Change We Don’t Need

Change We Don’t Need
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/op...Zeilinski.html

LAST year Congress passed legislation that will have a long-term impact
on our pocket change. The law authorized a new series of quarters, to be
released over 11 years, with at least 56 different designs featuring
national parks or sites.

This new series is just one of several rotating coin design programs
that have come in the wake of the success of the 50 State Quarters
Program, in which the Mint issued a new quarter design five times a year
for 10 years, starting in 1999. In 2004 the Mint started the Westward
Journey nickel series. In 2007 we got a series of dollar coins with
former presidents. One of the coins recently issued features William
Henry Harrison, who was president for only a month.

By now we are experiencing new coin fatigue: authorization of the
national parks quarter series attracted very little mainstream
attention, while many coin collectors disapproved of it as too much of a
good thing.

These critics have a point. This year we have even more coin programs
featuring rotating designs. For Lincoln’s 200th birthday, four different
reverse (tails) designs were produced for the penny. American Indians
will be honored with a new series of dollar coins. And six quarters will
be issued featuring the District of Columbia as well as the territories
of Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the
Northern Mariana Islands.

As a result of all this, this year we will have more coin series with
rotating designs than series with permanent designs. We may find
ourselves thankful for the constancy of the Jefferson nickel, the
Roosevelt dime and the Kennedy half-dollar, which is no longer even
issued for circulation.

While it may seem as if the Mint is to blame for all this, the problem
really lies with Congress. The issuing of new coins, including the
specific details on each coin’s design, is mandated by legislation.
These coins can be lucrative for the government: the Mint estimated that
the 50 State Quarters Program earned nearly $3 billion in seigniorage
(that is, the difference between the face value of a coin and the cost
to mint it).

Coins are a medium of exchange. They should be relatively standard,
universally identifiable units of money. On a deeper level, coins are
also representations of the country that issues them. Our currency has
become a shifting, unidentifiable mess that tries to recognize
everything and ends up symbolizing nothing.

The best remedy would simply be to overhaul all our standard coin
designs. Redesign each denomination across the board, and leave the new
designs in place for at least a decade. These redesigned coins should be
contemporary in nature but timeless in theme, and unmistakable objects
of art.

It was once common to portray Liberty, personified in female form, on
our coins. Imagine the return of this figure, grown wiser and reflective
after her absence, evoking confidence that our nation will endure any
hardship and meet any challenge. Then, maybe our coins will once again
become respected national symbols.


--
Civis Romanus Sum

Jim Higgins wrote:
Change We Don’t Need
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/op...Zeilinski.html

LAST year Congress passed legislation that will have a long-term
impact on our pocket change. The law authorized a new series of
quarters, to be released over 11 years, with at least 56 different
designs featuring national parks or sites.

This new series is just one of several rotating coin design programs
that have come in the wake of the success of the 50 State Quarters
Program, in which the Mint issued a new quarter design five times a
year for 10 years, starting in 1999. In 2004 the Mint started the
Westward Journey nickel series. In 2007 we got a series of dollar
coins with former presidents. One of the coins recently issued
features William Henry Harrison, who was president for only a month.

I know that Harrison's mother no doubt warned him about spending too much
time out in the damp cold, and he just didn't listen, but how is the length
of his term in office germane to the issue? If there is going to be a coin
series honoring each President, he was indeed a President and deserves a
coin alongside all the others.

James

On May 21, 1:11*pm, Jim Higgins wrote:
Change We Don’t Needhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/opinion/21Zeilinski.html

LAST year Congress passed legislation that will have a long-term impact
on our pocket change. The law authorized a new series of quarters, to be
released over 11 years, with at least 56 different designs featuring
national parks or sites.

This new series is just one of several rotating coin design programs
that have come in the wake of the success of the 50 State Quarters
Program, in which the Mint issued a new quarter design five times a year
for 10 years, starting in 1999. In 2004 the Mint started the Westward
Journey nickel series. In 2007 we got a series of dollar coins with
former presidents. One of the coins recently issued features William
Henry Harrison, who was president for only a month.

By now we are experiencing new coin fatigue: authorization of the
national parks quarter series attracted very little mainstream
attention, while many coin collectors disapproved of it as too much of a
good thing.

