The Industry Council for Tangible Assets has formed a committee to recommend candidates for U.S. Mint director to the Obama administration.

My first reaction was huh?

ICTA is a numismatic lobbying organization formed to defend collectors and businessmen from unfair taxes such as state sales taxes on coin and bullion transactions and to win collectors who own coins tax treatment that is identical to the long-term capital gains tax treatment that they get on other investments when the time comes to sell.

ICTA educates dealers about how to comply with all cash transaction reporting requirements to prevent them being entrapped in money laundering.

These are good and necessary undertakings.

ICTA has existed on a shoestring budget since its founding in the early 1980s. Nevertheless, it has won some notable victories in state capitals. There have been some defeats as well, but it is all part of the job.

I believe the organization generally serves a useful purpose in areas most hobbyists view as necessary.

Formation of this committee crosses the line.

Now ICTA is engaging in politics. The Mint director’s job goes to a supporter of the President. When a new President arrives, so does a new Mint director.

The Mint has nothing to do with state sales taxes. It has nothing to do with federal tax policy. It has nothing to do with cash reporting enforcement.

In short, it has nothing to do with ICTA’s historic purpose.

This committee is a loser. It will irritate potential donors who might not agree with its recommendations. ICTA needs all the donors it can get.

With such limited means, ICTA needs to stick to its mission. Picking a Mint director is not part of it.

Today is inauguration day for President Barack Obama. This event and its predecessors always  remind me of the 1961 inauguration of President John F. Kennedy. This isn’t due to any similarity or or any parallel. It is simply because the 1961 event is the first one of which I have any memory at all.

I don’t remember watching the event, but even at my advanced age of five and a half, I could not help but hear the “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country” line that Kennedy spoke. I suppose I  heard this on the radio or saw this on an evening news show when watched by my parents. I don’t really remember that part of it. But the famous line reverberates in my mind. It probably helps that the clip was repeated many times through the years.

Will there be an equally famous line today that we will all remember? We will see.

Numismatically, the Kennedy administration was full of change. It became legal to own Gold Certificates again. We lost Silver Certificates to Federal Reserve Notes.

The handwriting was on the wall for silver in coinage as the Treasury directed price of the metal crept ever closer to the point at which it would exceed face value. It hit $1.2929 in September of 1963, which is the point where the silver in the silver dollar is worth $1.

This development set off the great adventure and chain of events we are still on today. Collectors lament the loss of silver in coins, which occurred under the terms of the Coinage Act of 1965.

The rosey glow of memory makes for silly claims. I have even gotten a letter saying that silver wore better than the clad coinage. That isn’t true, but in the misty idealized past, it should have been.

Where will this attachment to precious metals take us next?

Where are the new Lincoln cents collectors are beginning to ask. It is a natural question. It will be a big year for the denomination. There will be four designs.

The 200th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth arrives on Feb. 12.

Also, collectors are used to finding new cents in their pocket change rather rapidly as a new year begins.

Numismatic News readers usually begin reporting receipt of new cents right about this time. It all depends on the economy. The slower the times, the slower the release of the new dates.

In some years the economy was growing so rapidly and the banking system demand for cents was so high that they were even available at the Florida United Numismatists convention when it was held on the first weekend of January.

This year the FUN convention was held the second weekend of the year and we have just passed the third weekend on the calendar yet I have heard nothing from either readers or the Mint.

So keep your eyes pealed and post a message here, or send me an e-mail at david.harper@fwmedia.com when you find your first 2009-dated coin, cent or otherwise.

Proof 2008 gold American Eagle numbers took additional large jumps in this week’s Mint Statistics that I assemble for Numismatic News from data supplied by the U.S. Mint.

Particularly noteworthy was the increase in the half-ounce coin. It advanced by 3,905 pieces to 14,792. That is a 36 percent increase in supply available to collectors and the secondary market. I mention the secondary market because so many coins these days are bought less by collectors and more by individuals who are trying to profit on perceived low mintages.

Another large increase was recorded by the four-coin set, which includes one of each size. It went from 9,569 sets to 13,072, an increase of 3,503, or almost 37 percent.

Other numbers changed less. The ounce sale total stands at 16,327. The quarter ounce is 15,229 and the tenth ounce is 11,669.

Are these totals low? If we are talking about Lincoln cents or Kennedy half dollars, yes. But these are expensive gold coins.

Remember, too, that you must add the four-coin set number to the individual number to get the total of each size, so for the ounce, the total stands at 29,399.

All of the combined numbers are well over 20,000. I pick that threshold because the First Spouse half ounce gold coins could not sustain premium prices on the secondary market with these numbers. Can the proof gold American Eagles do so?

That is the key market question. I would not be willing to bet on it. Would you?

I see an earlier blog has prompted a request to explore in a little more depth my contention that collectors who assemble sets over time do better financially than collectors who do not.

This doesn’t apply just to collectors who can afford 1804 dollars and 1913 Liberty Head nickels. It applies to all collectors.

Most collectors are probably familiar with the halo effect at name auctions. Otherwise common coins go for more money than they are worth just because the coins have a famous collection on their pedigree.

At the other end of the spectrum, dealers will look at Lincoln sets or other more commonly collected coins to see if the keys are present. If they aren’t, the set is basically evaluated at face value. This doesn’t mean that some of the other coins might not have a little bit more value, it simply means that the would-be buyer doesn’t have the time or inclination to wade through a set of common coins to wring out the last few dollars.

The most important reason that complete sets do better is that to assemble them, a collector has to be focused and consistent. Sets need to be complete and they need to be comprised of a group of coins that are matched by grade.

To do this, a collector needs to shut out the distractions and focus on his task. Collectors who don’t have the discipline imposed by a set, might make a killing buying the first 2007 First Spouse coins from the Mint, but then they might guess wrong and buy some other item that they thought should have been hot. They waste a great deal of time and money chasing fads.

Think of the fad items you might have in your collection. I have some extra Statue of Liberty uncirculated half dollars. The mintage seemed low at the time. Nobody else in my lifetime will make that assessment. While I have several extra Buffalo commemorative silver dollars, I also have some extra West Points to offset them.

If I were building a complete set of modern commemoratives, there would be a reason to own these. Because I am not, they are simply unfocused, undisciplined purchases that distract me from more constructive buys.

Can I prove any of this with statistics? No. Collectors love their privacy too much to leave statistical evidence for me to look at. I look forward to comments from others on this topic.

Collectors who have complained about how the Mint prices its precious metal collector products have been heard by Mint leadership and changes are being made for the gold and platinum products.

I had a phone conversation with Deputy Mint Director Andrew D. Brunhart yesterday about it. Prices will now be reviewed on a weekly basis and any changes will be posted by 10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time each Thursday.

The new prices will be based on an average of the a.m. and p.m. fixes in London for the prior Thursday to Wednesday period.

In addition, if the average stays within a $50 range for gold and a $100 range for platinum, the product prices would not be changed.

For example, if prices were based on gold being in the $850 to $899.99 range, an average price anywhere in that range would result in no weekly price changes.

However, if the average price falls even a penny below the bottom end of the range, it would trigger new prices based on the next lower price range.

The full pricing grid will be posted on the Mint’s Web site within 30 days so collectors can see where the break points are.

Though this more active review will probably prevent sales suspensions of a kind that was frequently experienced last year, it does not mean that pricing is based solely on metallic content. These are still collectibles rather than investment products.

Brunhart said that in addition to factoring in metal prices and a 15 percent margin, prices also reflect manufacturing costs.

This is a step forward. Now let’s see how it works Thursday, Jan. 15, the first day any new pricing would take effect.