Thursday, September 27, 2007
Proactivity
This post doesn't pertain specifically to a coinage issue but its to note that I wrote a letter to my representative explaining my objections to HR 2510. At the end I closed my letter and told him that I was going to enclose my "Master Plan for US Coinage" as a post script to act as an outline of coinage issues that truly need addressing. I copied it straight out of this blog. I wonder what will happen.
An addendum to the In God We Trust issue
I began wondering about the hypocrisy of this issue as mentioned previously.
First I tried to see if any of the sponsors of HR 2510 (to restore IGWT to the obverse/reverse) voted for HR 2358 (Native American Dollar Coin Act). Unfortunately HR 2358 was voted by voice so there is no way of knowing (at least I think so) who voted which way. I was distressed because I am sure there had to be someone in Congress who voted to move the mottos to the edge with HR 2358 but are supporting legislation that would move it back with HR 2510.
Not to be thwarted, I decided to look for people who voted for HR 902 (the Presidential Dollar Coin Act of the 109th Congress) and are currently supporting HR 2510. This would show that they either A) had no idea what they were voting for but went along with the flow, B) had a change of heart (read: disgruntled contributors to campaigns) about moving the mottos to the edge, C) they were forced into it by wanting to vote for a rider (but I didn't see one attached) or D) they had to return a favor to a fellow representative. [Thanks to Ali and Nathan for C and D respectively] I'd place the probability of it being option A at 95%.
What did I find? First you need to open this link to a Washington Post site that lists everyone who voted for the Presidential Dollar Coin Act (PDCA). Now look here for a list of cosponsors to HR 2510. Just going through the B's on the list of cosponsors I found 13 representatives that voted in favor of the PDCA and are now sponsoring HR 2510. I'm sure there are more but I didn't feel like looking through them all.
My point is this (and it would be strengthened if I knew who voted for the Native American Dollar Coin Act): Why are our representatives engaging in partisan politics that are completely hypocritical (and completely unnecessary) when there are real coinage issues at hand (I know I sound like a broken record). I would encourage all representatives who appear on both pieces of legislation to explain these contradictory positions.
First I tried to see if any of the sponsors of HR 2510 (to restore IGWT to the obverse/reverse) voted for HR 2358 (Native American Dollar Coin Act). Unfortunately HR 2358 was voted by voice so there is no way of knowing (at least I think so) who voted which way. I was distressed because I am sure there had to be someone in Congress who voted to move the mottos to the edge with HR 2358 but are supporting legislation that would move it back with HR 2510.
Not to be thwarted, I decided to look for people who voted for HR 902 (the Presidential Dollar Coin Act of the 109th Congress) and are currently supporting HR 2510. This would show that they either A) had no idea what they were voting for but went along with the flow, B) had a change of heart (read: disgruntled contributors to campaigns) about moving the mottos to the edge, C) they were forced into it by wanting to vote for a rider (but I didn't see one attached) or D) they had to return a favor to a fellow representative. [Thanks to Ali and Nathan for C and D respectively] I'd place the probability of it being option A at 95%.
What did I find? First you need to open this link to a Washington Post site that lists everyone who voted for the Presidential Dollar Coin Act (PDCA). Now look here for a list of cosponsors to HR 2510. Just going through the B's on the list of cosponsors I found 13 representatives that voted in favor of the PDCA and are now sponsoring HR 2510. I'm sure there are more but I didn't feel like looking through them all.
My point is this (and it would be strengthened if I knew who voted for the Native American Dollar Coin Act): Why are our representatives engaging in partisan politics that are completely hypocritical (and completely unnecessary) when there are real coinage issues at hand (I know I sound like a broken record). I would encourage all representatives who appear on both pieces of legislation to explain these contradictory positions.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
The Jefferson Nickel
In recent days I've been questioning my friends as to which of the three Jefferson obverses they prefer. The designs are as follows: Felix Schlag 1938-2004, the Joe Fitzgerald 2005, and the Jamie Franki 2006-present. All of which may be seen here.
There has been no real consensus. After some discussion I can usually bring people into my line of thinking with the Joe Fitzgerald design. I'm going to review the two designs that I do not prefer and then give why I think that the Fitzgerald design is superior.
