Why Have Coin Designs Been Stagnant for the Last Few Decades?

[astrostu]

I don't think this question has been asked lately or quite like this, so here 'goes: Why do you think the designs of circulating US coins have hardly changed in the last several decades? For reference, the 1¢ obverse hasn't been re-designed since 1909, and its reverse since 1959. The 5¢ hadn't changed since 1938 until 2004, and since 2006 the reverse has still been the same as the 1938 design, and though the obverse has changed, it's still the same guy. The 10¢ hasn't changed since 1946. The 25¢ was steady from 1932 'til 1999, then the reverse changed 5x a year - it has yet to be determined what it will be after the program ends - and except for Washington's appointment with a hairdresser, the obverse is still the same. Thus, the same general motif on obverses hasn't changed since 1946 (the dime), though reverses are a different story.

 

What are your thoughts on this?

 

Personally, I think it's due to politics, as evidenced when the Mint wanted to change the 5¢ for 2006 after the Westward Journey Series, the congressional delegation from Virginia got legislation passed forcing the Mint to continue to have Jefferson on the obverse and Monticello on the reverse ... not that many people know Jefferson was from Virginia. I think the same type of thing would happen for other denominations that circulate. And even those that don't (but should) circulate, like the Sacagawea dollar.

[Zoins]

I think it's due to politics

 

There may be an opportunity for a resurgence of artist medals given the lackluster designs the US Mint has been producing. I find it interesting that European medals are generally associated with the artist while US medals are generally associated with the issuer (e.g. MACO, various expos, etc.). I wouldn't mind some more artistically oriented medals (or coins).

[shirohniichan]

If the coin designs have been circulating for over 25 years, the Mint doesn't need Congressional approval to make a change. Even though that's what the law says, it seems like it's always Congress making the changes.

[Zoins]

If the coin designs have been circulating for over 25 years, the Mint doesn't need Congressional approval to make a change. Even though that's what the law says, it seems like it's always Congress making the changes.

Even if you don't technically need approval, in today's politically charged climate, I bet not getting Congressional approval for changes to circulating coinage can result in job loss. Unfortunately the status quo is now also the CYA approach.

[shirohniichan]

If the coin designs have been circulating for over 25 years, the Mint doesn't need Congressional approval to make a change. Even though that's what the law says, it seems like it's always Congress making the changes.

Even if you don't technically need approval, in today's politically charged climate, I bet not getting Congressional approval for changes to circulating coinage can result in job loss. Unfortunately the status quo is now also the CYA approach.

 

If I were Director of the Treasury (or whoever has the authority de jure), I'd change a coin design just to thumb my nose at the Congress and tell them to worry about what's under their own purview instead of overstretching their bounds.

 

Why can't we have aesthetically pleasing coins? Has Congress passed some law against it?

[astrostu]

Why can't we have aesthetically pleasing coins? Has Congress passed some law against it?

 

In all seriousness, to an extent, yes they have. After reading the recent Coin World article on mint legislation, Congress has specified more and more as to what the design has to be on coins, and so it's difficult to make something attractive and/or abstract when so specified.

 

But, I also think that it's a lack of something - be it supervision, high standards, good artists, etc. - at the Mint that the designs of late just kinda suck. Like with the State Quarters program, they changed the rules in 2005 so that states don't submit designs anymore, they submit ideas to the Mint and the Mint draws 'em up and then gets input from the state's governor. So the Mint is to blame for the designs of the state quarters this year, and the real dud like Wyoming. And the recent commemorative coins.

 

So besides the politics that are increasingly governing what has to go on coins, or more what has to stay on coins, I think there's a definite lack of good designs coming from the Mint itself. We need another St. Gaudens and Teddy Roosevelt.

[Zoins]

Like with the State Quarters program, they changed the rules in 2005 so that states don't submit designs anymore, they submit ideas to the Mint and the Mint draws 'em up and then gets input from the state's governor.

I wonder if they did this b/c of all the fuss over the US Mint changing state submitted designs? The US Mint changing the Maine coast to one that doesn't exist is pretty bad

We need another St. Gaudens and Teddy Roosevelt.

How many Presidents have been directly involved with US coinage?

[okbustchaser]

What difference does it make whether the designs change or not? The mint's job is to produce a circulating coinage for use in everyday commerece at the least cost necessary, It is NOT to produce collectables for us.

[Zoins]

What difference does it make whether the designs change or not? The mint's job is to produce a circulating coinage for use in everyday commerece at the least cost necessary, It is NOT to produce collectables for us.

Where does it say the Mint is required to produce circulating coinage at the least cost necessary? I imagine the "least cost necessary" would be just to have words on coins and no images

 

Why do you say the Mint's job is not to produce collectibles? Isn't the Mint's job determined by Congress and hasn't Congress decided that part of the Mint's job is to issue collectibles?

[okbustchaser]

The sole purpose of a mint--any mint--is to produce an item which enables trade. That's it--not to sell bullion at an inflated rate to investors, not to sell collectable items to the public, not to support a group's hobby. As a government entity it should be incumbent upon the mint to perform that service as economically as possible.

[Zoins]

The sole purpose of a mint--any mint--is to produce an item which enables trade. That's it--not to sell bullion at an inflated rate to investors, not to sell collectable items to the public, not to support a group's hobby. As a government entity it should be incumbent upon the mint to perform that service as economically as possible.

Your "any mint" is too broad. You may want to say any "sovereign (or national) mint" as there exist many private mints that do not necessarily produce items that enable trade. As for the US Mint, may I suggest you write your Congressmen (or talk to the other ones if you are one yourself) as not all the currently assigned tasks fit your view of what a mint should do. And not everyone agrees with you that government agencies should provide services as economically as possible. I think some of them have been elected to Congress.

