Pricing changes for 2018 United States Mint numismatic products

The United States Mint is announcing pricing changes for some 2018 United States Mint Numismatic Products. Please see the table below:

Product

2018 Retail Price

United States Mint Proof Set

$27.95

United States Mint Silver Proof Set

49.95

United States Mint Uncirculated Coin Set

21.95

United States Mint America the Beautiful Quarters Proof Set

15.95

United States Mint America the Beautiful Quarters Silver Proof Set

33.95

United States Mint Limited Edition Silver Proof Set

144.95

United States Mint America the Beautiful Uncirculated Set

13.95

United States Mint America the Beautiful Circulating Set

8.95

United States Mint America the Beautiful Five Ounce Silver Uncirculated Coin

154.95

United States Mint American Eagle One Ounce Silver Proof Coin

55.95

United States Mint American Eagle One Ounce Silver Uncirculated Coin

46.95

United States Mint American Eagle Bulk Pack

11,749.50

United States Mint Congratulations Set

56.95

For further information contact:

Katrina McDow, marketing specialist, Numismatic and Bullion Directorate; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW; Washington, DC 20220; or call 202-354-8495.

Press release courtesy of the United States Mint.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

Facebook Twitter Email

Comments

  1. A&L Futures says

    This change in pricing, given today’s silver SPOT is ludicrous. Just another example of the continued fleecing by corporate America. Awh who am I kidding, keep it up U.S. Mint. By 2020 your base will be all but extinct.

    Just another RCM in the making. Perhaps in the months/years to come, the U.S. Mint will have a regular spot on HSN. Move over Mike, the U.S. Mint is coming for your job…

  2. Tinto says

    Wouldn’t be surprised if in the future the Mint also raises the price of commemorative coins (maybe not gold but…) … hopefully they will do it after the Moon landing one …

  3. Jerry Diekmann says

    Absolutely no reason for these price increases – neither base metals nor silver have not changed in price to warrant increasing the prices like this. Yes, as A&L Futures predicted, by 2020 there will be a lot less buyers of Mint products. Three times spot for silver is absurd.

    I am voting with my pocketbook – I will be buying ZERO WW I coins and medals. The coin itself is bugly.

  4. Erik H says

    The price increases are do to inflation. The Federal Reserve may not see it but the Mint does. Read cagcrisp’s posts, the mint is losing money so they have to increase prices plus collectors are buying less from the mint. Some fixed operating cost remain the same so prices must rise.

    On previous thread there was some discussion of ATBs. I sold a “P” ATB at the FUN show and it took forever to find a buyer that would pay over spot. The ATB was an extra and I could have held it until silver increased or sold it on eBay for a little more (after fees etc.) but I wanted the cash to buy other things so I took the loss.

    Daveinswfl, “cash is king” at FUN!! Only a few dealers took C.C. and they aren’t going to give you a deal if you use a card. Didn’t see anybody taking Bitcoin (maybe someone was I didn’t get to every table).

  5. My Preccciousss says

    Erik H:

    Which ATB “P” were you selling? That would be helpful to know – it does make some difference.

  6. Daveinswfl says

    EricH,
    Trust me, I’m not thrilled about the coming cashless society.
    Cash was also king during Irma and its aftermath.
    Just wondering how these people in power propose to keep us civil in electronic outage situations – of if they really even care.
    My fiat conversion is coming along nicely, though.
    Guess living off the grid may become a valuable future investment. We have an entire solar powered community which just opened down here in SWFL!

    The mint is pricing themselves out of business, if their goal is to be profitable. The reduced sales level on PM product along with their sales and return policies will ultimately make them into just another money wasting gvt agency, IMHO.

  7. cagcrisp says

    Raising prices on Silver Products is the Exact thing the Mint should do.

    Here is a post that I made :

    May 8, 2017 at 12:56 pm

    Supply side economics argues that “lower marginal tax rates and less regulation” increases growth. You WILL hear this time and time again as we proceed forward with Proposed tax cuts for corporations and Proposed tax cuts for individuals. Cut taxes and “Growth” will make up the Loss in tax revenue. Supply side economics have been championed ever since Arthur Laffer and David Stockman were with Ronald Regan when he was president. George H Bush called supply side economics “voodoo economics”.

    The Mint tried a version of supply side economics with 4 of the 5 “P” pucks in 2014. The first 4 “P” pucks that year had a 10% discount on Subscriptions. No Subscription, no 10% discount.

