Comments on: Overkill At the United States Mint With New Coin Designs

By: From a Designer

From a Designer — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:13:53 +0000

What if I were a government appointed official who was in charge of the alphabet, say the secretary of language perhaps, and I decided to change what the letters looked like five times a year, would that be beneficial?

A coin’s design visually communicates a numeric value. It is quicker to count or “read” money that remains constant. Changing a coin’s design contributes to the illegibility of currency. The first time I came across a new 5 cent piece I thought is was a foreign coin. I didn’t know what it was. I see people have to take a second look when I pay for something with those new dollar coins as well. It is obvious they have trouble reading them, too.

Now as to why the government wants it’s currency to be confusing, I will leave that to another person to comment on…

By: Stephanie PTY

Stephanie PTY — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:08:15 +0000

I spent several months in a high school Latin class cleaning and identifying real Roman coins that were dug up out of the ground in Europe. (Fun fact: the reason so many of these coins are in the ground is that there were no central banks in Roman time, of course. So what’s a soldier to do with his payment of coins? Bury it in the ground!) Roman coins almost always depicted a ruler or political figure on them. I have no trouble with idea of continuing that tradition in modern America.

Also, I’m a bit of an amateur coin collector, and I really like seeing all of the different designs.

By: Kristen from FiLife

Kristen from FiLife — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 02:45:13 +0000

Over at FiLife we use images of coins for users who don’t upload a picture. Almost all of the images depict white men. I wish the Mint would design coins representing a more diverse group of people.

By: weasle94

weasle94 — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:56:39 +0000

I enjoy collecting and the new coins are a lot more fun due to the varities. They do try to produce too many different ones. There needs to be a balance. ,but I donot want to go back to looking for errors etc. as the main differences .(1964 and below)

By: Hilde

Hilde — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:13:10 +0000

You should be happy that you don´t live in the Euro-zone. Here, each of the 15 or so contries designs the obverse of its coins. You can find everything from artistic depictions to stick figures. At least the bills are all the same.

By: Flexo

Flexo — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 04:58:24 +0000

I agree, the Mint threw themselves for a loop with the new process for the Presidential $1 coins.

By: mbhunter

mbhunter — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 03:45:58 +0000

One thing that’s a bit under the radar on this whole thing: If people are collecting these coins, they’re not spending them into circulation. So there is $X million in “circulation” but it really isn’t, so prices aren’t rising as fast as they might be due to inflation of the money supply.

By: mbhunter

mbhunter — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 03:36:18 +0000

When the Presidential $1 coins started up, the minting process was new. There were a lot of Washington $1 errors. Not nearly as many in the subsequent ones.

By: Flexo

Flexo — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:57:07 +0000

I would be fine with that!

By: Flexo

Flexo — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:56:00 +0000

The mint process is much more controlled than it used to be. Quality control is usually very strong, so there isn’t as much of a chance of errors anymore. The Wisconsin quarters issue was a strange exception, so much so that I’m willing to believe someone at the Mint wanted to attract some attention.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:32:44 +0000

How about this: One coin, one design? Not such a bad idea, huh?

By: Evan

Evan — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:28:34 +0000

Flexo,

If they didn’t redesign – how would so many people justify their jobs?

/sarcasm

By: Flexo

Flexo — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:15:53 +0000

Part of the reason I feel this way is because I *am* a collector. The Mint is now in the business of making collector’s items rather than circulating coins. It’s just like baseball cards in the early 1990s. Too many designs, too much production, and a Mint that gears its products towards collectors all devalue the idea of collecting, in my opinion.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:01:45 +0000

I really like all the different designs. But then I’m a collector. Boils down to personal opinion and I’m sure some people dislike change and people either like or dislike having presidents or generic stereotype women in togas. Aside from personal tastes though… Whats the downside of multiple designs? I really don’t see it having any real negative consequences.

By: Tom Dziubek

Tom Dziubek — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:50:12 +0000

I dunno Flexo, I think the redesigns are a lot of fun and they breathe some life into the coin collecting industry. Nobody really took much interest in collecting quarters until the state designs came out.

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:57:47 +0000

With all these designs, I’m surprised we’re not seeing more errors like those errors that occurred in the Wisconsin quarters. That does make coin collecting more interesting.

By: ctreit

ctreit — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:04:25 +0000

I have to admit that I like new coin designs. Not that I collect them, but it feels refreshing to hold a new coin in my hands. I really liked the 50 states quarters when they first came out. These quarters made me feel connected to the other 49 states when I saw what mattered the most in one particular state.