2010 Jane Pierce First Spouse Gold Coin

Tomorrow June 3, 2010 at 12:00 Noon ET, the 2010 Jane Pierce First Spouse Gold Coin and Bronze Medal will go on sale at the United States Mint. This will mark the second release of the year for the 24 karat gold coin series, and the fifteenth release since the series began in 2007.

The Jane Pierce First Spouse Coin features a portrait of the First Lady on the obverse, as designed by Donna Weaver and sculpted by Don Everhart. The reverse depicts her sitting and listening to debates in the visitor’s gallery of the Old Senate Chamber in the U.S. Capitol Building. This image was also designed by Donna Weaver, but sculpted by Charles L. Vickers.

The gold coins are struck at the West Point Mint and carry the “W” mint mark. Each coin contains one half ounce of 24 karat gold and is available in either proof or uncirculated format.

Based on recent gold prices, the proof version will be priced at $779 per coin and the uncirculated version will be priced at $766 per coin. These will represent the highest initial offering prices for an issue of the series. The prior release featuring Abigail Fillmore had coins initially priced at $729 and $716. The Margaret Taylor coins had previously carried the highest initial pricing at $754 and $741.

There is a mintage limit of 15,000 coins set across both proof and uncirculated versions of the Jane Pierce First Spouse Gold Coins. There will be no household ordering limits imposed. This year the US Mint lowered the maximum mintages after maintaining the level at 40,000 coins for the first two years of the series.

To coincide with the new release, sales of the Letitia Tyler and Julia Tyler coins are expected to end tomorrow. These coins will be notable in that they will once again set a new mintage low for the First Spouse Gold Coin series.

As of the latest US Mint sales report, the Letitia Tyler First Spouse Coin has sold 3,152 uncirculated and 5,163 proof coins for an overall total of 8,315. The Julia Tyler First Spouse Coin has sold 2,861 uncirculated and 4,830 proof coins for an overall total of 7,691. In comparison to other gold coins issued by the United States Mint during the past few decades, these levels are undeniably minuscule.

Coin Update News: Complete US Mint Sales Report

Facebook Twitter Email


  1. Anonymous says

    One needs to look at the overall mintage for a single design, not how many proofs and how many uncirculated versions were individually minted.

    An overall mintage of fewer than 7,700 coins is indeed low, but demand for the First Spouse coins has recently been low. Low demand, low secondary market values.

    Finally, have mintages reached rock bottom? Probably not. I see further declines ahead until say, the Buchanan Liberty or Mary Lincoln coins are introduced.

  2. Anonymous says

    Watch for total mintages under 5000 for proof and unc for future spouse coins. These things just aren't appealing and prices keep going up. But there are those who think they are winners and to those I say go for it.

  3. Michael says

    "One needs to look at the overall mintage for a single design, not how many proofs and how many uncirculated versions were individually minted."

    I don't think that's necessarily true. Check the mintage differences between the unc and proof versions of the 1997 Jackie Robinson $5 Gold and 2000 Library of Congress $10 Commemorative, among others. The unc versions have low mintages and drive huge premiums above the values of the proof versions.

    For the First Spouse Coins, the mintage differences between the two versions are not as pronounced, but I do think the levels for each are important.

  4. Anonymous says

    Unappealing coins are unappealing coins, no matter how few of them there are.
    The Perth Mint makes a lot of low mintage coins, 5000 or less. The vast majority of them are lame and overpriced, like this series, and nobody cares. Every once in a great while, there might be a fad to collect one of them but don't get caught holding them when the fad ends.

  5. Anonymous says

    I wonder why the mint put the Jane Pierce obverse design on the reverse as well? Did the artists fall asleep with this one?

  6. Anonymous says

    I too noticed that the portrait of Jane Pierce on the obverse looks like a "magnified" version of her on the reverse. It's true that it is not a very attractive coin at all. But, it IS part of the First Spouse set and no set can be complete without it.

    Now that there will be fewer than 2,900 possible complete sets of Uncirculated First Spouse gold coins, they are starting to shine even brighter. Demand WILL catch up for this series. The mintages are just too low for them to be snubbed forever. The pattern has held true for years. The coins that no one seems to want during the availability period from the Mint are the ones that end up having huge premiums later.

  7. Anonymous says

    "Julia Tyler Unc. At under 3k, tempting…."

    Buying a Julia Tyler coin at this point will probably only get you someone else's previously returned coin, I'm afraid. Any of those the Mint can't dump before Noon ET tomorrow will just be melted down I would imagine.