    Why did the Mint try the 10% discount? The supply side theory would be that Lowering the cost by 10% would create so much demand (growth) that the overall profit margins would Exceed profit margins Before lowering cost.

    Did it work? It failed Miserably from a financial point of view. How Miserably did it fail? It failed So bad that the 10% discount was Stopped Before the 5th “P” puck (Everglades) was released in 2014. Yes there was an increase in Subscription sales, however, profit margins did Not exceed pre discount levels and on the Discontinuing of the discount, profit margin level percentages returned to previous levels. Basically it never increased subscriptions on volume enough to offset the loss in revenue by the 10% subscription cut.

    Here are the Mints numismatic net profit margins for the past few years for “Silver coin Products”:

    2016 29.5%
    2015 31.0%
    2014 11.0% This year had the 10% subscription discount for the first 4 “P” pucks
    2013 31.9%
    2012 32.7%
    2011 41.2%

    Compare the Above net profit margins to the Entire 2014 fiscal year that had the 4 “P” pucks that had the 10% subscription and you will see just how much Lowering the “P” pucks by $15.00/each lowered Overall net profit margins.

    In 2014 the “Silver coin Products” numismatic net margin was a measly 11.0%.

    Considering the volume of “P” pucks vs. other silver products and I would argue that the Mint was lucky to break even on “P” puck sales for the 4 “P” pucks sold with a subscription discount in 2014.

    The Mint is currently in Dire Straits for profits…

    …SO…Lowering the price of the “P” pucks will be the last thing the Mint should do…

  8. Felson says

    Raising prices is what a business does… when it is losing customers. It also adds to the loss of more customers.

  9. KCSO says

    cagcrisp says
    JANUARY 6, 2018 AT 9:34 AM

    “Raising prices on Silver Products is the Exact thing the Mint should do.”

    – Stop buying mint products, with a few exceptions, is what I WILL DO

  10. KCSO says

    I’m really taken back with something –

    I really thought the mint did a low run on the Rogers P Puck to sell it out sooner than the others, and essence, put more pressure on the 2016 Moultrie and early-2017 Animal Crackers, which are still available and probably a good 1,000 to 1,500 coins left.

    Right? We’ve seen where the mint has sold out of other pucks in 2016 sells out of a puck and then the others sales numbers increase.

    Well, Rogers Clark went CU over two weeks ago,

    Now it came back yesterday AND is STILL available,

    So unless it goes CU soon..,, I’m going to presume that the mint went back and struck another run of Rogers Clark,

    So, not only a $ increase for 2018…, though as the saying goes, you get screwed at the drive thru…,

    Rogers was 14,834’ish to Volcanoes 14,860…, we’ll probably NO MORE. Thanks Mint!

  11. KCSO says

    A&L – to you point, to which totally agree;

    I’ve long believed that collectors buy more than just one example, often times, of an example, either for the collection, as a gift, as an ‘investment’ or probably for a flip to off set the cost of the one or few they want to keep.

    I highly doubt, in raising their pricing when Ag spot has been STAGNANT for years, that these clowns at HQ conducted an analysis of how many examples of each offering is purchased by individuals of their core base.

    For example, what % of those buy P Pucks buy 2, buy 3, buy 4.., etc., I bet the % is relatively high to other mint offerings.

    Well, no more this cat.

    $5 is no big deal for more, though for what you articulate above, for me it’s psychological and the principle and that matters.

    I bet in 2018 we experience/observe –

    – Gain a better understanding of what the true collector base of P Pucks is
    – Those collectors that buy multiples pull back considerably
    – Volcanoes mintage will be challenged not one time, though perhaps two or more times
    – Block Island and Cumberland P Pucks sales will be dismal
    – The mint’s Golden Goose, the American Silver Eagle Proof, collector base, will erode considerablely
    – Highly quality, more reasonably priced Bullion from the Perth Mint, among others, picks up mint customers and experiences consistent YoY sales

  12. KCSO says

    Flash back to 2014 –

    Gatlinsburg, Shenandoah, Arches, and Great Dunes ‘P’ Pucks sold between 24,000 and 28,700 units.

    That’s upwards or over 10,000 units over current sales numbers.

    If those sales were a failure, that’s on the mint.

    10,000 over today’s sales numbers is a 55% increase over today’s # – if they can’t make money at a $139.95 price point for a ‘P’ Puck at sales of 24,000 to 28,700.., that’s not my problem,

    I think they’re being Greedy.

