Appeals Court Rules Against Treasury

This ruling came well over a month ago but I rediscovered it while I was cleaning out my backlog of Coin World magazines.

We should know by the end of the summer (or year, I'm guessing) as to whether or not the Supreme Court will hear the appeal. The Treasury has lost twice and it could be that the Supreme Court would rather not take their time with it.

But I guess I should go over the ruling. The appeals court upheld a lower court's 2006 ruling that the Treasury Department's paper currency designs violated Section 504 of the federal Vocational Rehabilitation Act after a suit had been filed by the American Council of the Blind, Patrick Sheehan and Otis Stephens (Coin World, Vol. 49, Issue 2513, June 9, 2008 page 1). In other words, the design of US paper currency does not lend itself to easy identification by those who are blind or have visual impairments. Department officials had argued that a redesign to make each design more distinctive would be cost prohibitory and an undue burden. The court also rejected the notion that a reader could be purchased since they cost $270 and have difficulty reading $20s.

Now in a mild defense of the Treasury Department, they have added colors to the "third gen" bills (those being the second revision after the revision that started with the $100's in the mid-late 90's). The $50 has a red/blue mix, the $20 is green, the $10 is yellow and the $5 is purple. These third gen notes also feature large numbers on the bottom right hand corner of the reverse.

But these added colors tend more to the subtle side and are certainly not bold. Also, as was noted in the aforementioned Coin World article, of the 171 countries that issue paper currency, America is the only country to use the same size for each denomination.

If the Treasury loses its final appeal (or the case is not heard) then it might be a good time to institute sweeping changes to all of our currency. If vending machines would need to be refitted, we could adopt polymer currency (being used in both Australia and Romania as a way to prevent counterfeiting and their superior hygienic properties)use bold colors and eliminate the dollar bill in favor of a coin. In fact, Australia's currency would make a good example to follow. Not only would the notes be easily differentiable but real artistry could make a comeback on US currency. The £5 note of the Bank of Scotland won banknote of the year for 2007. No US Note will win any artistic awards with our desire to change as little as possible in redesigns. Not to be too dreamy, this ruling could truly spark a renaissance in the artistry and functionality of our currency.

Naturally there will be naysayers. I know of one who will probably comment on my reiteration of desire to see the dollar bill disappear. I'd be interested in hearing comments from people too on the implications of this ruling and if they agree or disagree and why.

Sometimes you're just out of words

Caution: this post will be filled with sarcasm and potentially denigrating remarks about the state of Delaware.

In the movie "Contact" there is a point where the eccentric engineer S.R. Hadden says, "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?"  Or as the paraphrase rang out in my mind, "Why have one coin program when you can have two for twice the time!"

As you might have guessed I am referring to the newly introduced bill in the house, HR 6184 America's Beautiful National Parks Quarter Dollar Act of 2008.  Want to guess who introduced it?

...

If you guessed Representative Michael Castle of Delaware then you would be right!  The man who brought us the State Quarter dollars program (and here I don't fault him, this has been a good program despite the lack of real artistry, it at least changed *something*) and the Presidential Dollar Coins comes a new 11 year long program to honor a national park or national site.  And what little tidbit of goodness comes with this bill?  Well check out Sec. 102 Paragraph 7  statement B.  [Pauses while you all go read that]  You have read correctly.  If after 9 years the Secretary of the Treasury so decides, the program could go for a second round.  A whopping 22 years of issuing 112 different designs to honor 2 sites per state/territory/district.

I think being in Delaware too long has clouded Mr. Castle's judgement.  What America needs is not another ridiculously long coin program but bold leadership to enact change (pun intended) in our money.  Something akin to Teddy Roosevelt and Augustus Saint Gaudens.  Our coinage became stale when we started adding real dead people and historic places to our coins.  Its Hotel California for money.  But instead we could have another long program with little artistic merit.  Want proof?  Look at the Presidential Dollars.  We all know to within a small margin what every single one of those coins is going to look like.

OK, I'm done for today because now I'm all worked up.

Not quite what the original bill had in mind but...

In the same issue of Coin World that I just mentioned (June 30) there was mention that the US Mint awarded a $12 million dollar contract spread out over three firms with the express goal of publicizing the program and to convince the populace to embrace the dollar coin for their primary means of transporting 100 cents in cash.

Let's remind ourselves of something by looking in HR 902, Sec. 104 clause 8:

(8) in connection with the introduction of the $1 coins under the Presidential $1 Coin Program--

(A) the coins should not be introduced with an overly expensive taxpayer-funded public relations campaign; and

(B) the Director of the United States Mint, a bureau in the Department of the Treasury, should work with consumer groups, media outlets, and schools to ensure an adequate amount of news coverage about the start of the coin program so consumers will know of the availability of the coins

I guess $12 million is not considered to be "overly expensive" or compared to the $40 million spent to advertise the Sacagawea dollar coin program, this program is a bargain.