  8. Anonymous says

    "Julia Tyler Unc. At under 3k, tempting…."

    We may have not yet seen the low point for the First Spouse series. Looking at the Taylor, Filmore, and Pierce coins, I'd say that sales could continue to drop.

    I think there will be more sales for the Buchanan Liberty and Mary Lincoln coins. That may then lead to increased interest in future offers.

    Of course, much will depend on the price of gold in the future. If gold continues to climb, collectors will buy one coin instead of two…

  9. Anonymous says

    There won't be more than a couple hunderd complete spouse sets if that many. Whats a complete set gonna cost, maybe north of 50 or 60 large when all is said and done? There is just not a lot of folks that are gonna see that through to the end. And not likely gold gonna drop to $400/oz or even close. This is a set that should have been done in silver or clad.

  10. Anonymous says

    "This is a set that should have been done in silver or clad."

    Don't forget – collectors can assemble a set in BRONZE. And many have. Given the choice for a First spouse collection in gold, silver, or bronze, I'd go with bronze, considering current metal prices and the appearance of the coins.

  11. Anonymous says

    "Now that there will be fewer than 2,900 possible complete sets of Uncirculated First Spouse gold coins, they are starting to shine even brighter."

    I doubt you you find more than 200 people that will be interested in buying a "complete unc set". If that is your goal, great, you will not have ANY problem in achieving it.

  12. Anonymous says

    The mint should have done all of these coins in high relief, they might have sold better had they done that.

  13. Anonymous says

    I'm just an odd duck I guess but I really like these coins. I even think the Jane Pierce obverse is nice. The reverse is a bit much though. If at all possible I'll keep buying both the Unc. and Proof. I never thought I'd say this but I wish gold would stay where it is for awhile. I love the UHR, and the gold Buffaloes, but one is enough. The variety makes this bunch special and the mintages just add to my interest and obsession.

  14. Anonymous says

    "I doubt you you find more than 200 people that will be interested in buying a "complete unc set". If that is your goal, great, you will not have ANY problem in achieving it."

    Yes, a complete set would be a tough sell AS a complete set. While it will be VERY impressive to see the coins all together at once, the price for a complete set will be way out of reach for many collectors to spend at one time. It would take a very rich buyer or a museum to be a realistic buyer.

    No, the real factor that will drive higher prices for the coins will be because of those who attempt the challenge of building a complete set one coin at a time. Some of the coins will be so rare that they won't show up for sale very often. When one does show up, as long as there are just two or more collectors who want it, the price will be driven up. It will be much easier for them to buy the coins individually, although it would likely cost more in the long run. But, part of the fun will be in gathering them all yourself. It's kind of like it used to be when I was a kid with my baseball cards. Sure, I could buy a complete set all at once, but it was much more fun to put together a complete 792 card Topps set by buying packs and finding all of the cards myself. It sure did cost a lot more, though!

  15. Anonymous says

    Hey, theres an idea born from comment above. Replace the spouse series with the 1954 Yankees for the remaining coins. A different team member on each coin with stats on reverse. Use the Topps photo as the model for the obverse (of course with Topps permission first).

  16. Anonymous says

    As a collector, I was contacted by the contractor that does surveys for the US Mint in the mid-2000s. They invited several collectors from the mid-Tennessee area to come to Nashville and discuss US Mint products. One of the products that was discussed was the First Spouse Series. I remember everyone in the room stating that the Mint should have a Gold president coin and perhaps a silver First Spouse coin. Nobody (including the women present) thought it was worth the effort to have gold spouse coins. Initially after their release, it appeared that we were wrong. However, many lost interest after the first few coins, and flippers started melting them down for their gold value (not numismatic value).

    So here we are today…a mandated gold coin from the Mint that has relatively few collectors during a time when gold prices are skyrocketing. They should have made gold presidents instead (imagine Washington, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, etc. in gold instead of clad).

  17. Anonymous says

    I'm glad demand is so low. I still think these low-mintage coins will be very popular someday.

    At least they will never be worthless, due to their gold content. I'm willing to gamble.

  18. Anonymous says

    The Mint has already stopped taking orders for Julia Tyler. I just tried to place a last-minute order for one more, and despite the fact that it showed "In stock", it changed the order total to .00 and would not go through.

    Too bad, that coin should have some nice short-term price appreciation.

  19. VABEACHBUM says

    Michael – looks like we need a clean-up on Blog isles one through five. Anon at 12:40 AM has inserted hotlinks to "who knows where" on 4 of the 5 current boards. Didn't get to the Yellowstone board, but it doesn't discuss gold, either. Hock your non-numismatic wares somewhere else!! On to the important things….

