--can't tell
through the plastic holder) but is engraved with 5 dollars. However
the COA states .900+/-.002 fine gold: .2687 troy ounces which I
take to mean also 1/4 ounce of fine gold.

Assuming the gold content is the same, why is one minted as $5
and the other as $10?

First things first....the gold content is not precisely the same (read
on).

American gold Eagles are 22kt gold or .9166 fine. However, each variety is
overweight so that each contains exactly the prescribed amount of gold.
The
denominations of these bullion coins are $5 (1/10 ounce), $10 (1/4 ounce),
$25
(1/2 ounce) and $50 (1 ounce). These denominations have no relationship to
the
traditional US gold coins that preceded them.

Your 1/4 ounce gold Eagle cannot have a $5 face value simply because they
used
that denomination for the 1/10 ounce Eagle.

Modern commemoratives are a different story. They conform exactly to
historical
specifications of the traditional US coins of the same denomination and of
the
same metal.

As such, your 1987 $5 Constitution gold commem is of the same composition,
weight and denomination as the last traditional $5 gold piece. It actually
contains slightly less than 1/4 ounce of fine gold. The weight on the COA
is
the total weight of the coin. Multiply this by the 90% fineness and you
will
find that it contains a hair over 0.24 troy ounces of gold.


++++++++++
Phil DeMayo - always here for my fellow Stooge
When bidding online always sit on your helmet
Just say NO to counterfeits

Edwin Johnston wrote:
The 1/4 bullion pieces are denominated in the strangest fashion (and
actually contain a full quarter ounce of gold), for purely marketing
reasons. So, the 1 oz. piece is denominated $50, while the quarter
ounce piece is denominated at $10 (vs. $12.50?).
Kooky stuff, but it sells.

Does anyone know how the GAEs got their face values? Since the
denominations are a pure fiction anyway, it would seem to me that a more
logical set would be $20, $10, $5, and ... $2, I guess. ($2½ would be
better, but it doesn't divide right.) This would be more logical from a
division point of view, and be close to historical gold coin sizes.

--
Bob

"Bob Flaminio" wrote:

Does anyone know how the GAEs got their face values? Since the
denominations are a pure fiction anyway, it would seem to me that a more
logical set would be $20, $10, $5, and ... $2, I guess. ($2½ would be
better, but it doesn't divide right.) This would be more logical from a
division point of view, and be close to historical gold coin sizes.

They are intended to be bullion and the face values only serve to legally make
them coins. The face values are purposely set well below the bullion value to
protect the government in the event of a market collapse.

That being said, I think the more logical choices would have been $10, $25, $50
and $100. These would have made more sense given the weights and still would
have offered the government protection.

++++++++++
Phil DeMayo - always here for my fellow Stooge
When bidding online always sit on your helmet
Just say NO to counterfeits

In article ,
ulsion (Phil DeMayo) writes:


That being said, I think the more logical choices would have been $10, $25,
$50 and $100.

Ahhh, there's those Platinum denominations...

dondi3
(shaking head)
DONDI enterprises. BUY, SELL, TRADE. RARE COINS & PRECIOUS METALS
Member COINNET, CSNS, ANA, INA, MOON, ILNA.

In article , "Bob Flaminio"
writes:


Does anyone know how the GAEs got their face values? Since the
denominations are a pure fiction anyway, it would seem to me that a more
logical set would be $20, $10, $5, and ... $2, I guess. ($2½ would be
better, but it doesn't divide right.) This would be more logical from a
division point of view, and be close to historical gold coin sizes.

--
Bob

While you're at it, ask why the PAE's (platinum) are denominated at $100, $50,
$25 and $10...

Dondi3
(not ours to unnerstand)
DONDI enterprises. BUY, SELL, TRADE. RARE COINS & PRECIOUS METALS
Member COINNET, CSNS, ANA, INA, MOON, ILNA.