Bruce Remick wrote:
"Mike Dworetsky" wrote in message
...
Drago the Wolf wrote:
http://www.mydollarplan.com/new-100-dollar-bill/

I was a little disappointed with the back of the new $100 at first,
because I thought the low-vision numeral would be similar to the
$10, $20 and $50's, but now I grew to love both sides of the new
$100 bill and the $100 is now by far, my favorite of this series.

What sucks is, it is being released on Febuary 10 of 2011. I wonder
why so long, because they are likely just about to release the next
generation of U.S. currency. If the U.S. currency is going to be
redesigned every 7-10 years, 2011 when the new $100 bill comes out
will be 9 years since 2003, when the new colorized $20 bill came
out, so, following the release of the new $100 bill in 2011, we may
be hearing more about one of the already colorized denominations
getting a redesign again the following year in 2012, the 10 year
mark. I have heard a few things about the governement possibly changing
the size of all denomination paper money and probably the designs a
bit too, except the $1 and $2 bills. This really bothers me seeing
as, I live in a family of people with poor vision, and my mother
can hardly see without glasses, and has a hard time telling $1 and
$2 bills apart without her glasses unless they are right in her
face. I myself am 20/400 vision in both eyes and can see all right,
but am supposed to wear glasses full time, but I only wear them
when I drive or watch tv. I just can't read things in the distance,
but, in the future I may depend on a different sized $2 bill. So I
don't see why, if the government does not want to redesign or
change the size of the $1 bill, thats is all fine and dandy with
me, but if all other denominations are getting a redesign, as well
as a resize, redesign the damn $2 bill. I DO NOT want them to just
stop printing $2s, I just want them redesigned to make them more
usable for those who use them. Everything else, including the half
dollar coin has a distinguishible feature for the blind and
visually impaired: its size. So, if the $1 and $2 bills remain the
same size, and all other denominations will change in size, the $2
bill would still be discrimitory against the blind and visually
impaired. Perhaps I should write THAT in a letter to my government
officials.

Regarding vision-impaired users and bank notes, the USA has finally
taken a lesson from the UK which has had bank notes of different
sizes for different denominations for decades. Similarly for the
euro.

I wish they would just get rid of the rag $1 and $2 bucks.
Unfortunately, in the testimony I read, no denomination was
considered to be replaced with a coin, which is a real shame,
because they could really make a nice $2 coin distinguishible for
the blind.

Much the same sentimentality was widely expressed in the UK 28 years
ago when the pound note was replaced by the pound coin. There was
a lot of opposition to doing away with it; you would have thought
they were proposing to murder babies or something.

For some reason (presumably there were thought to be votes in it)
politicians in the USA were opposed to replacement of the $1 by a
coin, and when you did get one it looked like a quarter. Eventually
that was fixed, except that apparently the note and coin circulate
side by side. The average life of a circulating $1 note must be a few
weeks at
most. There are still 1983 1 pound coins circulating in the UK. The
coin is far cheaper to make when you factor in the lifetime factor.

The paper note is made from a renewable source while clad metal coins
are not. How much money would really be saved by eliminating the $1
bill while continuing to print $2, $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100 bills?
Plus millions of unused $1 coins. So far, no need for the expense
of a security redesign of the $1 bill either. BTW, are the latest
plastic bills made from oil?

It's not the material cost of the ingredients that is an unnecessary
expense, but the cost of making new ones at frequent intervals. It costs
far more to print money than to come up with the raw materials, expecially
if you replace them every few weeks (people to choose notes for retirement,
furnaces, presses, plates, cutting machines, people to handle the notes and
package them for banks, etc). I understand that the UK saved substantial
costs by changing completely to minting £1 and £2 coins (there was never a
£2 note), eliminating the need for low denomination paper. The coins are
fully accepted now and have been since shortly after introduction.

Let me check, are $2 notes now regularly used in circulation?


In the US, there likely are loads of one dollar coins remaining in
storage from 1979 that won't circulate largely because people don't
care to use them. Nowadays, people don't handle coins often enough
for them to wear out. Fifty years ago, it was common to receive well
worn coins in change. Today it's common to find fifty-year-old coins
showing minimal wear among your change, coins that would likely last
another fifty years.

Cash is gradually on its way out but I think it will be a while yet. Those
coins were unattractive (and could be mistaken for a quarter).

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)