Talk:National Collector's Mint

New 9/11 Exploitation Coin

They've got a new one, and it sets the old one to shame in way of tackiness and disgusting exploitation.

http://www.nationalcollectorsmint.com/category_landing.jsp?path=-1&id=4688&promotion=web-wtc&ext=y

A pop-up coin. Put the towers up and knock 'em back down. Real classy.

---

That ad has all the BS of their ads prior to Eliot Spitzer's clampdown on them only now they're no longer claiming it to be legal tender of any sort. I think that more than anything is what drove Spitzer to make an example out of them and shut them down. Their site was down for months and I think they've discontinued or modified the most ecgregious advertising of product lines, like the Puerto Rico "51st State" Quarter(!), now they're "tributes". Also they've stopped giving the precious metal content in the obscure measurement of "mils" as they used to and now just admit there's only 12 mg each of actual gold and silver on that lame, exploitative proof (that's only 1/2600th of a troy ounce, just in case you're wondering, basically electroplated!).

As they are now, they're just a horribly overpriced rip-off shop trying to cash in on every memorial and sentimental thing going.

I just saw a commercial for a $20 piece where they stated it's "government authorized Liberian non-circulating legal tender"... interesting since 1 Libarian Dollar is about one and a half cents in USD. At least they admitted it was .999 proof silver leaf. LOL!65.3.130.211 (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I just searched for "Liberian Legal Tender." It's actually from Liberia...wtf? Beam 17:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually minted in Liberia, but could theoretically be spent there. Governments contract the striking of commemorative coins and stamps all the time as sources of revenue. NCM is probably under a contract or other agreement to give a portion of its profits from sales of the things to the Liberian government in exchange for being able to call it "money". Stamps do it all the time. Some tiny nations and territories like Tokelau and Pitcairn derive a significant revenue from sales of their "official" stamps, but those stamps are actually printed elsewhere and probably are seldom used on the islands themselves. This "9/11" thing is just another in their pathetic line of disaster milking novelties. This year they aren't even bothering to wait until mid-August to start hawking them. And remember! Liberia is now profiting from 9/11 on every sale of this item just like this sad company is. Talshiarr (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

5 4 oz. state silver?? quarters dated 1999.

Are these quarters silver/ sterling? or .999? Any help would be appreciated. How can I confirm that they are silver if indeed they are silver and not just clad. Thank you very much for your response. Mike —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.8.141.131 (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

This isn't really the place to get help. Also, what are you talking about? Beam 00:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are we protecting a horrendous company

Why have all reverences to the unethical practices of this business been removed. I work as a coin dealer and I have to be the one to tell the customer that this company has conned them. Last year I added several of their products to the listing. Unfortunately no reference to questionable business practices remains. We would not remove a discussion of Exxon Valdez from Exxon listing, why would we remove references to painted crap and copies of famous coins sold for insane prices from this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinzy (talk • contribs) 19:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would have no qualms about removing what basically amounts to advertising the coins the company has issued because they are neither important in the world of collecting, nor should such ads be there. I restored a large amount of the article after someone I assume from the company at some level edited out everything negative on this article and on the Avram Freedberg page. As far as references to its unethical practices, Wikipedia isn't the Better Business Bureau or resellerratings.com. If you know of some that can be backed up by articles in respectable publications, by all means add them. Otherwise, the article isn't the place to spread hearsay from individuals. Talshiarr (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• I wanted to mention that article in the current state is much better than I found it last year. The article currently does a good job of mentioning their questionable business practices.--Quinzy (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't remove legit news articles and other factual information

This is the second time that someone, presumably from the company although it's impossible to be sure, has removed all source links and much specific information about the company, and turned the article into a giant advertisement. If that person or persons read this, please explain why you think those articles should not be referenced and please refrain from pasting in all sorts of company spiel from their website as was done in this latest revision. Talshiarr (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Was it reverted? Beam 00:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Back in February when I originally posted my frustration, it was regarding BlueFlight20's removal of all cited articles and sources, and placing links to the company's web site as the only "citations" for anything. There have been intermittent minor changes since by that person and others, none of which have been too out of line in my opinion. This last couple of edits is pushing the limit, however, as again it is stating the $1.9 million in donations is just unassailable fact. Why? Because here's a link to their company site where they say that. I have neither the time nor ambition to chase down the veracity of the claim by contacting the charities and organizations, and I have seen nothing anywhere that contradicts in any way those claims. I have no doubt the company HAS donated money to charity, indeed I have seen posts on a foundation's web forum that gives money to the FDNY that the NCM had sent them donations. If there had not been some donations, the claims would not have gone unchallenged for years. My complaint with the most recent wording change is that now it's "we say so, and for proof that it's true here's a link to a web page where we say so again". It's just a page with a list of names. No amounts, no documentation, no ways to verify anything other than "we say so". So...was the article reverted? No. Is someone trying to make this article look as positive for the company as possible (based I would surmise on reaction to the most recently introduced 9/11 cash-in product)? Absolutely, and I along with others are watching this article closely. I have a strong opinion that pages on Wikipedia about companies and businesses in which direct statements are made about their place in the business community and the larger public should be held to very strict accountability and verifiability standards. I have no wish to be unfair in my edits. On a personal level as a numismatist, collector, and seller of coins, I loathe this company and its past practices. My challenge is to not let that personal feeling affect my edits.Talshiarr (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Collector's Mint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061210062836/http://www.oag.state.ny.us:80/press/2004/oct/oct13a_04.html to http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2004/oct/oct13a_04.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)