Schlag: There is nothing inherently wrong with this design but I object to this design simply because I think that instead of having a 25 year minimum on coinage designs, it should be mandatory that they are changed completely every 25 years. I'll note more on this later but I just wanted to point out that I think for its time, the Schlag design is quite nice but is dated.
Franki: Here there is some consensus. Almost everyone describes Jefferson as looking evil with the way he's staring off the coin. I'm not saying Jefferson was evil but that he certainly looks it on this coin. My point can be distilled down to this: Jefferson looks terrible on this coin and he exudes no optimism or personality. Sort of like an 8th grade awkward school picture.
Fitzgerald: OK, there are many pluses here. 1) The use of Jefferson's handwriting when writing "Liberty." 2) The off-center portrait is artistically pleasing and a breath of fresh air from the now inspiration-less centered profiles of every other US circulation coin. 3) Along the same line, the focus on Jefferson's face and the fact that he is looking up and to the right of the coin exudes optimism and energy. Basically this is one of the best modern designs for a circulating coin, obverse or reverse that has been minted since the Walking Liberty half dollar was last struck in 1947.
There has been no real consensus. After some discussion I can usually bring people into my line of thinking with the Joe Fitzgerald design. I'm going to review the two designs that I do not prefer and then give why I think that the Fitzgerald design is superior.
Schlag: There is nothing inherently wrong with this design but I object to this design simply because I think that instead of having a 25 year minimum on coinage designs, it should be mandatory that they are changed completely every 25 years. I'll note more on this later but I just wanted to point out that I think for its time, the Schlag design is quite nice but is dated.
Franki: Here there is some consensus. Almost everyone describes Jefferson as looking evil with the way he's staring off the coin. I'm not saying Jefferson was evil but that he certainly looks it on this coin. My point can be distilled down to this: Jefferson looks terrible on this coin and he exudes no optimism or personality. Sort of like an 8th grade awkward school picture.
Fitzgerald: OK, there are many pluses here. 1) The use of Jefferson's handwriting when writing "Liberty." 2) The off-center portrait is artistically pleasing and a breath of fresh air from the now inspiration-less centered profiles of every other US circulation coin. 3) Along the same line, the focus on Jefferson's face and the fact that he is looking up and to the right of the coin exudes optimism and energy. Basically this is one of the best modern designs for a circulating coin, obverse or reverse that has been minted since the Walking Liberty half dollar was last struck in 1947.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Master Plan for US Coinage
Here is my proposal for our coinage:
0) Make plans to eliminate the cent starting in 2010 (as in, the cent would not exist in 2010). Cents would continue to be minted in their current composition through 2009. I realize that this would be at a loss to the mint but the positive seignorage that would come from other pieces would make up for this loss (as they are currently doing). Starting in 2009 all cash transactions would be rounded to the nearest 5 cents. That is, they will be rounded down for transactions ending in $0.01 or $0.02 and rounded up for $0.03 and $0.04. Electronic purchases would continue to be to the cent. However, “cash back” debit card purchases would automatically be rounded up to the nearest nickel. This is true even for totals ending in $0.01 or $0.02.
1) Just a small detail: cents would not be struck in 2010 or beyond even for collectors. When the half cent was eliminated in 1857 they were not struck beyond that for collectors' sentiments. When the cent is no more, it shouldn't exist in collector sets either.
2) The 5 cent piece needs a new composition. This can happen sooner than the timeline for the the cent. Implementation of this plan could begin as soon as 2008 if Congress would act, or more likely in 2009. As I am sure to state again, Americans are stubborn people and would probably not do too well with an overload of change (pun intended) so the size of the 5 cent piece would remain unchanged but its composition could be similar to the Canadians with nickel plated steel. This will significantly reduce manufacturing costs but keep the coin looking like it does currently. Plus you'll have the added advantage of being able to pick them up with magnets. :-) Yay for ferromagnetic materials!
