I did not say "new coin collectors" I said coin collecting would soar to "new" height's. There is a difference.
You indicated that this change would have a positive impact on coin collecting. I said that any positive impact would be neutralized by the negative impact on currency collecting. That was my point.
personally, i wouldnt mind not having any bills smaller than $20 (but i know a LOT of people would disagree with me)
The general population has been "taught" to "believe" that they do not like change. The laziness comes into play when they fail to do what is necessary to understand exactly :why" they feel the "need" to be led around like cattle with folks telling them how they truly feel. You see, continually stating that folks "do not like change" is what makes people, who sincerely want change, to believe that they cannot make the change and as such become unwilling to change. As for the politicians, they only need to worry about "their" constituents since their constituents are the only folks that can elect them. In other words, as much as I may dislike John Boehner or Hillary Clinton, I can do nothing about their elected positions since I am not qualified to "unelect" them. It is the abandonment of change which enables the continuance of outmoded and outdated ideas to be enacted. From a responsibly fiscal perspective, EVERY effort should be made to save money which is what makes for good politics. Unfortunately, that concept has been lost.
This is a rather weak argument in that "positive" influence can also be used to draw old collectors back into the fold yet I see nothing on the forefront of currency collecting that even addresses the currency collector with the exception of currency "errors". Any changes to "currency" has been to every denomination "except" the oine dollar bill. As such, any negative impacts would almost non-existent. To believe that there would be a cancelling effect would be the same as saying that if the Lincoln Cent were eliminated that many coin collectors would lose interest in coin collecting. I just cannot see that happening.
I think there would be an impact to the hobby for sure. Many new collectors of currency start out searching $1 notes because it is somewhat affordable. A strap of $1 notes is $100...to make the jump to doing the same with $5 notes would increase that to $500 per strap which might make it a lot harder for new/young collectors.
I completely agree with you. I think they should make every effort to save money even if that means it upsets some of the populous. What I said was just an explanation for what is happening...I in no way support what is happening.
I'm confused. Exactly what is collectible in a "strap" of $1.00 notes which more than likely all have the same sequential serial numbers? I mean, it's not like the quality drops off on new notes such as what can be viewed in a roll or two nickels. (i.e bag marks, struck throughs and what not) As for a "strap" of used $1.00 notes, exactly what could be pulled from that which would represent something collectible other than a serial number or perhaps a "For a Good time call" scribbled on the note? Now, I do understand folks collecting and paying premiums for crisp or seldom used bills from say series 1928 or perhaps even some of the old Large Notes but I just cannot see an interest in buying $100 straps of $1 bills to search. Maybe some time on a currency forum is needed here?
You're darn skippy we will. (It's what we do! ) IMHO - Cash is most handy for small transactions. 99% of the time when I'm in a store and spending more than $20, I use my credit card for the rewards. I don't like to use it for less than $20 out of consideration for the merchant who foots the bill for the transaction fees.
Searching straps is just like roll searching for coins. Most straps you get at a bank (just like rolled coin) are not new and thus are a mixture to search. Other than serial numbers, star notes there is a wide range of errors to look for. Currency collecting is every bit as involved as coin collecting. Also, much like roll searching you don't find much of value...but it's a fun place to start and learn the hobby.
That right there is why the US will have a paper dollar until the cost of producing a paper dollar approaches or exceeds $1. The Federal Reserve profits from dollars, the treasury profits from coins. The Fed has more political power because they control the money supply. This fantasy of doing what is good for the American taxpayer and the coin collector is a fantasy. As long as the Fed profits from a paper dollar, a paper dollar will be produced.
This thread has been a good read. One of the better threads as of late. Anyway, I think a great design for a coin would be an attractive woman looking back over her shoulder. Something like this...
Camero is right about the extremely low relief making of today making it very difficult if not impossible to have the nice designs of the last century. One reason he didn't touch on for why the relief is so low today is the coining speeds that are used now to maintain the high coinages. Up through the 1960's press speeds ranged between 30 and 60 strikes per minute or about one coin per second. Now when the dies come together on the planchet the design isn't formed instantaneously. It takes some finite amount of time for the metal to cold flow into the recesses of the dies. When they went to clad the harder metal wouldn't flow as quickly as the silver so the relief was reduced in the dies so the metal wouldn't have to flow as far. As press speeds increased to around 100 strikes per minute, relief had to be reduced even more (spaghetti hair). Today presses run at 750 strikes per minute. The cold flow which used to have 1/4 to 1/2 second to fill the dies now has to do so in less than 1/20 of a second. So if the die relief isn't very low the metal just can't move far enough to fill the die before they open up again.
I actually hadn't thought about the speed issue...but it makes perfect sense too. Clearly, there are many modern manufacturing hurdles for coins today that weren't present in the "old days."
Yeah, I was wondering how that would work. Would they mint a new coin every time a former president dies or just end the whole series? I don't think they should have done 4 a year, something like 2 a year would have taken longer. It's just all a mystery. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Money will become virtually irrelevant within a generation. How often do you really use it anymore? Virtually everything is now electronic with money going the way of the 8-track tape. Thus, this discussion is inconsequential. I was still a good read though.
It seems that the idea of restoring older designs gets a lot of resistance. While resurrecting the exact same designs may not be a good idea, I do think that using the coinage from the past is a good starting point for new designs. Notice that many the coins that many of us now consider to be the high points of American coinage were themselves "rip-offs" of classical designs, not simply from 100 years earlier, but from a couple of thousand years earlier - the so-called "neo-classical" designs. For some interesting comparisons, check out this site: http://tjbuggey.ancients.info/influence.html