    This latest twist to the numismatic pricing is a fiasco!! I must say that I do like the ideas of some previous posters – price at spot plus mark-ups. If you consider that some of the 3rd party sellers (MCM, Gainesville, APMEX) are offering raw, 2010 Gold Buffalo Bullions at spot plus $50, AND are making a profit, then how much did they pay the Mint for their purchase? More importantly, given those numbers, how much did it actually cost the Mint to manufacture them?

    Since the Mint has no intention of producing the fractional Buffs, they could start reducing the manufacturing costs by going back to the Presentation Binders used for the 2006 and 2007 Gold Buffs. Personally, I thought those Proof coins really popped against that Navy Blue Binder. I really don't need the coin in a coffin, but that's just me.

    In a previous Spouse Board, I had proposed that interest (sales) for this series would fall off greatly after the Buchanan and Lincoln Coins, to the point that program numbers might be cut to 10K coins(or lower) across all options. While there might be possible resurgences – and increased numbers – for Eleanor Roosevelt, Jackie Kennedy or Lady Bird Johnson, I believe the next 2 years of the series, the cost of gold, and the Mint's devolving pricing policies will define the dedicated collectors and the potential for complete PR and UNC sets.

    I'll stay in my "one set of each marathon" as long as my health, employment and the economy will allow, and I'll continue to manage my collecting, purchasing and selling strategies to ensure that I finish the race.

    Good Luck to All.

  20. Anonymous says

    Do you guys think, because of low demand, the mint will eventually decide to cancel the First Spouse series? Has the mint ever canceled a series of coins before in the past before it was completed?

  21. Anonymous says

    I thought the spouse coins were mandated by a law enacted by congress. Therefore no cancellation even if they only sell 500 of one spouse. Wow that would be a rare bird but who would want it other than the 500 who bought it.

  22. VABEACHBUM says

    For the poster inquiring about program cancellation, I have wondered about some of your very same questions.

    To the best of my knowledge, the Spouse program is the first long term, "unique" bullion coin program. The ASE and AGE programs are (were) long term, but the coins are mostly consistent in design and presentation. I think the first iteration of the 50 State Quarters was THE inaugural unique coin program.

    I won't clutter this blog with hot links, so go to the Mint website and navigate to Pressroom, Legislation and Circulating Coins. There you will find the body of the 2005 Presidential Dollar Act that defines the $1 Coins, the Spouse Coins, the Buffalo Coins, and the Lincoln redesign. An easy and interesting read at 13 pages.

    Since the program is legislated, the Spouse Coins must be produced. However, the law also contains this cheviot: "The Secretary Shall – 'prescribe, on the basis of such factors as the Secretary determines to be appropriate, the maximum number of bullion coins that shall be issued with each of the designs selected'…"

    This language allowed the Secretary to establish the program at 40K coins across all options, reduce it to 15K, specify 20K for Lincoln and, if necessary, can further reduce numbers in the future.

    The Mint is mandated by law to make the coins, and another law would be required to end the program early. However, one person gets to determine how many of each coin are made at any give time!!

  23. Anonymous says

    The mint owes all of us a refund on the difference in higher gold price they charged this week.

  24. Anonymous says

    I could actually see the mint deciding to end the spouse series at some logical point, say with the last 19th century spouse.

    With the price gouging they do with these coins though i doubt they end it.

  25. Anonymous says

    Regarding law allowing Secretary to determine mintage nos. The Secretary may determine mintage but buyers determine how many are sold. So the Secretary says mint 5000 but they only sell 1000. Do not the remaining 4000 eventually end up in the melt pot?

  26. Anonymous says

    "So the Secretary says mint 5000 but they only sell 1000. Do not the remaining 4000 eventually end up in the melt pot?"

    No, because the Mint does not produce the maximum mintage of a coin all at once. They are not going to waste their time and effort minting coins that might not sell. The coins are only produced to demand for the most part. There might be a few left over at the end of the sales period, but no where near the maximum.

  27. Anonymous says

    No offense, but I think many of the First Spouse gold coins are simply unattractive,

    The only thing attractive about many of the coins is the fact that they are made of gold.

    But maybe that lack of appeal is a good thing – fewer will buy it and make individual pieces much more rare.

    By the way, you can find individual First Spouse coins on eBay that sell for less than the US Mint's current sales price.

