Why are dimes smaller in diameter than a modern penny??

A little off-topic but...

Maybe in a parallel universe, we would have had larger diameter dimes, but holes would be added to maintain silver proportions / weight.

Recently, this coin has been on my favorite list, the New Guinea Shilling. I'm not sure why more coins don't do this - are there any drawbacks to adding holes to coins (and not the PMD kind...)?


Pic from the 'net:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In my opinion, the central hole limits the design options. The advantages, on the other hand, are not that relevant. Yes, you can increase the total diameter this way. But there are many other ways of differentiating the various denominations, such as picking different material/compositions. Besides, if the vending industry in the US (does not seem to be such a big issue elsewhere, see the UK and the new £1 coin) opposes new sizes and alloys, a piece with a hole would be equally affected ...

Christian

 

Dimes were silver, cents were copper. It's that simple.

 

No. Sorry for pointing out the obvious.

 

lets do it the easy way ....your parents just used the nickel to trick you into thinking it had to be worth more than a small dime..[

 

lets do it the easy way ....your parents just used the nickel to trick you into thinking it had to be worth more than a small dime..[

 

lets do it the easy way ....your parents just used the nickel to trick you into thinking it had to be worth more than a small dime..[

 

It is not so much what we do not know, but what we know that is not so.
Writers quote other writers and the false stories are passed along with great authority. Now, I am challenged to cite my evidence here, but I recently read a citation from the Post Master probably between 1851 to 1853 saying that the Post Office had no interest in these coins, that they were an annoyance, and maybe even the Post Office was not obligated to accept them at all.

 

A common mistake in writing history is to project ourselves on the past. We too easily think that people back then were just like people today. Much changes.

If you collected world coins, then you would know small silvers such as the UK three pence, the smaller Netherlands 10c, half realese of Central American states, among others.

Moreover, for the ancient Greeks, before the acceptance of bronze some 300 years later, small silvers of half a gram and thereabouts were common sixth, fourth, and third fractions of the 3.5 gram drachmon.

Futhermore, ancient Greeks and 19th century Guatemalans aside, the mistake of projecting yourself on the past applies to anything before you were born. In my day, men's wallets had change purses inside, where we now have racks of plastic cards. In addition, men and women both often carried separate change purses, some of them like origami in leather, that folded open and closed securely without clasps.

All of which is to say: small silver coins were not inconvenient if you were familiar with them.

 

It was mentioned inherently in the reply that said that our coins were sized so that the weights were proportional to their value. Not sure what the 8 units vs. 10 units difference has to do with much here.

 

When a skilled workman earned 50 cents a day (1790-1860), a half cent was a loaf of bread, or a bowl of soup. Today, the average wage is $100 per day. The difference between 8 and 10 cents was considerable back then.

People in the new USA made do with a wide array of small silver Spanish coins, the reales and half-reales. The coins were often worn past the point where anyone else in the world would take them, but they were welcome here as fractions. When debates for a 20-cent coin were started, the need for the smaller "fips" was mentioned as well.

We have tokens good for 12-1/2 and 6-1/4 cents because of this. Remember that Spanish coins were the mainstay for much of America, even 50+ years after the Constitution and all that.

See Spanish Coins on American Banknotes here:
http://scoan.oldnote.org/

 

... and despite the fact that both Hamilton and Jefferson argued for the decimal system, the quarter dollar - not the fifth - was issued for the next 200 years.

 

Get a pile of scrap silver and a pile of scrap copper. Now measure out ten cents worth of each. Which pile is bigger?

 

But the conversation dives deeper. As noted in the first post about using metal weights and their proportions to determine size, there's been a lot of discussion since about why not using an alloy that would expand the dime's diameter beyond that of a penny. That would make denominations increase parallel with size, as one would intuitively think a higher denomination should be. Yet, the Minters throughout US history have consistently been keen on keeping the dime at or near its size today.

From what I gather, the generally agreed upon answers appear to be that the dime wasn't alloyed into a larger round (e.g. as the 1940's War nickels which are about 80% of the melt value of silver dimes), due to traditional influences from America's past as well as how other prominent western/European Mint counterparts have done it, and wide public acceptance of the denomination sizes.

 

Task for self...what would be the size of a $0.10 coin at the current value for silver?

 

If you click on the "reply" notice at the bottom of the post, it is more obvious to whom you are replying.

 

Silver was used/kept because the producers(miners) bribed the congress like many others do today....

 

Taking the price of silver as $14.00/oz and an oz at 31g, if we maintain the dime width at 17.9 mm, a silver dime would be 0.00008 mm thick. Consider ordinary aluminum foil is 0.016 mm thick.