 

Another thing to consider is that the US Mint has made military war medals for issue to US servicemen and women. That is a government function provided by a government agency, the US Mint, for a department of the government, the Department of Defense. Are you saying the US Mint should not provide these types of non-trade enabling services to other government departments?

[midwest]

Why can't we have aesthetically pleasing coins?

 

It all has to do with the current shallow relief.

[TomB]

This isn't the first time we have seen this happen. The US Mint was extremely proactive with design changes and modifications from 1792-1807, but then entered a 100-year period of allowing series to continue for a substantial length of time until Theodore Roosevelt agitated for a new direction in our coinage in the first decade of the twentieth century.

[CSA_4ever-migration]

It's all been downhill since they started putting dead presidents on coins. Give me lady liberty and a fierce eagle to a politican anyday.

[Houston Investor]

I think an even more serious issue is why is our currency and coinage based on the 1934 model? One dollar in 1934 had approximately the same purchasing power of $15 today.

 

The cent and nickel need to go, the $1 and $2 need to go (and be replaced by coins), and a $200, $500, $1000 bills need to be added at the very least. Then the whole smiz redesigned preferrably to something other than the presidential theme.

 

Its politics and fear of people perceiving a decreasing US dollar that prevent this.

[Conder101]

Even if you don't technically need approval, in today's politically charged climate, I bet not getting Congressional approval for changes to circulating coinage can result in job loss.

That was why it was a shame no one thought to lean on Lloyd Benson when he was Secretary. The post was his swan song and he was retiring from public office when he left so he wouldn't have had a job to lose. If we had just pointed out to him that he could have left a long lasting legasy on our coinage that would have always been pointed to as a turning point in our coinage when "Lloyd Benson ordered a revising and improving of the designs on our circulating coinage that decades of stagnant images."

[Zoins]

If the US Mint were to redesign all our circulating coinage, what themes would you like to see? Most of the comments I've seen are along the lines of "Bring back Lady Liberty" and "Remove the Dead Presidents". Would you want to go back to past themes like Lady Liberty or would you prefer something else?

 

One of my recent thoughts on this is whether, in today's climate, it would be possible to bring back Lady Liberty using a white woman as the model for our circulating coins. It has been predicted that white people will become a minority in our lifetimes and a white Lady Liberty may not adequately represent all of America anymore. Women's liberation has also happened so would women (including white women) approve of an allegorical Lady Liberty? I have been wondering if this is one reason why the Presidential Dollars have the Statue of Liberty and not a new allegorical Lady Liberty. Everyone can relate to the Statue of Liberty because it is real (as well as an ideal), not just an ideal. I like Lady Liberty on classic coins, I'm just not sure if she can return to our circulating coins given changes in society.

 

As per my icon, I also wouldn't mind some more modern themes.

[CSA_4ever-migration]

Why are you assuming lady liberty is white on previous coins? She looks silver to me. Just kidding. On the seated and Barber types she could be just about any race. The Barber's eyes look a little Asian. Here we are getting into sterotypes of physical atritibutes of certain races, also with america being the melting pot of the world, there are more mixed race people than any other group, no one is pure anything. Aren't all americans African-americans, seeing as how the first humans were from Africa?

Ok, now I'll get off my soapbox and let you know what I'd like to see on some coins. Lady Liberty(Liberty is an ideal lost to america), common american heros, perhaps a group of firefighters, vietnam veterans, WWII veterans or veterans of all wars. I like the statehood quarters, a reminder of the states in United States.No more presidental homes or monuments to presidents. How about a portrait of that famous kiss the sailor gave the nurse on v-j day. Now that's america.

[CSA_4ever-migration]

I'd also take "the motto" off. Fire away!

[dorkdog-migration]

I feel so strongly about this topic that I had to register just to respond... please allow me to ramble a bit.

 

What this country needs is more patriots and less politicians. The shift from patriotism to politics has borne itself out in our coinage. Instead of the ideallic portrait of a Liberty we strive for, we have portraits of flawed men with agendas and plans which lie outside the mission of 'liberty and justice for all'.

 

Therefore, I put forth that our coinage should be redesigned to suggest a future worth spending for, and that Lady Liberty should once again grace the obverse of all our coins.

 

The closest we have come to patriotism in recent years was the reverse of the Eisenhower Dollar, which portrayed a scene relating to our moon landing in 1969.

 

How unfortunate it is that our coins depict the past, and not the future.

 

Just my $.02

 

And, I am looking forward to lurking here; you all are so knowledgeable about our nation's coinage it is a pleasure to read and learn.

[astrostu]

I'm honored, dorkdog, that you registered just to reply to my post! While I might not verbally go as far as you, I agree with you in spirit. I just got some of the Washington dollars (the h--l I went through to get them is on another thread) and though lots of people don't care for them, I think the reverse is one of the best ones in "circulating" coinage today.

[cpm9ball]

I feel so strongly about this topic that I had to register just to respond... please allow me to ramble a bit.

 

What this country needs is more patriots and less politicians. The shift from patriotism to politics has borne itself out in our coinage. Instead of the ideallic portrait of a Liberty we strive for, we have portraits of flawed men with agendas and plans which lie outside the mission of 'liberty and justice for all'.

 

Therefore, I put forth that our coinage should be redesigned to suggest a future worth spending for, and that Lady Liberty should once again grace the obverse of all our coins.

 

The closest we have come to patriotism in recent years was the reverse of the Eisenhower Dollar, which portrayed a scene relating to our moon landing in 1969.

 

How unfortunate it is that our coins depict the past, and not the future.

 

Just my $.02

 

And, I am looking forward to lurking here; you all are so knowledgeable about our nation's coinage it is a pleasure to read and learn.

 

Welcome to the neighborhood, dork!

 

Chris