  28. Anonymous says

    Limited demand leads to fewer sales. Limited demand also leads to lower secondary market values.

    Few of the First Spouse coins are selling significantly above their original sales prices. Exceptions include the Jackson and van Buren First Spouse coins. Also, MS70 and PR70 rated coins.

  29. Anonymous says

    I wouldn't be surprised if these coin commission and review boards who complained about coin design may have just signed their retirement papers. Look for them to be replaced by those who say the mint products are incomparable, cutting edge designs taking us into the future where no one has gone before. Leaving the past failed policies of coin design behind us.

  30. Anonymous says

    Serious question –

    Have any of the uncirculated First Spouse gold coins been selling at a higher price than the higher-mintage proof versions?

    I checked eBay, and in general (again, in general), the proof versions sell for about the same or higher than the uncirculated versions, even though the mintages are higher.

    Just wondering….

  31. Anonymous says

    The proof spouse sell for more than the unc spouse because the mint charged more for the proof and the series is still young.

  32. Anonymous says

    Coin collecting is a male-dominated hobby. Thus, any design that has MAN appeal is going to be popular (Cowboy and Indians, military (Marines, Army, wars), Lady Liberty, etc.).

    Designs that feature real (historical) WOMEN don't do well (Susan B. Anthony, First Spouses, etc.)

    So don't expect the First Spouse gold coins to do well. If collectors want mass appeal, the US Mint is going to have to cater to women as well.

    I'll bet that most of the visitors to this blog are men. Perhaps it's 100% men…. Any women out there??

    Time for designs featuring roses, babies, lace, etc. Women appeal is so important.

  33. Anonymous says

    Personally, I think that there is going to have to be at least one significantly lower mintage coin (proof and uncirculated combined) produce before collectors and investors will show interest again in the First Spouse series.

    A double die error, an early (and unanticipated) sell out, etc. may be what is needed.

    I've seen the US Mint play these games before – having an early sell out to spark interest in future offerings (e.g., Sacagawea coin rolls).

    I'm wondering if we might be in for a surprise in the future….

  34. Anonymous says

    The 1997 gold UNC Jackie Robinson with 5,500 minted demands an incredible price. When you compare the Robinson coin to the Spousal's, the worst Spousals are equally UGLY. The portrait on the Robinson is NOT attractive either and the revers, a 'baseball'… I definitely think the Spousal coins will be an eventual winner on the low, low mintage's alone. Most are far more attractive that a portrait and baseball reverse.

  35. Anonymous says

    Everybody knows Jackie Robinson, he's a sports hero, its not one of a series of 40 coins, and he had some significant accomplishments. Julia Tyler got lucky and married someone who became president. Not saying shes a nobody just not the stature or in same the league (pun intended) of a Jackie Robinson. If you think the spouses are winners then go for it.

  36. Anonymous says

    I agree with the above post. Comparing the single Jackie Robinson gold coin to the set of First Spouse gold coins is like comparing a single apple with a set of oranges.

    No comparison can be made between apples and oranges. Likewise, no comparison can be made between the Robinson and First Spouse coins — ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL….

  37. Anonymous says

    This post now has as just many post as the Buffalo proof…the Spouse and Buffalo sure stir up a lot of interest! Once the TV coin shows and print media start to hype the first spouse coin series and the general public in America finally wakes up to gold and silver ownership you will see rich women and men bidding for compete FS sets. Those TV shows make common junk coins seem rare and get 3 times their retail value. Just ask 10 people on the street if they are aware that they can but FS gold coins from the mint. I bet 10 out of 10 say no. Ask then if they know where to buy physical gold and silver and I bet 9O% will say no. Average americans are not into gold and silver yet. Once they are the prices will go to the moon and that will be the time to get out.

  38. Anonymous says

    Name three US coins out loud – any three – featuring real/historical women (clearly Lady Liberty does not count) that have appreciated significant in value.

    …. still waiting to hear three…. Yawn….

    C'mon now…. Still waiting. How many First Spouse coins have been issued?

    Point made.

  39. Anonymous says

    I really don't care how low the mintages stay, or how much some of you knock them, or put them down. Once Eleanor Roosevelt, Jackie Kennedy, Lady Bird, and heaven forbid, Hillary get their coins (and I know Hillary may not). Watch the interest explode

  40. Anonymous says

    Please keep criticizing the FS series!

    I have collected and will continue to collect each coin in both MS70 and PF70 grades. They go straight to the insured vault where I won't look at them again for 30 years when I am 60.