  13. Jerry Diekmann says

    I have bought multiple sets or coins over the years, but as the Mint continues to raise prices, I continue to lower the number of units I buy; the most of anything I would buy years ago was 5 of something, and now it’s down to 4, 3, 2, and 1. I will actually spend less money – inflation be damned – as the prices go up. Doesn’t demand side economics make a helluva lot more sense than supply side economics, aka “voodoo economics”?

    The latest iteration of supply side economics is this horrible increase the deficit monstrosity tax bill just enacted into law. I predict it will be an utter failure in its faulty belief that giving the rich more income (money) means that the extra money they have will “trickle down” to the middle class and poor. It’s not going to happen – because of what drives the rich – greed – they will keep it all or at least 99% of it and throw the serfs some crumbs and say that they’re making America great again. Not going to happen.

  14. Barry says

    It is still better that the dollars stay in the private sector rather than be redistributed by the politicians. It is not a revenue problem in DC it is deficit spending. Spending should reduced to equal revenue but, we have “Crossed the Rubicon” as they say so I don’t see them ever getting out of that box. .Most taxpayers will end up with some extra money with the new tax law (to buy coins if they wish). So that is good.

  15. Larry says

    There is a picture in the latest Coin World of the upcoming 1/10th OZ American Liberty gold coin. Even though it is a small coin, it appears to be high relief. Does anyone know if that is true? I might buy one of these.

  16. Felson says

    I am hoping young people will take the tax break as an opportunity to invest in their own futures and invest in a 401k. The younger generation has no chance at pension programs since the stock market/401k programs have wiped those off the books in most major industries, and they only have one chance to start early to save for retirement.

  17. Tinto says

    And IF this tax break also leads US corporations to increase stock buybacks and increase dividends … wonder how much of a % is held by the non US folks/corporations/etc. …

  18. Tom says

    The price increase must mean that the distribution centers are more efficient and the packaging is of the best quality. Extra bubble wrap for all!

  19. Erik H says

    KCSO, I sold an Arches which fortunately was one of the cheaper issues. However, I don’t think it would have mattered. Old timers don’t care and see it as bullion. Those that know what it is say “I have to make money off of it”.

    I saw some issues that were price at spot + $3. One guy I talked to said people coming by his table didn’t know anything about the Pd Eagles either. I think those looking for moderns buy in a “modern” way ( the internet) not at coin shows.

    Larry, I did see the 1/10 oz Liberty at the show, it was hard to see the relief because it was on a rotating display with Pt. Proof Eagle. If the price was the same as the 1/10 oz eagle I’d consider buying one (but we all know it will be overpriced).

  20. earthling says

    If they need a bit of extra cash at the Mint perhaps bringing back the 1/4 oz Buffalo would be a good idea. They could do it as plain bullion, BU W-Mintmark, and Proof. A winning trifecta of a very popular Coin.

  21. Joe M. says

    I would absolutely buy a set of 1/10 oz gold buffaloes 🙂
    Reverse proof, unc, proof, satin, enhanced….and throw in silver and platinum!!
    I’m not joking.
    I’d love to see AND COLLECT those sets 🙂
    I don’t care if they aren’t low mintage…I’d buy them for me 🙂
    I’d also love to see the 1921 peace dollar in gold for 2021.

  22. cagcrisp says

    As Long as I’ve been posting on MNB I’ve said we will continue to have Lower and Lower Mintages, Higher and Higher Prices and More and More Gimmicks.

    Nothing Has Changed.

    The Mint has NO alternative to Higher prices IF the Mint is remain Profitable on the Numismatic side.

    Here is the Last 6 years of Net Income for the Numismatic side of the United States Mint:

    2011 Net Income Numismatics $103.8 million
    2012 Net Income Numismatics $51.0 million
    2013 Net Income Numismatics $66.5 million
    2014 Net Income Numismatics $22.7 million
    2015 Net Income Numismatics $40.8 million
    2016 Net Income Numismatics $8.9 million

    $8.9 million Net Income for FY2016 that ended September 30th 2016.

    We have yet to see numbers for FY2017 that ended September 30th 2017.