3) Eliminate the dollar bill. As I have stated previously it would save a lot of money and would allow the BEP to put more effort into printing $2 bills. The $2 bills could go in the slot previously occupied by the $1 bill, the $1 coin would go where quarters are now and everything would shift down by 1 tray. I know that this would cause some people to complain but in probably a few months they'd calm down. Also, since $2 would become the lowest denomination bill, it would eliminate the complaint that change from a $5 for a <$1 purchase would yield 4 $1 coins.
In this way, the US government could streamline our money making it more efficient while also increasing demand for the dollar coins they keep legislating. The public would quickly realize that it is more efficient and enjoy it. I'm imagining it would be like Britain when it switched from its old currency (with a pound being 240 pence) to a base ten system. I'm sure there were diehards who resisted but it made sense and no one seems to really complain about it (from the Brits that I have met).
0) Make plans to eliminate the cent starting in 2010 (as in, the cent would not exist in 2010). Cents would continue to be minted in their current composition through 2009. I realize that this would be at a loss to the mint but the positive seignorage that would come from other pieces would make up for this loss (as they are currently doing). Starting in 2009 all cash transactions would be rounded to the nearest 5 cents. That is, they will be rounded down for transactions ending in $0.01 or $0.02 and rounded up for $0.03 and $0.04. Electronic purchases would continue to be to the cent. However, “cash back” debit card purchases would automatically be rounded up to the nearest nickel. This is true even for totals ending in $0.01 or $0.02.
1) Just a small detail: cents would not be struck in 2010 or beyond even for collectors. When the half cent was eliminated in 1857 they were not struck beyond that for collectors' sentiments. When the cent is no more, it shouldn't exist in collector sets either.
2) The 5 cent piece needs a new composition. This can happen sooner than the timeline for the the cent. Implementation of this plan could begin as soon as 2008 if Congress would act, or more likely in 2009. As I am sure to state again, Americans are stubborn people and would probably not do too well with an overload of change (pun intended) so the size of the 5 cent piece would remain unchanged but its composition could be similar to the Canadians with nickel plated steel. This will significantly reduce manufacturing costs but keep the coin looking like it does currently. Plus you'll have the added advantage of being able to pick them up with magnets. :-) Yay for ferromagnetic materials!
3) Eliminate the dollar bill. As I have stated previously it would save a lot of money and would allow the BEP to put more effort into printing $2 bills. The $2 bills could go in the slot previously occupied by the $1 bill, the $1 coin would go where quarters are now and everything would shift down by 1 tray. I know that this would cause some people to complain but in probably a few months they'd calm down. Also, since $2 would become the lowest denomination bill, it would eliminate the complaint that change from a $5 for a <$1 purchase would yield 4 $1 coins.
In this way, the US government could streamline our money making it more efficient while also increasing demand for the dollar coins they keep legislating. The public would quickly realize that it is more efficient and enjoy it. I'm imagining it would be like Britain when it switched from its old currency (with a pound being 240 pence) to a base ten system. I'm sure there were diehards who resisted but it made sense and no one seems to really complain about it (from the Brits that I have met).
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The "In God We Trust" Issue
The Bill
Virgil Goode of Virginia introduced this bill in order to move "In God We Trust" from the edge of the Presidential dollar coins to either the obverse or reverse of the coins.
Here is the ridiculous part of this bill. Cosponsor Roger Wicker said this gem: “'At no point did anyone explain that [the words] would not be on the face of the coin,' Wicker said, leading him to try and correct the issue in this year’s legislation." From here
First off, does it bother anyone that the excuse is that "no one told me?" I guess actually reading legislation is out of the question. Imagine being a student telling your teacher that since no one told you that a specific question was going to be on an exam that you shouldn't be responsible for it.
Secondly, it frustrates me that Congress thinks it is prudent to solve this "problem" when there are a number of other issues that need attention, such as the 1 cent and 5 cents coins being minted at a loss.
It is not the least bit insulting or degrading to God to be incuse on the edge of the coin. But that is apparently lost on our legislators who are responding to an outcry of constituents who think that God has been slighted.
Virgil Goode of Virginia introduced this bill in order to move "In God We Trust" from the edge of the Presidential dollar coins to either the obverse or reverse of the coins.