    The more you folks can do to discourage demand and to urge melting the few coins minted, the more interesting my collection will be in 2040.

    Again, thanks for help!

  41. Anonymous says

    Historically, the stock market increases about 7% each year. So in 30 years, with compounding interest, how much would $700 accrue?

    Would it increase as much as a First Spouse coin?


  42. Anonymous says

    To June 5, 2010 10:47 AM–

    I invest much more in the stock market, but it's not a hobby…it's dead serious retirement planning business.

    Coin collecting is a ton of fun and something I've done since I was a kid.

    When I'm doing business, I consult my financial planner. Otherwise, starting and completing collections of odd or controversial coins makes for a nice Saturday afternoon.


  43. Anonymous says

    Someone asked for coins with women that have appreciated, one coin is the Sacajawea Goodacre coin with a mintage of 5000. It has done very well for buyers.

  44. Anonymous says

    First rule of coin collecting: buy what you like and can afford. If you are investing, speculating, or flipping then good luck. You are on your own.

  45. Anonymous says

    "You clearly are self-delusional."

    That's exactly what everyone was telling me back in 2001 when I went all-in gold and silver. I was saying the dollar is going to be worthless, the markets are going to crash, etc. etc. etc.

    And to be clear what I meant was during the mania phase the price of gold is going to the moon not the price of FS coins. It's possible the premiums for all modern gold coins will disappear once gold reaches some astronomical price point.

  46. Anonymous says

    I must be "self-delusional" also it's clear to me ,given time heals all pain. The price's may yo-yo low to high in the next 30 yrs. but as the Red Book shows time and low mintage shows growth in price.Do your own reshearch on history of coins and mintages. I'm not to say 30 yrs from now our children will like this set and try to complete. I for one have attempted or completed the past sets way before I was born then sold for a huge price. By doing so I have paid a healthy premium over issue cost from the mint. Future always holds inflation that so far is a fact. Sometimes we are blind of the things in front of us. Hope our children's children likes this set.

  47. Anonymous says

    The stock market is a better investment, long-term. A fool would put all of his/her retirement savings into gold alone. If you try it, don't say we didn't warn you…


    Historically, the stock market increases about 7% each year. So in 30 years, with compounding interest, how much would $700 accrue?

    Would it increase as much as a First Spouse coin?


  48. Anonymous says

    The Stock Market is a giant ponzi scheme, recently and continually bailed out by tax dollars to avoid total collapse. For most investors 2~3 years is long term. Some venture capitalist want out in 6 months with 1:20 returns. What's long term to you? If your in the ponzi scheme don't forget to subtract capital gains tax, broker fees, early withdraw penalties and FED inflation from your "gains".

    2000-2010 Gold CLEARLY out performs the Dow (and most other asset classes too)

    The Dow has gone from 11000 in 2000 to 9932 in 2010.

    Gold has gone from $270 in 2000 to $1220 in 2010.

    I declare GOLD the CLEAR WINNER.

    I also declare 2008 buffalo's, reverse proof eagles, UHR's, the 1999 silver proof sets, etc, etc, etc, additional super winners.

    Now lets see what the next 10 years bring as World Gov. enters bankruptcy.

    If you want to get rich put all your money in the one thing that outperform everything else. Diversification is a protection against ignorance.

  49. Anonymous says

    This is a whole new world kid,don't count on the past to predict the future. Look at your stock return % for the past 12 years.That may be the future when the baby boomers retire and pull out.

  50. Anonymous says

    Anonymous at June 6, 2010 10:09 AM.

    You are a fool. Go ahead and put all of your retirement savings into gold.

    You'll be left with only your social security…. (!) .

  51. Anonymous says

    2:38,your watching too much cnbc and what makes you think social security is going to be around in the future? Can you say double dip? It's coming

  52. Anonymous says

    Anonymous above at 3:10 —

    I can retire soon – social security will be here for me. Can't say it will be around for you….

  53. Anonymous says

    Dang, I didn't realize all I needed to do to feel secure with my financial future was to read this blog…I can sleep well tonight!

  54. Anonymous says

    Please don't fool people with 7% claim of market return. It is simply a lie. Most of investors have diversified portfolios , that brings the return right a way to 3 %. Don,t forget companies tend to delute stocks all the time, when they need money they issue new stocks, when they give CEO a bonus it has stock option . This all investment was designed to shift all the risk to us working people.

  55. Anonymous says

    To the dude or dudette above who thinks they are going to retire soon with social security. Are you retiring next month? What makes you think its gonna be here next year?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *