1976 approval for small size Eisenhower dollar 1 1

[RWB]

[Just Bob]

Judd ninth edition makes no mention of any "official" patterns being struck with this design. I assume the reverse die, or a similar one, was the one used on the Anthony dollar. Is there any evidence that the obverse die was actually produced?

[Mohawk]

On 9/4/2021 at 6:38 PM, RWB said:

Now that's interesting.....I have to echo Bob's question.....were any reduced Eisenhower Dollar obverse dies actually produced?  Since Bob mentioned that Judd mentions no patterns, I'm assuming that no actual strikes of any kind were actually made, but an obverse die would still be interesting to see.

Edited September 5, 2021 by Mohawk

[RWB]

Yes. Small size Ike dollars were struck in test batches. Destruction of the dies and test pieces is recorded.

[Mohawk]

On 9/4/2021 at 9:33 PM, RWB said:

Yes. Small size Ike dollars were struck in test batches. Destruction of the dies and test pieces is recorded.

Now THAT is really cool!!! Roger, do you know if any photos of the test pieces exist?

[RWB]

I recall there being some in the NARA files....but was never very interested in these, so I did not make copies. This was at least 10-12 years ago and only a brief look.

[Just Bob]

I looked at the Annual Mint Reports for 1976-1978, and could find no pictures or reference to a small Ike dollar. I did find pictures of the proposed-but-rejected Liberty Head small dollar, though. Too bad this design was replaced with the Susan B. Anthony portrait. It could have been a good-looking coin. Neither it nor the Eisenhower designs may have been any more popular than the adopted design, but either one would have looked much better, in my opinion.

[RWB]

The small dollar program is given a general overview in my book: Private Pattern and Related Pieces: International Nickel & Gould Incorporated, (2019). The coin could have succeeded if the Treasury had not insisted on bending to vending machine interests, and used a diameter that was too close to the quarter for a one-dollar coin. The technology division and outside entities warned Treasury/Mint of the consequences, and this was one of Gould's arguments in favor of titanium's distinctive weight and ability to be colored by anodization. Vending machine manufacturers wanted the lowest possible cost impact on their equipment, so the entire project was condemned to failure - and continues to fail although for somewhat different economic reasons.

[Henri Charriere]

Side rant... the day I first laid eyes on those SBA dollars, I instinctively knew the entire effort to encourage coin over currency usage was doomed to failure. Dollar coins are just like hundred-dollar bills; nobody wants them. The liquor industry got it right by switching from quarts to liters thereby encouraging familiarity with and acceptance of the metric system. Now all the vending machines are gone, dollars (and half-dollars) have disappeared and bicentennial-dated two-dollar bills are gathering dust in bank vaults. 

This is entirely speculative on my part but in the absence of an official explanation as to why this design change was abandoned or rejected, I am going to suggest down-sizing of a president to a small size from a much larger one -- introduced only years earlier --  would have been perceived as a negative political statement.

[zadok]

On 9/14/2021 at 7:18 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Side rant... the day I first laid eyes on those SBA dollars, I instinctively knew the entire effort to encourage coin over currency usage was doomed to failure. Dollar coins are just like hundred-dollar bills; nobody wants them. The liquor industry got it right by switching from quarts to liters thereby encouraging familiarity with and acceptance of the metric system. Now all the vending machines are gone, dollars (and half-dollars) have disappeared and bicentennial-dated two-dollar bills are gathering dust in bank vaults. 

This is entirely speculative on my part but in the absence of an official explanation as to why this design change was abandoned or rejected, I am going to suggest down-sizing of a president to a small size from a much larger one -- introduced only years earlier --  would have been perceived as a negative political statement.

the presidency has already been down-sized.....

[Conder101]

On 9/5/2021 at 12:43 PM, RWB said:

The coin could have succeeded if the Treasury had not insisted on bending to vending machine interests, and used a diameter that was too close to the quarter for a one-dollar coin

It also could have succeeded if they had stopped making dollar notes.

[Mohawk]

On 9/16/2021 at 10:41 PM, Conder101 said:

It also could have succeeded if they had stopped making dollar notes.

Indeed.  I think that was one of the key ingredients in the success of the Loonie in Canada.  They just ditched the one dollar note and made everyone use the Loonie.  And the Loonie is still working just fine in Canada to this very day.  It's even become a point of national pride with Canadians and a part of their identity.....they're proud of the Loonie.  

Edited September 17, 2021 by Mohawk

[Henri Charriere]

On 9/16/2021 at 10:41 PM, Conder101 said:

It also could have succeeded if they had stopped making dollar notes.

Exactly!

[Conder101]

We lead the way!  We were one of, if not the first, country to introduce a small size unit coin.  We are also the only one that didn't eliminate the unit note.  We are also the only place the coin failed.  Everyone else watched, learned from our mistake, and introduced successful coins.  We repeated our mistake in 2000 and 2007.