Here is the ridiculous part of this bill. Cosponsor Roger Wicker said this gem: “'At no point did anyone explain that [the words] would not be on the face of the coin,' Wicker said, leading him to try and correct the issue in this year’s legislation." From here
First off, does it bother anyone that the excuse is that "no one told me?" I guess actually reading legislation is out of the question. Imagine being a student telling your teacher that since no one told you that a specific question was going to be on an exam that you shouldn't be responsible for it.
Secondly, it frustrates me that Congress thinks it is prudent to solve this "problem" when there are a number of other issues that need attention, such as the 1 cent and 5 cents coins being minted at a loss.
It is not the least bit insulting or degrading to God to be incuse on the edge of the coin. But that is apparently lost on our legislators who are responding to an outcry of constituents who think that God has been slighted.
More on dollar coins
OK, so I wanted this to be a separate post since I wanted to try and focus as much as possible on the Sacagawea dollars in my previous post. Now I want to talk a bit about the Presidential dollars.
Why this program will not work:
1) Since the vast majority of people do not follow the design process for the 50 State Quarters program they are pleasantly surprised by new designs and find them intriguing. Even we as collectors will only know a year or so in advance what a coin will look like. This is not the case with the Presidential dollar coin series. If the artistry of these coins continues to be vastly unimaginative then there is no reason to get excited by them. Want to know what the Millard Fillmore coin will look like? Find a portrait of him online and imagine what a three quarters profile of it would be and there is your coin. There is nothing exciting about them other than the edge incuse lettering that might be history if Congress has its way.
2) Speaking of that legislation, I am highly amused that there are those in Congress who actually look at the edge lettering as some slap in the face to God. Do they realize they authorized this program in 2005 and it was signed into law by the president? No one then seemed to think much of moving a majority of the required inscriptions to the edge but now a few people are dumb enough to think that the Mint is insulting God and suddenly we have representatives trying to "punish" the Mint by making them look like the bad guy. Ridiculous.
3) As stated previously, with a dollar bill being a different option for carrying 100 cents in your bill fold, these will never circulate, just take up space in the Mint's and the Federal Reserve System's vaults. Either eliminate the dollar bill or stop legislating coins that no one wants and only coin collectors will collect.
Why this program will not work:
1) Since the vast majority of people do not follow the design process for the 50 State Quarters program they are pleasantly surprised by new designs and find them intriguing. Even we as collectors will only know a year or so in advance what a coin will look like. This is not the case with the Presidential dollar coin series. If the artistry of these coins continues to be vastly unimaginative then there is no reason to get excited by them. Want to know what the Millard Fillmore coin will look like? Find a portrait of him online and imagine what a three quarters profile of it would be and there is your coin. There is nothing exciting about them other than the edge incuse lettering that might be history if Congress has its way.
2) Speaking of that legislation, I am highly amused that there are those in Congress who actually look at the edge lettering as some slap in the face to God. Do they realize they authorized this program in 2005 and it was signed into law by the president? No one then seemed to think much of moving a majority of the required inscriptions to the edge but now a few people are dumb enough to think that the Mint is insulting God and suddenly we have representatives trying to "punish" the Mint by making them look like the bad guy. Ridiculous.
3) As stated previously, with a dollar bill being a different option for carrying 100 cents in your bill fold, these will never circulate, just take up space in the Mint's and the Federal Reserve System's vaults. Either eliminate the dollar bill or stop legislating coins that no one wants and only coin collectors will collect.
Sacagawea dollar coin madness
I was reading an article in the September 24th issue of Coin World about legislation that has passed both the Senate and the House of Representatives that would authorize annually changing reverse designs for the Sacagawea dollars beginning in 2009. This is supposedly designed to help increase the circulation of the aforementioned dollar coins.
With this new legislation (as long as Bush doesn't veto it, which I doubt he would) we'll have four presidential dollar coins as well as annually changing reverse designs on the Sacagawea dollar. There are a few issues tied up in this that I must comment upon:
1) Does anyone find it odd that Congress acted to create this in the interest of "helping increase awareness and demand" for a dollar coin no one is interested in while ignoring legitimate coinage issues. This being the striking of 1 and 5 cent pieces at a significant loss (I believe that production costs including distribution are pushing close to twice face value for both of those coins). Why has Congress ignored this issue while finding the time to "fix" the Sacagawea dollar.
