Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="GDJMSP, post: 64842, member: 112"]This is from the Mint's web site as well - dated Nov.7,2003 Now what that statement does not tell you is that the mint said that they didn't have time to design and strike a new nickel for the latter half of 2003 as the law said they could. So the new 2003 nickel never came to be. The statement also does not tell you that the law, as originally written, only called for new nickel designs in 2003, 2004 & 2005. The coins from these 3 yrs - and only these years - were to be called the Westward Journey series. But then the Congressional delegates from Virginia got upset. So they introduced an ammendment to the law that would require the mint to strike a nickel in 2006 with Thomas Jefferson on the obverse and Monticello on the reverse - and that these two images would remain on the nickel forever. But they forgot to mention that they wanted the "old" design to return. Anyway the law was passed. Once the law was passed - somebody realized that the law did not require the old designs to be used. So the mint came up with the bright idea of creating new T.J. & Monticello designs - this would allow them to have a new design and still comply with the law as written. So - that is why we are having a new nickel for 2006. It has nothing to do with the Westward Journey series - it never did. The mint is saying that it does so that they can capitalize on the additional sales it will generate. It's pure marketing.[/QUOTE]