Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Cal.Sales, post: 507903, member: 16930&quot;]Maybe this is just another way to get to the same conclusion reached by lots of previous posters, that the Ike and Sacs were the worst.&nbsp; However, it seems to me that &quot;design&quot; has more to do with function than ugliness.&nbsp; A bad design for a coin would be one that impaired its functionality as money.&nbsp; As a collector I might like coins for their history or their beauty, but primarily they are made to be money.&nbsp; The Ike would qualify as &quot;bad&quot; because it was too big and heavy for people to carry around to use as money, and the Sac would also qualify because it was too much like a quarter and confused too many people.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Actually the Ike does have one redeeming grace although it&#039;s a non-money one.&nbsp; Because it&#039;s so big, it&#039;s the best for &quot;flipping&quot; at the beginning of a youth baseball game to determine which team bats first.</p><p><br /></p><p>I wonder if there are other nominees for US circulated coins whose design was bad for its function as money?&nbsp; Could you say that <b>All</b> US circulating coins after 1964 (except the 1965-1970 Kennedy half dollars and the pre-1983 1 cent coins) are &quot;bad&quot; as money because they have virtually no intrinsic worth? </p><p><br /></p><p>cal.sales[/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