Believe it or not, I am not blaming the Mint here.  They are simply doing what they have been required to do by Congress.  Since I feel the need to blame something I'm going to go with the ol' standby of Congress.  Some may cry "Foul!" at this since its like kicking a horse when its down but they deserve it so I'll pile a little more on.  They legislate that the US Mint has to try and increase the circulation of the dollar coins while spending as little money as possible while not helping out the Mint one iota in terms of phasing out the dollar bill.  Courage is not their strong suit.  From what I remember from the article (I don't have it here in front of me at this time), the Mint is to use logic to convince Americans to use dollar coins by emphasizing their recyclability, longer life span, reduced cost over a lifetime, etc.  Here comes my pessimism: I simply cannot see the majority of americans seeing an ad on TV that uses this logic and then going out of their way to get these coins to help them circulate.  Remember, most banks don't have them or if they do, in small quantities.  Once you spend them, they get bagged up and sent back to the bank that night.  This article from Coin News says everything you need to know.  Let me distill out the basics:  76% of Americans prefer a dollar bill, 13% prefer coins and 11% aren't sure.  A $12 million dollar ad campaign is not going to change anything (except the balance in the accounts of the Mint).

I believe that by the fall of this year Americans will be seeing ads for the new coins.  If it's going to work, we'll probably see results by the end of the year.

Forcing people to use the dollar coins would be certain to get them to circulate.  Is doing such a thing truly American?  I'll let you all answer that one.

A *small* step in the right direction

This just in - from my June 30th Coin World.  The first article on the front page tells us of the US Mint's new program whereby banks, businesses and even ordinary people can order either $250 or $500 of single president dollar coins directly from the US Mint and there is no shipping fee.  Though it would be a large outlay for some this is a nice way to really streamline access to the dollar coins.  My personal experience has been that the only bank in my neighborhood that had been ordering them subsequently stopped.  I spoke with their coinage officer who told me that he tried to order Monroe dollars at the beginning of the year and was still being shipped those with Washington.  While I might not need $250 worth of the coins, it would be easy enough to order them, keep out what I want and then deposit the rest back into my checking/savings account.  The program should facilitate coin shops, small businesses and small banks (for whom the $1000 minimum order from the Fed would be too much) in acquiring the coins.  I make no predications though on if this will help push the coins into circulation.

For the record, I will keep my comments about dollar coins generically to myself for the sake of this post because a soon forthcoming post will have plenty to say.

Palladium Coin Program

Finally!

Two years ago when I got back into coin collecting after a few years away I was surprised by the astronomical rise in platinum. On Kitco's website for precious metals prices they have palladium listed just below platinum and it was hard not to see that palladium was trading for a small fraction of platinum. Further, through an issue of Coin World I saw that the Canadians had started a palladium bullion coin program (1 oz. only).

Along with my return to coin collecting came my love of the proof platinum coins, by now a super premium product from the mint and no small task to acquire. At the time I had wondered if at some point the government would do one of two things: 1) Replace the current platinum program with a more affordable palladium program. This would be a boon for the mint since platinum had increased in price 5-fold (currently 5-fold but less in 2006) since the introduction of the program in 1997 and had severely depressed the number of coins sold. 2) Compliment the platinum program with a palladium program to fill a gap between platinum/gold and silver.

Alas, no action was seen.

Until now.

HR 5614 has filled that void. A unanimous decision in the House now waits for Senate approval. This will be a very interesting program and I mean interesting in both good and bad ways.

Let's start with the negative:
1) The mint has the option to mint these coins to the same specifications but in gold in 2009 only pushing a palladium coin to 2010. This is a huge gamble. Legislation has been passed to mint a palladium coin that would be a cheaper alternative to platinum but if the coin doesn't hit the market for two years, palladium could rival gold or platinum in price and thus not be any more accessible to lower budgeted collectors and suffer from the same problem as the platinum coins.

2) The design is to recreate Augustus Saint-Gaudens' extremely high relief gold double eagle of 1907. However, the planchet size dictated in the legislation calls for the diameter of an eagle a 7mm difference in size. It seems counterintuitive to mint a stunning design in extremely high relief on a planchet smaller than the original coin (yes, one was struck on a double thick eagle planchet). Its like taking an Ansel Adams and putting it on a post card.

3) No fractional coins.

But the pluses:
1) Augustus Saint-Gaudens iconic design in its *mostly* original form (the In God We Trust motto will appear on the palladium coin despite not being present on the 1907 coins).

2) Extremely high relief. I once held just a high relief specimen of this coin and it was absolutely magnificent.

3) Should be affordable to more people to enjoy this amazing design.

I am going to be intrigued to see what happens in the next few weeks and months as this bill is considered in the Senate. The only real change I would like to see is to use a larger planchet for the coin. The original 34mm makes more sense historically and artistically.

2nd Official Coin Review

Since I rather enjoy the proof platinum coins I feel compelled to address the 2008 design. The design is representative of the judicial branch of government and closes out a three year program to figuratively represent the three branches of our government.