    You look at the Decreasing Mintage numbers and Decreasing Revenue numbers for CY2017 and you see why the Mint really has No alternative than to have Higher and Higher Prices and More and More Gimmicks…

  23. Larry says

    @cagcrisp – the mint has other alternatives. Fire whoever is in charge and hire someone that will try and figure out why they are losing revenue. Maybe it’s not just the number of folks in the hobby going down, but maybe much of the problem is the mints practices finally catching up with it. How many times have we read in this blog people saying after they were shut out of getting the latest hot coin that they were done with the mint. Perhaps a new boss could change some of the mints practices in that respect. Unfortunately the real boss in part is Congress, so we would need to fire all of them.
    The mint could also lay off people, and condense its offerings to things they know make the most revenue. That may be bad for collectors, but real companies find ways to be profitable or go out of business.

  24. Felson says

    Larry…you are using common sense and logic. I recall when I first started collecting coins. The mint shipped free and you could purchase a mint set that included a marginal profit for the mint. The mint changed that model and started losing customers as they started increasing prices. They have now succeed in losing enough customers that the only way they can create a marginal profit is to increase the prices even further, instead of attempting to gain customers to offset lower returns.

    The solution isn’t in refining their profit margins and spending and design issues, it is to increase prices and alienate even more customers.

    Breaking even annually should be the goal of the mint. The dent made to the national debt made by them is minimal and it is laughable to believe anyone outside of coin collectors even see it.

  25. earthling says

    The Mint needs to start by dropping the Cent and probably the Nickel and Dime also. These are the Coins I find on the ground the most. It makes no sense to keep on losing with Cents except for bribes and payoffs to certain DC Alligators in the swamp.

  26. Larry says

    Hey earthling, you know those pennies you find on the ground are pennies from heaven sent by angels, don’t you?

  27. cagcrisp says

    The Largest Money Losers from the Mint are mandated by Congress.

    The things that they know make the most revenue is Gold and Platinum and if wasn’t for Gold and Platinum the Entire Numismatic side would NOT be Profitable.

    By raising prices on NON Gold and Platinum products the Mint is trying to get products Other than Gold and Platinum to be PROFITABLE.

    We are Not talking about Gouging people.

    We are talking about Profitability.

    You look at the Above Listed price Increase.

    None are Gold or Platinum.

    In FY2016 Numismatic Gold and Platinum were PROFITABLE by $41.1 Million

    In FY2016 ALL OTHER Numismatic products( Silver, clads, medals) in total LOST $32.2 Million

    …SO…If you do as you say and Eliminate ALL money loser then All that would be left is Gold and Platinum…

  28. Dave says

    On the 2017 GRC-P 5oz it looks like they made around 500-600 more. They are down to 300 pieces at the moment.

  29. Buzz Killington says

    @cag —

    Can they really be losing money on the proof ASE? I’m sure if you lump everything together, what you say is true, but the premium built into the Proof ASE seems to be enough to turn some kind of profit, especially since they sell a lot of them.

  30. cagcrisp says

    @Buzz Killington, Since we don’t have any numbers from FY2017 all I have to go by is FY2016 which concluded 15 months ago and the Declining sales number in CY2017.

    I would assume that the Proof ASE is a major contributor to profitability for Silver.

    The Mint is raising prices on the Highest Mintage offerings that they have. You either modestly raise prices on the Highest volume coins OR you are more aggressive in raising prices on the Lesser mintage coins.

    The Mint made the decision to raise prices on their best sellers…

  31. Joe M. says

    The FUGLY, POLITICALLY-CORRECT CRAP issues didn’t help!!!

    The mint only got about 10-20% of what I usually spend per year.

    STOP MAKING UGLY COINS!

    LISTEN TO COLLECTORS, NOT POLITICIANS AND FUN RAISERS!!

  32. cagcrisp says

    In FY2016 the Silver Proof Set, the Proof Set and the Uncirculated Coin Set Combined for a LOSS of $24.1 Million…

    The 2018 Silver Proof Set will be Increased in price by $2.00
    The 2018 Proof Set will be Increased in price by $1.00
    The 2018 Uncirculated Coin Set will be Increased in price by $1.00

    Current mintage of the 2017 Silver Proof Set is 331,053
    Current mintage of the 2017 Proof Set is 542,055
    Current mintage of the 2017 Uncirculated Coin Set is 270,018

    You can see that there is NO way the modest price Increases for these items will make up for $24.1 Million Loss

    …SO…The Mint gets the $ where they can…

  33. Daveinswfl says

    Cag,
    I find that hard to believe. The mintage of those 3 sets combined came to just over 1.2 million units. So they lost $20 per set….and the unc sets aren’t even precious metals. Sounds like government accounting to me 😲🤔
    Plus, they sold 210,000 clad presidential and ATB quarter proof sets which had to be profitable.
    And if not, then the supervisory personnel are not on the ball

  34. cagcrisp says

    @Daveinswfl , “Sounds like government accounting to me”

    KPMG was the accounting firm that signed off on the numbers I reported.

