changing the prezzies

I like the $1 notation on the golden $s. It's modern and up to date with American culture. Keep an edge inscription and put the dat on the obverse or the reverse surface.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The edge lettering looks like it was done by a kindergarden class. Maybe the missing edge lettering was when they were taking a nap.

 

The bill passed the house, that's why it was on the news. Nothing's been done in the senate yet.

 

edge inscription

the edge inscription is by far the worst designed produced by the u.s.mint. those who proposed this should resign or ban from future coin design proposal.

 

That's unbelievable speed for a bill which was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Financial Services only six weeks ago! I wonder why this legislative tracking site doesn't know how fast track it is!

 

That would be Congress.

 

I think it's just an oversight that they didn't specify putting the motto on the obverse or reverse of the coin. They were focused on removing it from the edge.

People are already screaming bloody murder either because they thought the edge wasn't a prominent enough place for the motto or because the Mint threatened western civilization by allowing coins to escape into circulation without it.

 

Close but not quite. It will actually mean the indefinite delay of the president dollar program. The amendment says you can't use the money to make dollars with edge inscriptions. But the law says the dollars have to have the inscriptions on the edge. So you CANT move the inscriptions, and you can't leave them off. So you can't strike president dollars. (A solution I came up with was to fund the dollar production from the seniorage account and then transfer money from appropriations to seniorage to replace the funds. That satisfies the letter of the law because you are not using the appropriations money to fund the striking of the dollars.)

 

The edge lettering is different, and that's what I like about it.

However my eyes aren't very good, and I really have trouble reading it.

 

I hope it passes in the senate. It already passed in the house.

 

I think North Korea is already outsourcing our money on a large scale,but not coins yet. That is Chinas deal

 

HR 2510 is not the bill the house passed. They added an amendment to HR2829 appropriations bill and the wording could derail the President dollar program. Its up to the Senate to clarify the wording.

HR2829
SEC. 907. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to implement section 5112(n)(2)(C) of title 31, United States Code.


5112 of title 31
‘‘(C) EDGE-INCUSED INSCRIPTIONS.—

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The inscription of the year of

minting or issuance of the coin and the inscriptions

‘E Pluribus Unum’ and ‘In God We Trust’ shall be

edge-incused into the coin.

 

I would guess that the Mint could interpret this to mean section 5112(n)(2)(C) no longer applies to the program and just does not use the edge lettering anymore on future coins and it will all be perfectly legal.

For instance the law currently says they have to use edge lettering but they released 100,000 coins with no edge lettering and nothing happened, so I don't think anything would happen if they removed the edge lettering entirely and went back to placing it on the obverse and/or reverse like other series. All they have to say is this new law removes the requirement for edge lettering and the coins will be perfectly legal.

Just my guess on it but it all has to passed and signed into law before they do anything.

 

Something more to consider. If the mint is still producing Washington,Adams or Jefferson dollars for mint sets(satin) or proof sets when the law goes into effect we would have more variaties.
Also, The mint has spent a ton of money developing this new edge lettering machine. It would actually cost them more to scrap them and develope now designs and dies. Could the mint just say they are not spending any new money and continue to edge letter? Probably just paying the operator would violate the law.

 

That would be a misinterpretation because the amendment only refers to not spending money to impliment it, it does NOT remove it as a requirement of the law.

And if they did interpret it that way it would mean that they would have to issue coins without IGWT, E Pluribus Unum, the date, or the mintmark. (Earleir laws that would normally mandate the appearance of the mottoa and date would not apply to the dollar coin since an earlier section in the law that isn't covered by the amendment specifily exempts the dollar coin from those older laws.) So if they take it to mean no inscriptions on the edge, there is no legislation to put them back on the coin anywhere else, and you can't just put non-mandated things on the coin because you want to.