[DWLange]

And then again in 2018 with the Innovation Dollar series, though no one has made any pretense of these being circulating coins. So much for "innovation"...

[RWB]

Plus the designs are uniformly commonplace magazine art.

[Henri Charriere]

On 9/16/2021 at 11:27 PM, Conder101 said:

We lead the way!  We were one of, if not the first, country to introduce a small size unit coin.  We are also the only one that didn't eliminate the unit note.  We are also the only place the coin failed.  Everyone else watched, learned from our mistake, and introduced successful coins.  We repeated our mistake in 2000 and 2007.

Mighty Conder, your long-time record of rattling off generally overlooked and unthought of valid facts --particularly younger mem-bers just tuning in, is a thoughtful consideration as your contributions to the hobby continue to remain unchallenged -- and intact. It is always a pleasure to hear from you and what you have to say. 🐓 

[Conder101]

On 9/17/2021 at 4:45 PM, DWLange said:

And then again in 2018 with the Innovation Dollar series

I didn't include that one because they weren't made for circulation.

[olympicsos]

On 9/5/2021 at 7:43 PM, RWB said:

The small dollar program is given a general overview in my book: Private Pattern and Related Pieces: International Nickel & Gould Incorporated, (2019). The coin could have succeeded if the Treasury had not insisted on bending to vending machine interests, and used a diameter that was too close to the quarter for a one-dollar coin. The technology division and outside entities warned Treasury/Mint of the consequences, and this was one of Gould's arguments in favor of titanium's distinctive weight and ability to be colored by anodization. Vending machine manufacturers wanted the lowest possible cost impact on their equipment, so the entire project was condemned to failure - and continues to fail although for somewhat different economic reasons.

In 2019 the GAO found that replacing dollar bills with dollar coins would be more costly to the government. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-300

[RWB]

Maybe---but that was 40 years later than the initial purpose. Also, the comment omitted part of GAO's response "the first time GAO has found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in a net loss."

GAO's analysis found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would likely result in a net loss to the government over 30 years. GAO found the government would incur a loss of about $611 million if notes were actively replaced and about $2.6 billion if $1 notes were replaced gradually (see figure). These simulations represent the first time GAO has found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in a net loss to the government rather than a net benefit. GAO's estimates are based on current data and economic projections, which have changed over time. For example, the lifespan of the $1 note has more than doubled since a 2011 GAO analysis, from 3.3 years to 7.9 years, largely due to changes in note processing technology. Stakeholders generally identified few benefits from replacing $1 notes with $1 coins. Seven of 10 stakeholders GAO met with said that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in additional costs. For example, armored carriers told GAO that their transportation costs would increase because coins weigh more than notes.

Edited February 12, 2023 by RWB

[olympicsos]

On 2/12/2023 at 8:35 PM, RWB said:

Maybe---but that was 40 years later than the initial purpose. Also, the comment omitted part of GAO's response "the first time GAO has found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in a net loss."

GAO's analysis found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would likely result in a net loss to the government over 30 years. GAO found the government would incur a loss of about $611 million if notes were actively replaced and about $2.6 billion if $1 notes were replaced gradually (see figure). These simulations represent the first time GAO has found that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in a net loss to the government rather than a net benefit. GAO's estimates are based on current data and economic projections, which have changed over time. For example, the lifespan of the $1 note has more than doubled since a 2011 GAO analysis, from 3.3 years to 7.9 years, largely due to changes in note processing technology. Stakeholders generally identified few benefits from replacing $1 notes with $1 coins. Seven of 10 stakeholders GAO met with said that replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin would result in additional costs. For example, armored carriers told GAO that their transportation costs would increase because coins weigh more than notes.

Yes I should’ve mentioned the first time. But with the decline of cash use, I’m not surprised. I’d even point out that with the push for more electric vehicles, we would likely have to change the composition of all our coins made mostly of copper at some point as copper would become more expensive. 

[RWB]

This is one of the areas that raises concern about the utility of this and other parts of the 2019 report:

Although the cost per note for processing has remained the same—$0.003 per note, based on Federal Reserve data—the number of notes processed in 2017 was about 1.6 billion less per year than at the time of our 2011 analysis. According to Federal Reserve officials, the public may be handling and using $1 notes less and holding on to them longer. This could cause notes to circulate less frequently, reducing the number of notes processed.

Here and elsewhere GAO appears to ignore the strong increase in electric transactions, especially at places were coin and paper currency have been traditional payments. This trend was obvious at least as early as 2010, and it was only necessary to ask the GSA study team to describe their own, personal experiences to get an indicator of electronic replacement of paper and metal currency. If notes are not used as much, they will last longer, the need will be reduced, note processing will decline, and the economic support for coin vs paper will erode.  (By 2010, street vendors of hotdogs, etc. in Washington DC were accepting credit/debit cards--just personal experience.)