I won't comment on the obverse since it hasn't changed since 1997 and I have talked about it previously. The reverse has two main elements: Lady Justice holding a set of scales in one hand and a sword in the other. According to the mint: "In her right hand, the scales are suspended from one finger, representing the delicate balance of the law. In the other hand she holds the sword, signifying the power that is held by those making the decision. The bald eagle, our Nation’s symbol of power, courage and freedom, is featured watching over our firm foundation of democracy." I can get behind all of this and the design is fairly well executed but for how small even the one ounce coin is, it might have been prudent to focus on the head of Lady Justice and the scales she holds. I can imagine it could have been quite dramatic (I'm thinking of Elizabeth Jones' execution of the Statue of Liberty on the 1986 half eagle). While not the strongest design of the series, it certainly stays within the bounds of its predecessors.

Summary: 4 out of 5

1st Official Coin Review

My wife is convinced that I am too pessimistic for my own good. Perhaps she is right. Looking back on my posts I can see that I have a tendency to dwell on the negative (despite my desire to start things off on a positive note with my initial post about the proof platinum coins). In light of this I am going to start a series of posts to "review" coin designs. Though they might not all be positive, they'll at least be a bit different from the standard numismatic frustrations I typically vent.

So without anymore delay's let's jump in and place a critical eye on this year's commemorative coin program: the American Bald Eagle.

I mentioned in the very first post of 2008 that the program had gone on sale. The three coin set was sold out rather quickly (though I can't state an exact number of days) though the coins are all still available in all finishes as of this writing. While visiting a coin shop last month I came across the half dollar and quickly became convinced that it was a necessary addition to my collection. This particular piece is a stunning example of bas relief sculpture. The obverse shows two young eagles in a nest with an unhatched egg while the reverse shows the eagle Challenger standing defiantly with an American flag in the background. Choosing a theme of a pair of young eagles was a welcome addition to typical modern depictions of the eagle (I'm specifically referencing the Kennedy half dollar, as well as the programs half eagle). It is reminiscent of the Family of Eagles reverse which is familiar to the collectors of the gold American Eagles. As the "baby" of the program (being the lowest denominated coin in the series) it is also a nice touch of humor. The reverse with Challenger is refreshing for its depiction of the eagle's bust as opposed to the entire bird giving more energy to the design.

The silver dollar is a blend of an eagle in flight (on the obverse) and a reverse that is taken from the original design of the Great Seal of The United States of America used from 1782 till 1841. I can't be overly harsh about the use of the Great Seal because the coin provides a nice means for collectors of modest means (such as myself) to acquire the design. It also has not *technically* been used on a US coin before now (as far as I know but if I am not, please let me know). The obverse reminds me of the reverse of Hermon MacNeil's Standing Liberty Quarter. In that regard, I have no qualms with the design itself other than the oddly large blank space below the word "Liberty" that throws the balance of the design off. For the record, I can see using blank space in an artistic way but here on the obverse it seems out of place. If I can find one of these for not much above what the mint is selling them for and I can part with $50 then I might pick one up but it is not high on my priority list.

Not on my priority list is the half eagle, by far the most disappointing design. (ok, a little pessimism returns) The design is so uninspired and not compelling that I am curious as to who would buy one other than someone who just wants a complete set. Let's start with the obverse. Unlike the half dollar with its depiction of baby eagles in a nest, the half eagle shows two eagles sitting on a branch where one has just landed (I assume). That's it, two eagles on a branch. But at least that's a new design. The reverse suffers from a disease that has been plaguing many mint projects of the last decade: resuseolddesigninitis. Not only was an old design used, but a really dull one at that: the reverse of the Kennedy half dollar. I guess the artists at the mint who developed this design were running out of time and used their new computer equipment to copy and paste the half dollar design onto this half eagle and call it good. This egregious use of the half dollar reverse makes the half eagle even less desirable to own as the probability of a collector already owning a copy of the design on another coin is high. This coin will only make it into my collection if 1) I already own the other two coins and desire a complete set AND 2) gold is cheap and this coin could be acquired at a small premium over spot.

Summary:
Half Dollar - 5 out of 5
Silver Dollar - 4 out of 5
Half Eagle - 2 out of 5
Three Coin Set - 3.67 out of 5

Ok, so it has been awhile

I apologize for the tardiness of talking about anything coin related over the last four or so months. But let's not dilly dally on that and focus on all the numismatic issues that have sprung up since the last post.

Back in January I wrote about the possibility of a JPL commemorative coin that would celebrate the 50th anniversary of NASA and JPL. I thought that the whole issue was dead. But then this morning on my daily perusal of coinnews.net I saw that the bill for the issue has unanimously passed the Senate and once a few technical details are resolved between the House and Senate versions of the bill, it'll be off to the president to sign. I guess Congress had been too busy grilling Roger Clemens to pass this bill in a timely manner.

Though I am intrigued by the concept and the potential designs, this program will probably be out of financial reach for collectors of average means. In the end, its a shame that such a coin program will cost so much (I'm guessing that aquiring just the silver dollars will amount to close to $400) and be rather inaccesible to the general public.