    KPMG is a member of the Big Four accounting firms.

    Can’t get much better than that…

  35. Erik H says

    Since you’re talking about losing money on silver offerings don’t forget that making 90% silver planchets cost more than .999 fine silver. Maybe that’s one reason the silver proof set loses money (that and the usual government waste).

  36. eartholing says

    I grew up near Dover Air Force Base ( in Dover DE). I remember a big deal where it was revealed the Air Farce was being billed $800 for Toilet Seats for the Cargo Planes at Dover AFB. Cost over runs gone mad? A bunch of pencil pushers with no sense of reality?

    This cost stuff at the US Mint is bringing up those old memories. I don’t think Mint Customers are going to sit in the Pot and get boiled for anyones Dinner.

  37. Daveinswfl says

    How do you lose $20 on a set of coins that you sell for $26.95? That’s the price for the 2016 unc Set.

    The Silver Proof Set has $15.57 of silver melt value + face value of cupronickel coins. It sells for $52.95. That leaves $37 for production and they lose another $20! That’s $57 to manufacture and ship a set. That seems highly unlikely.

    And they lose $20 on a proof set of cupronickel that sells for $31.95?

    I’m just not buying that.

    KPMG doesn’t account for lack of efficiency or waste.

    You might recall that Enron passed all their audits with a certain top rated national accounting firm, too!

  38. smalltimecollector says

    Rather than increasing prices, I’d be in for less packaging. The mint over packages for recurrent customers that collect an array of their products. I don’t like to store unwanted containers and such. I don’t display coins.
    Also, what is with all the mailers, trying to usurp Harriet Carter for the title queen of the mail-outs?
    Is there a chance someone thinks that because of sell-outs of some items that customers will buy more?
    I also imagine the people making decisions, developing coins, manufacturing and sending out products and associated sales literature, as well and the entire shipping and return department all get paid no matter the interest in offerings of quality of what is sent out.
    It’s time to look at what is being produced and quit the pc presentations. People buying mint products want good basic coins made with quality in mind.

  39. earthling says

    I grew up near Dover Air Force Base ( in Dover DE). I remember (around maybe early 1970 ‘s )a big deal where it was revealed the Air Farce was being billed $800 for Toilet Seats for the Cargo Planes at Dover AFB. Cost over runs gone mad? A bunch of pencil pushers with no sense of reality?

    This cost stuff at the US Mint is bringing up those old memories. I don’t think Mint Customers are going to sit in the Pot and get boiled for anyones Dinner. We feel the heat we’re gone. We’re not Frogs … no one gradually increases the heat on us and boils us alive.

  40. earthling says

    Ahhhh.. I remember a bit more now . Senator Bill Roth exposed a lot of waste , ripoffs, etc on the US Government by Defence Contractors. Someone was charging the Air Farce $800 for replacement Toilet Seats for the C-5 Aircraft. Toilet Seats are worth what.. $25 ? Well that was around 40 years ago so what was a Toilet Sets worth? And this was a C-5 Military Airlifter not the Space Shuttle !

    I think we need another Bill Roth to look into the finances of the US Mint.

  41. Felson says

    Only the US Government could find a way to produce a loss on products they sale with over a 100% / 200% ? markup in the price.

  42. Felson says

    Maybe the US Mint should change their website to an eBay style offering on special coins. List the coins with a buy it now price, make an offer, or bid away…

  43. datadave says

    @Daveinswfl – I agree with you on this one. My guess is that it is due to the way the Mint allocates costs across product lines. Cost of goods to MFG is fairly easy, but how do they account for website costs, management costs, etc? For instance on the website they could distribute the costs across unit sales or as a percentage of sales. If you go by unit sales, the $7 circulated set gets hit the same amount as the $1600 gold proof.

    I’m not sure what they are doing, but if they can’t make money packaging and selling coins at 2.5x face, they need to outsource the work to me.

  44. Erik H says

    Smalltimecollector makes a great point about the mailers too. I have called the mint multiple times over 10 years to try and get them to stop sending me those catalogs but the won’t. Each time I’m told that they take me off the list but I still get 2-3 for each address I have on file.

