Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;cladking, post: 3132055, member: 68&quot;]I remember one of the old spurious arguments against Diane Wolf&#039;s suggestion to change the design on the quarter was that this denomination was too important to fiddle with.&nbsp; I told her the real issue wasn&#039;t that there would be too few coins because collectors would grab all the new ones but that soon enough they&#039;d grab all the old ones. </p><p><br /></p><p>She actually used this as one of her arguments; that the mint would make tons of money making new quarters to replace the old ones as well as many of the new ones.&nbsp; The legislation probably would have passed, too, except at the last minute someone spread a rumor that it was all an attempt to get IGWT removed from the quarter.&nbsp; How ironic Washington DC operates on rumor and scuttled the change in the Washington quarter back in 1994.&nbsp; But the argument that there were big profits for the mint combined with Canada&#039;s success at their provincial quarters won the day in &#039;96 and the states legislation was passed.</p><p><br /></p><p>The mint apparently needlessly stockpiled 1996, &#039;97, and &#039;98 quarters because they feared all the new coins would just disappear.&nbsp; It actually took a year for the states coins to catch on and then the mint ramped up production in plenty of time.&nbsp; This is why some of the &#039;96 -&#039;98 quarters have so little wear.&nbsp; They weren&#039;t all released to circulation until about 2005.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in