2) There is also legislation in Congress now that would force the Mint to remove edge lettering from the Presidential dollar coins. The sponsor of this bill (whose name I forget) was quoted as having responded to many upset constituents who were bothered by the moving of "In God We Trust" to the edge of the coin. At the same time, this new legislation has the new Sacagawea dollars looking like the current Presidential dollars with edge inscription. How ridiculous is this?
3) I could go on about this for a long time but the reason for the failure of the Sacagawea and Presidential dollars (yes, they've only been in circulation since mid February but I am already willing to label them as failures) is not a lack of awareness or lack of interesting designs but rather than people prefer the dollar bill. I am all for eliminating the dollar bill and going to a dollar coin: its cheaper and would eliminate some demand for quarters (more on that later), however, the real issue is that no one will use the dollar coins on a regular basis until they are forced to do so.
With all of this said I am really discouraged by Congress' lack of focus on solving issues that need to be solved rather than wasting time pandering to special interest groups. We don't need more coins but rather more coherent and logical coin policy.
With this new legislation (as long as Bush doesn't veto it, which I doubt he would) we'll have four presidential dollar coins as well as annually changing reverse designs on the Sacagawea dollar. There are a few issues tied up in this that I must comment upon:
1) Does anyone find it odd that Congress acted to create this in the interest of "helping increase awareness and demand" for a dollar coin no one is interested in while ignoring legitimate coinage issues. This being the striking of 1 and 5 cent pieces at a significant loss (I believe that production costs including distribution are pushing close to twice face value for both of those coins). Why has Congress ignored this issue while finding the time to "fix" the Sacagawea dollar.
2) There is also legislation in Congress now that would force the Mint to remove edge lettering from the Presidential dollar coins. The sponsor of this bill (whose name I forget) was quoted as having responded to many upset constituents who were bothered by the moving of "In God We Trust" to the edge of the coin. At the same time, this new legislation has the new Sacagawea dollars looking like the current Presidential dollars with edge inscription. How ridiculous is this?
3) I could go on about this for a long time but the reason for the failure of the Sacagawea and Presidential dollars (yes, they've only been in circulation since mid February but I am already willing to label them as failures) is not a lack of awareness or lack of interesting designs but rather than people prefer the dollar bill. I am all for eliminating the dollar bill and going to a dollar coin: its cheaper and would eliminate some demand for quarters (more on that later), however, the real issue is that no one will use the dollar coins on a regular basis until they are forced to do so.
With all of this said I am really discouraged by Congress' lack of focus on solving issues that need to be solved rather than wasting time pandering to special interest groups. We don't need more coins but rather more coherent and logical coin policy.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
...speaking of silly purchases
OK, so maybe this isn't really a gripe about the mint but rather a question about the minds of my fellow collectors. I mentioned a few minutes ago about illogical buying habits that have me confused. I know that it is really annoying that the Mint feels the need to spring new coins on us on short notice. These coins that I am referring to are the burnished uncirculated gold/silver/platinum coins and the individually packaged reverse proof silver and gold coins. The reverse proofs are moderately interesting. I can understand the appeal of a completely different finish even though I didn't think that it was worth the money to buy one. This is probably due to my rather modest budget. But that is nether here nor there. The burnished uncirculated coins are the real kicker. How are these remotely interesting other than the fact that they bear the "W" of the West Point mint.
My question is this: why do people buy these? If people want to spend their money on them that's fine but it just blows my mind. More than likely this is due to the fact that I prefer type collecting rather than series collecting (except for series that involve design changes). People gripe about all the new options (and I do think it is ridiculous that the mint is viewing its base of collectors as a money making machine) but if they don't like the coin, or don't need it, then they shouldn't feel obligated to buy it.
This post started out as a gripe about the new finishes available for certain coins and it appears to have morphed itself into an analysis of the collector community. I'm going to see where this goes.