These critics have a point. This year we have even more coin programs
featuring rotating designs. For Lincoln’s 200th birthday, four different
reverse (tails) designs were produced for the penny. American Indians
will be honored with a new series of dollar coins. And six quarters will
be issued featuring the District of Columbia as well as the territories
of Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the
Northern Mariana Islands.

As a result of all this, this year we will have more coin series with
rotating designs than series with permanent designs. We may find
ourselves thankful for the constancy of the Jefferson nickel, the
Roosevelt dime and the Kennedy half-dollar, which is no longer even
issued for circulation.

While it may seem as if the Mint is to blame for all this, the problem
really lies with Congress. The issuing of new coins, including the
specific details on each coin’s design, is mandated by legislation.
These coins can be lucrative for the government: the Mint estimated that
the 50 State Quarters Program earned nearly $3 billion in seigniorage
(that is, the difference between the face value of a coin and the cost
to mint it).

Coins are a medium of exchange. They should be relatively standard,
universally identifiable units of money. On a deeper level, coins are
also representations of the country that issues them. Our currency has
become a shifting, unidentifiable mess that tries to recognize
everything and ends up symbolizing nothing.

The best remedy would simply be to overhaul all our standard coin
designs. Redesign each denomination across the board, and leave the new
designs in place for at least a decade. These redesigned coins should be
contemporary in nature but timeless in theme, and unmistakable objects
of art.

It was once common to portray Liberty, personified in female form, on
our coins. Imagine the return of this figure, grown wiser and reflective
after her absence, evoking confidence that our nation will endure any
hardship and meet any challenge. Then, maybe our coins will once again
become respected national symbols.

--
Civis Romanus Sum

IT USED TO BE the 960s and 1970s argument of the Treasury & the Mint
(especially under the disingenuous Miss Adams and Mrs. Brooks) that
Americans [were morons who] would be too confused by a plethora of
differently designed coins of the same denomination. This lead to
many years of NO commemoratives and NO design changes.

That argument has pretty significantly demolished in recent years.
Our actual experience shows that there is no need to fear a large
number of designs IF the fabric of the coin remains the same.

So bring on a lot of different designs. It will be good for the
hobby.

What if the Roman Empire had limited itself to no more than four or
five designs in any given reign???

oly

On May 21, 2:24*pm, oly wrote:
On May 21, 1:11*pm, Jim Higgins wrote:





Change We Don’t Needhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/opinion/21Zeilinski.html

LAST year Congress passed legislation that will have a long-term impact
on our pocket change. The law authorized a new series of quarters, to be
released over 11 years, with at least 56 different designs featuring
national parks or sites.

This new series is just one of several rotating coin design programs
that have come in the wake of the success of the 50 State Quarters
Program, in which the Mint issued a new quarter design five times a year
for 10 years, starting in 1999. In 2004 the Mint started the Westward
Journey nickel series. In 2007 we got a series of dollar coins with
former presidents. One of the coins recently issued features William
Henry Harrison, who was president for only a month.

By now we are experiencing new coin fatigue: authorization of the
national parks quarter series attracted very little mainstream
attention, while many coin collectors disapproved of it as too much of a
good thing.

These critics have a point. This year we have even more coin programs
featuring rotating designs. For Lincoln’s 200th birthday, four different
reverse (tails) designs were produced for the penny. American Indians
will be honored with a new series of dollar coins. And six quarters will
be issued featuring the District of Columbia as well as the territories
of Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and the
Northern Mariana Islands.

As a result of all this, this year we will have more coin series with
rotating designs than series with permanent designs. We may find
ourselves thankful for the constancy of the Jefferson nickel, the
Roosevelt dime and the Kennedy half-dollar, which is no longer even
issued for circulation.

While it may seem as if the Mint is to blame for all this, the problem
really lies with Congress. The issuing of new coins, including the
specific details on each coin’s design, is mandated by legislation.
These coins can be lucrative for the government: the Mint estimated that
the 50 State Quarters Program earned nearly $3 billion in seigniorage
(that is, the difference between the face value of a coin and the cost
to mint it).

Coins are a medium of exchange. They should be relatively standard,
universally identifiable units of money. On a deeper level, coins are
also representations of the country that issues them. Our currency has
become a shifting, unidentifiable mess that tries to recognize
everything and ends up symbolizing nothing.