    According to the Red Book the 1987 Prestige set cost $45 directly from the mint. That set includes 1c,5c,10c,25c &50c clad and a 90% silver commemorive dollar. Silver was around $7 most of the year so it seems the margins were much higher 30 years ago (at least for some products).

  45. Tinto says

    @Daveinswfl

    I remember Enron, esp since I bought some of their stock ….. yup some memory there! And auditors are not infallible …

    The Mint to be reviewed from top to bottom on what they do, from number of personnel, the cost, the type of contracts they have, relationship with AP’s, design, assessing how they solicit submissions for coin designs how they are evaluated, how the public is informed (that FUGLY WWI “coin” with the seeming likeness of the artist comes to mind), how they assess their customers (not the AP’s) .. how about their return policy ? etc etc
    but they won’t until there is a credible threat to their cushy existence IMO

  46. joe#2 says

    The more i look at some of these pieces, The happier i am purchasing my 2 2017w gold proof buffaloes. Don’t know if the mint will put out more of the 2017w gold proof buffaloes, But, regardless, Glad i purchased them. Not to much otherwise down the pike as far as i’m concerned from what i’m seeing, But, Who knows…

  47. John Q. Coinage says

    Erik, selling ATBs is NOT easy, especially for OVER spot or a “P” premium; local coin store said they have NEVER had a customer come in looking for a “P” ATB, and only a couple ever for the ATB period! I may still buy a GRC mint model, I am a sucker I guess…. 1 maybe spot bullion one about $11o so the premium is high but not offensive! The Mint has alienated alot of it’s ‘base’ and raising price$ is not the way to go to get more back or more $, the law of diminishing returns as people have alot of options other than USM! Eg–> $200 for 4 medals, spot = about $108. such a deal & such a non-started design, NOT IF the mint had made it flowing hair ala 1792 or something it would sell out….JFK 100th BD in 2020, the mint is just f’d up these days

  48. Tinto says

    @John Q. Coinage
    “..NOT IF the mint had made it flowing hair ala 1792 or something it would sell out ..”

    Dunno much about copying from previous dies, whatever … but maybe they can’t just copy it anymore because the original is so deteriorated ?? And maybe then the Mint with all their ” artists/etc” don’t have the skills to make up for any deficiencies .. JMO

  49. John Q. Coinage says

    Tinto they could if they had to, had done something that is attractive & historical. The dies who knows…but they had dies for Jefferson Spouse gold, etc. so they have something or some artistic ability..SOMEWHERE… tell me that a silver center large cent struck for the anniversary wouldn’t sell well, or other classics, no we get PC stuff or fugly self-serving commems (BTown, Lions clubbe, etc…)

  50. Daveinswfl says

    Just do away with commems and sell bullion – outsourced.
    Make circulating coinage.
    Before long these mints will be museums, anyway 😥

  51. smalltimecollector says

    Now, that is a concept the mint should explore. Use the original used old dies and change the date. Sell a limited release. Guaranteed no pf70’s, etc for the packagers to glean profits.
    Also consider selling bullion direct to collectors and stackers. 1 roll minimum.

  52. Jerry Diekmann says

    I agree with what Datadave is saying. In cost accounting, determining the cost of goods sold is fairly straightforward. So id the Mint is losing money on overpriced coins and sets, the culprit has to be very high selling and administrative expenses. KPMG probably determined that the selling and administrative expenses were very high, but they are just rendering an opinion on what the Mint has done on its P&L statements, and they are not doing any efficiency study – they would want big bucks for doing that.

    That being said, accounting firms and law firms are similar – they call themselves experts, their practice is an art, subject to change or interpretation and not a science, and they are not all ethical, no matter that they tell everyone they are purer than the new driven snow. Enron was a case in point. One of the biggest accounting firms went under because of the scandal, but the big accounting firms are like the big banks – don’t put too much trust in them to always do the right thing. The bottom line is always $ they can rack up in fees, and the more the better

  53. smalltimecollector says

    Last thought on mint packaging. Reduce the amount of containers to 4 or 5 that will hold everything from sets to pucks to 1/4oz’ers. Sprung fabric boxes could also have limited sizes and the inserts and capsules would be the only thing needing variance.
    The other thing is that the boxes and containers can be optional to purchase. The only mandatory packaging is capsules and whatever they call the cardboard flats sets are mounted.

Leave a Reply

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