At times I myself get frustrated with all the different coin series that would be fun to collect (more on that later) but there is no need to buy one of each unless people are becoming more focused on thinking of their coins as investments rather than as a hobby. Sure it is awesome when your coins appreciate in value but to me the focus should be on the art. Here is an example. I bought the 2006 1/10th oz. proof platinum coin rather than the burnished uncirculated. There were a few reasons as to why I did this. The first and most obvious reason is that I really enjoy the series and needed this one to add to my collection. But I didn't buy the burnished uncirculated specimen because I already had the design in proof and the uncirculated is redundant. The uncirculated version is worth far more than my proof but that doesn't bother me.
We as collectors should buy the coins we want and not play into the Mint's mind games of adding new coins at the end of the calendar year to try and squeeze more money from us. We should hold firm and send them a message that if a program is redundant or blatantly in place to abuse us, we won't buy them. We must remember that in the end, we as the consumer make the choice to buy, not the Mint. Don't let them fool you otherwise.
My question is this: why do people buy these? If people want to spend their money on them that's fine but it just blows my mind. More than likely this is due to the fact that I prefer type collecting rather than series collecting (except for series that involve design changes). People gripe about all the new options (and I do think it is ridiculous that the mint is viewing its base of collectors as a money making machine) but if they don't like the coin, or don't need it, then they shouldn't feel obligated to buy it.
This post started out as a gripe about the new finishes available for certain coins and it appears to have morphed itself into an analysis of the collector community. I'm going to see where this goes.
At times I myself get frustrated with all the different coin series that would be fun to collect (more on that later) but there is no need to buy one of each unless people are becoming more focused on thinking of their coins as investments rather than as a hobby. Sure it is awesome when your coins appreciate in value but to me the focus should be on the art. Here is an example. I bought the 2006 1/10th oz. proof platinum coin rather than the burnished uncirculated. There were a few reasons as to why I did this. The first and most obvious reason is that I really enjoy the series and needed this one to add to my collection. But I didn't buy the burnished uncirculated specimen because I already had the design in proof and the uncirculated is redundant. The uncirculated version is worth far more than my proof but that doesn't bother me.
We as collectors should buy the coins we want and not play into the Mint's mind games of adding new coins at the end of the calendar year to try and squeeze more money from us. We should hold firm and send them a message that if a program is redundant or blatantly in place to abuse us, we won't buy them. We must remember that in the end, we as the consumer make the choice to buy, not the Mint. Don't let them fool you otherwise.
Proof platinums a big positive for the Mint
In trying to get out of a cycle of negativity I decided to try and focus on the positive aspects of the US Mint. Finding things to gripe about is a trivial task. Now my goal is not to say that those complaints are baseless but rather that there are some redeeming qualities of the Mint. With that said, last Friday my 2004 1/10th oz. proof platinum coin arrived in the mail. Due to extenuating circumstances (which I won’t go into here) I had to track down a number of the platinum coins via eBay and after a year of searching, it was finally mine. Not including the 2007 I have a complete set of 1/10 oz proof platinum coins. When I was waiting for it to come from Michigan I explained the series to my wife. Here is my conclusion.
The artistry on these coins is superb and make them truly the flagship product of the Mint. With the exception of the initial reverse design from 1997, the reverses (and even the nice rendition of the Statue of Liberty by John Mercanti) have been outstanding. What confuses me is the lack of popularity in the series. Why do people spend hundreds of dollars to get a 1 oz. gold coin that only differs from the standard bullion version by a mint mark and a slightly better planchet? These coins are a far better series to collect and they are one positive aspect of the Mint among so many that I will probably write about soon. But if you’re going to start a blog, why not start on a positive note?
The artistry on these coins is superb and make them truly the flagship product of the Mint. With the exception of the initial reverse design from 1997, the reverses (and even the nice rendition of the Statue of Liberty by John Mercanti) have been outstanding. What confuses me is the lack of popularity in the series. Why do people spend hundreds of dollars to get a 1 oz. gold coin that only differs from the standard bullion version by a mint mark and a slightly better planchet? These coins are a far better series to collect and they are one positive aspect of the Mint among so many that I will probably write about soon. But if you’re going to start a blog, why not start on a positive note?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