The best remedy would simply be to overhaul all our standard coin
designs. Redesign each denomination across the board, and leave the new
designs in place for at least a decade. These redesigned coins should be
contemporary in nature but timeless in theme, and unmistakable objects
of art.

It was once common to portray Liberty, personified in female form, on
our coins. Imagine the return of this figure, grown wiser and reflective
after her absence, evoking confidence that our nation will endure any
hardship and meet any challenge. Then, maybe our coins will once again
become respected national symbols.

--
Civis Romanus Sum

IT USED TO BE the 960s and 1970s argument of the Treasury & the Mint
(especially under the disingenuous Miss Adams and Mrs. Brooks) that
Americans [were morons who] would be too confused by a plethora of
differently designed coins of the same denomination. *This lead to
many years of NO commemoratives and NO design changes.

That argument has pretty significantly demolished in recent years.
Our actual experience shows that there is no need to fear a large
number of designs IF the fabric of the coin remains the same.

So bring on a lot of different designs. *It will be good for the
hobby.

What if the Roman Empire had limited itself to no more than four or
five designs in any given reign???

oly- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And as for respect, our present-day circulating coins are simply
souvenirs of what all money used to be. None of our minor coins,
except for quarter dollars, are truly useful today.

I doubt that we will use our present coins within five years, ten at
the outside.

oly

"oly" wrote in message
...
SNIP
IT USED TO BE the 960s and 1970s argument of the Treasury & the Mint
(especially under the disingenuous Miss Adams and Mrs. Brooks) that
Americans [were morons who] would be too confused by a plethora of
differently designed coins of the same denomination. This lead to
many years of NO commemoratives and NO design changes.

That argument has pretty significantly demolished in recent years.
Our actual experience shows that there is no need to fear a large
number of designs IF the fabric of the coin remains the same.

So bring on a lot of different designs. It will be good for the
hobby.

What if the Roman Empire had limited itself to no more than four or
five designs in any given reign???

oly
_______________________________________________

My personal opinion is that the mints have taken a page from the
post office and are putting out a plethora of coin designs causing
some of us to over dose. The new coins mean little or nothing from
a collector point of view. I don't even bother looking through
pocket change anymore.
Just my opinion.
Bob-tx

"Bob-tx" wrote in message
...

"oly" wrote in message
...
SNIP
IT USED TO BE the 960s and 1970s argument of the Treasury & the Mint
(especially under the disingenuous Miss Adams and Mrs. Brooks) that
Americans [were morons who] would be too confused by a plethora of
differently designed coins of the same denomination. This lead to
many years of NO commemoratives and NO design changes.

That argument has pretty significantly demolished in recent years.
Our actual experience shows that there is no need to fear a large
number of designs IF the fabric of the coin remains the same.

So bring on a lot of different designs. It will be good for the
hobby.

What if the Roman Empire had limited itself to no more than four or
five designs in any given reign???

oly
_______________________________________________

My personal opinion is that the mints have taken a page from the post
office and are putting out a plethora of coin designs causing some of us
to over dose. The new coins mean little or nothing from a collector point
of view. I don't even bother looking through pocket change anymore.
Just my opinion.
Bob-tx

Neither do I. Out of habit, I still order the obligatory annual proof sets
and have been picking up a roll of each new presidential dollar at face
value at the bank. Beyond that, I couldn't care less any more what the Mint
produces for circulation or for sale to collectors. My collecting interest
and enjoyment has become more entrenched in the coins of our past.

--
Civis Romanus Sum

*By now we are experiencing new coin fatigue: authorization of the
national parks quarter series attracted very little mainstream
attention, while many coin collectors disapproved of it as too much of
a
good thing.*

They're making a quarter type set a much larger set that's for sure!
These won't be hoarded *as much as* the SHQ's. The people who got a
SHQ map have filled it and won't be out looking for these territories
and parks issues. Mint wrapped rolls are the way to go on these.
Still there will always and forever be an endless supply of gems
availiable for 150 years at least! These being sold MS65 or lower in a
slab for a high premium is a total rip-off. There's millions of MS65's
and will always be.
The very highest grades will be collectible as always.--MS68's and
9's.