Edited February 12, 2023 by RWB

[numisport]

Costs could be offset somewhat if one cent coins were eliminated. Every time I handle change I just laugh when I see pennies. 

[RWB]

On 2/12/2023 at 1:07 PM, numisport said:

Costs could be offset somewhat if one cent coins were eliminated. Every time I handle change I just laugh when I see pennies. 

Cents and nickels should be eliminated. They serve now only as tokens for retail sales tax payment on cash, only, transactions. They can be easily replaced by automatic rounding in cash registers based on simple over/under/split changes to individual state sales tax laws. At present, I no longer see the utility of higher value coins, either. Paper works well for cash $5 and $10 purchases.

[olympicsos]

On 2/12/2023 at 9:13 PM, RWB said:

Cents and nickels should be eliminated. They serve now only as tokens for retail sales tax payment on cash, only, transactions. They can be easily replaced by automatic rounding in cash registers based on simple over/under/split changes to individual state sales tax laws. At present, I no longer see the utility of higher value coins, either. Paper works well for cash $5 and $10 purchases.

Whether that’s politically feasible is another discussion. I’ll also point out at that point if you eliminate cents and nickels and just have the dime and the Quarter, the US Mint would be more dependent on bullion and collector products. 
 

I would not eliminate the cent entirely though. One idea I’ve had kicking around is to make a collector only large cent using the 1907 unused Saint Gaudens cent design (In God We Trust and E Pluribus Unum would be on the edge). At least you could succeed in making Saint Gaudens’ designs available to those who don’t collect gold. 

Edited February 12, 2023 by olympicsos

[olympicsos]

On 2/12/2023 at 9:07 PM, numisport said:

Costs could be offset somewhat if one cent coins were eliminated. Every time I handle change I just laugh when I see pennies. 

Other currencies have coins worth less than one American cent and they’re used regularly. 

[cladking]

On 2/12/2023 at 11:59 AM, RWB said:

This is one of the areas that raises concern about the utility of this and other parts of the 2019 report:

Although the cost per note for processing has remained the same—$0.003 per note, based on Federal Reserve data—the number of notes processed in 2017 was about 1.6 billion less per year than at the time of our 2011 analysis. According to Federal Reserve officials, the public may be handling and using $1 notes less and holding on to them longer. This could cause notes to circulate less frequently, reducing the number of notes processed.

Here and elsewhere GAO appears to ignore the strong increase in electric transactions, especially at places were coin and paper currency have been traditional payments. This trend was obvious at least as early as 2010, and it was only necessary to ask the GSA study team to describe their own, personal experiences to get an indicator of electronic replacement of paper and metal currency. If notes are not used as much, they will last longer, the need will be reduced, note processing will decline, and the economic support for coin vs paper will erode.  (By 2010, street vendors of hotdogs, etc. in Washington DC were accepting credit/debit cards--just personal experience.)

Well, obviously the GAO assumed we'd have to use the new dollar coin for a cent due to inflation. 

Somebody should calculate how much having a broken and obsolete currency system is costing the country.  Between being saddled with a less than worthless penny and the largest denomination being worth less than half  a 1960 nickel it's a wonder the system works at all.  So instead we have credit cards and 50 calls a day from India and this is the way they want.  

[World Colonial]

What cladking said.

The root cause is perpetual currency debasement.  Government sanctioned theft of the citizens property which is actually another layer of taxation.

[RWB]

On 2/12/2023 at 1:38 PM, olympicsos said:

Other currencies have coins worth less than one American cent and they’re used regularly. 

True, But we don't have a 3rd-world economy. 

On 2/12/2023 at 1:37 PM, olympicsos said:

I’ll also point out at that point if you eliminate cents and nickels and just have the dime and the Quarter, the US Mint would be more dependent on bullion and collector products.

Our smallest denomination coins have almost no purchasing power. Additionally, both cost the government money to make and distribute. The 2019 GAO report mentions that, but the US Mint's reports on this have a lot more detail. Alternative compositions for any of the coins are difficult to find....dimes, and quarters in clad composition are profitable, as are the Mn/brass dollars. The almost nil circulation of halves reinforces public dislike for larger size coins (that issue goes back to the 1870s with dollars !), and excessively small coins (Which goes back to 1849 and 1852).

The pragmatic approach is to answer the question: "Which coins and paper currency best serve the present economy and monetary transactions?"

[olympicsos]

On 2/13/2023 at 1:43 AM, RWB said:

 

The pragmatic approach is to answer the question: "Which coins and paper currency best serve the present economy and monetary transactions?"

Paper currency and quarters. Maybe the US Mint should trademark the name “Quarter Factory”.