This topic occurred to me as thought-provoking: What were the attitudes of contemporaries when new coinage and currency were introduced and old coins and currency were left behind? America went from Colonial to Bust coinage, then Bust to Seated material, from Seated to Barber and Morgan coins; and so forth. Also there were periodic introductions of new currency--how did people contemporary with these changes react? Do we have a record? Also a side question; how would our distant ancestors regard all the modern coin and currency collectors and numismatists, is there any way to know? Thanks for thoughts on this issue.
As a general rule most people were almost always not in favor of the changes. People have always been resistant to change - about anything. It was no different with currency. As for our ancestors, no way of knowing, but they'd probably think we were crazy. 'Bout like normal people (non collectors) think of us today. But there as long as there have been coins, there have been those who collected them. Some of the first books ever printed on the first printing press were about coins. And there were many, many handwritten books long before that. So collectors have always been around, something in the genes I guess.
I agree most don't like change look no further than the SBA's and today's prez. dollars but in today's age everything changes so quick we are becoming numb to it. You also have to keep in mind sometimes change is just for change's sake. Besides the marketing and money making aspect of coins and changing the designs modern day coinage is signed into law and most have start and end production dates for those coins. Those that don't still have to change due to congressional law that a coin design can only be used for something like 65 years and then it's to be changed. Hense the quarters program, the redesign of the nickel and then the return to monticello but keeping the new obverse, the cent changes the list goes on. The only one seeming to buck this trend is the Roosevelt dime as it's actually overdue and the Kennedy half is coming up in a decade or two to it's limit as well. The only thing I can think of why they wouldn't change those two is because they were originally stated that they commemorated the presidents on them so there may be a loophole.
I have to agree. How many of us remember waiting and waiting, and waiting for design changes in the eighties and nineties. Then the state quarters, westward journey nickels, and golden dollars gave us new hope, as well as millions of new collectors. Now we await changes in dimes and half dollars.
I think that today we have become a little soft and lax regarding our moneys. One reason that coins were produced the way they were, with a single repeating design was so that people could more easily recognize counterfiets.
The only coinage acts that have had start and end dates were the Westward Journey nickels, the state and ATB quarters, and the Presidential dollars. And those only have them because they are commemorating a specific thing in series. When you run out of states or Presidents your done. No such law exists. Your confusing it with the Act of 1890 that states that a coin design can't be changed any more often than 25 years except by Congressional action. After 25 years it can be changed at any time by the Secretary of the Treasury. As for design changes and public reaction in the past, until the change of the Ike to the SBA the public was not consulted. But the government writings pretty much without exception always described the new proposed designs as being a great improvement over the the generally poor and ugly designs currently on the coinage. Then typically when the new coins came out the designs were usually panned. I'm not sure if there was any new design that wasn't give a thumbs down. Although often they would still be described as an improvement over what we had before.
2p or not 2p Bit late to this thread, but I hope nobody minds. I did loads of work on the psychology of coin design while I was at the Royal Mint - even working with social scientists at Microsoft. Constantly changing coins designs throws out an unusual paradox. Coins and currency have been a part of our social makeup for so long that they have become archetypal symbols. In the case of very long standing designs, they take on a meaning outside of their purpose. As an illustration of this, take 2 disparate sets of symbols - Tarot cards, and DVD player controls. Karl Jung proposed the theory that Tarot works not by means of the mystical, but because the symbols used on the cards are so old, and so ingrained in human conciousness, that we understand their meaning instinctively, and that during a Tarot reading, one is 'meditating', and tapping into subconcious thought, which is then drawn out by the ancient images on the cards. A modern example of archetypal imagery is the operational symbols on the front of DVD players - stop, eject, fast forward etc. We have been familiar with these symbols for years, and in many different guises - CD, DVD, MP3 player, video, even cassette. The meaning of the symbol is clear, regardless of the medium it refers to. These operational symbols can even be taken out of context, and still retain meaning - an artists can use the 'stop', or 'eject' symbols for social commentary within a piece of work - nothing whatsoever to do with the original operational function, but still retaining a meaning outside of that. Where this becomes interesting with coins is when designs change on old coins. When we re-designed the UK general currency, we realised that the design of the 2 pence coin was far more than simply an image of the Prince of Wales feathers and some text. Removing the traditional image from the 2p effectively stopped us seeing it as being a 2p. The whole was, indeed, greater than the sum of its parts. For long standing coins, the design and the physicality of the object become one. We recognise them because our brains process the amalgamation of elements, rather than pinpointing any particular detail. Re-designing a long standing coin requires an ability to deconstruct the original into its component concepts, and then re-build it in such a way that the user's connection with the coin does not hinge on the decorative design. As a really neat example, have a look at the Pepper Project http://pepperproject.imaginaryfs.com/ The concept behind this was to create a muse - an imaginary person with a set of core attributes that could then be illustrated in any number of forms. The project was thrown open to the public, and the results are great - a multitude of wildly disparate images, yet all still held together by a common thread. The essence of the subject is not defined purely by rendering or decoration. Matt mavericknumismatics.com
Welcome to the forum & thanks for the informative post. :smile Please start a thread & post some photos of what you collect.
Thanks for the warm welcome! I'm afraid to say that I don't collect coins at all. I'm a currency designer, and forums like this are just great places to tap into what collectors are saying. Happy to post images of designs if that interests people.
Not too many people like change, but I also agree that todays coins are ugly and boring. When the Lincoln cent came out however, people loved it. http://suite101.com/article/victor-david-brenner-vdb-designed-the-lincoln-cent-a325070
Worrying about people's psychological response to coin design changes seems a bit like coddling. Try this, "Here people, this is the new 25 cents, DEAL WITH IT!!!"
I often wonder if the Barber designs were as polarizing as they are today. It seems as if people either love Barber coins, or they despise them. To me, I love them, mainly due to their classical feel. I wonder if after the introduction of the Barber series in 1892, if people did not take kindly to them.
