Nickels - Karen's Musings

Log in

No account? Create an account

Remember me

Forgot password

Facebook Twitter Google




			Nickels - Karen's Musings Random Rambling




			09:56 am November 11th, 2003

estherchaya


	Nickels
	Argh. I admit, I don't respond well to change. I'm old-fashioned. I could even be considered a stick-in-the-mud. But I really am unhinged by something that seems so small. They (who's they? The US Mint, I suppose) are taking Monticello off of the flip side of the nickel and replacing it with Lewis and Clark. Harumph. I love Monticello. I'm not saying Lewis & Clark aren't cool. But haven't they made ENOUGH changes to money recently??? (speaking of which, I have one of the new 20s that I have to log on the US Mint site) Oh, and I still have a cold, and I'm still unthrilled by this. Update: I'm actually slightly incorrect. Monticello is being replaced by an artistic depiction of the Louisiana Purchase (it's two hands shaking each other, whooppee) in the Spring of 2004, and of Lewis & Clark's expedition (this is a picture of a very big boat designed by Captain Lewis) in the fall of 2004. I'm still irritated. In fact, perhaps moreso. Why can't they just pick one!? Current Mood: sick

13 comments or Leave a comment


	Comments




			Thread started by Greg Cohoon

	From: drmellow	Date: November 11th, 2003 07:36 am (UTC)		(Link)

I'm convinced that it's a conspiracy to get coinage out of circulation. If enough people "collect" these special coins, it will artificially raise the percieved value of US currency, do to the "hoarding effect." I've single-handedly removed $10.75 from the economy in my quest to collect circulated copies of the "state quarters."

Perhaps we can get

bodnej to pontificate about this. I think he just read a book on economics and might be able to back my wild conspiracy ideas up with legitimate-sounding economic theory.

(Reply) (Thread)

	From: estherchaya	Date: November 11th, 2003 10:53 am (UTC)		(Link)

We'll probably have to wait until he gets back from New Orleans.

Personally, I'm just ticked that they're attacking Monticello. I love Monticello.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)




			Thread started by Monica

	From: cellio	Date: November 11th, 2003 08:03 am (UTC)		(Link)

One of my big currency-change complaints is with the damned quarters.

I should be able to fish a coin out of my pocket, glance at it, and instantly know what it is, regardless of orientation. Money should not require excessive processing. Now that there are 50 different back sides, all unfamiliar, there's a 50% chance that I will have to turn the coin over to see its face, to know that I have a quarter rather than an SBA or a Canadian quarter or something else. No, I don't get a lot of SBAs or Canadian coins, but I get them in change occasionally and I usually don't notice at the time. If I have this much trouble, I can only guess how horrible this must be for blind people.

For similar reasons, I am very happy about the new 20s (though I don't have any yet). Finally (since they screwed up the bills a year or two ago) I can now tell a 20 from a 10 from the front! The squirrelly script they use for the numbers makes the "20" on the front utterly illegible to me. Fortunately, they at least used a plain font on the back. (Yeah, the faces are different, but that's only helpful in comparison. It also only helps if you pull the bill all the way out of the wallet; I want to look at the numbers in the corners.)

(Reply) (Thread)

	From: estherchaya	Date: November 11th, 2003 08:32 am (UTC)		(Link)

For the record, I like the new 20s. (I liked the old ones too, but I see why they could be problemmatic).

And further, for the record, I thought I'd be seriously annoyed by the quarters, but as it turns out, I like them usually.

BUT. I think the nickel is taking it too far.

I am unthrilled.

I have reached my limit for change for a while. (no pun intended...I didn't even notice it until I'd typed it)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: cellio	Date: November 11th, 2003 08:39 am (UTC)		(Link)

I agree with you. I don't remember nearly so many major alterations to existing currency in the past. This is getting kind of silly.

I think the thing with the quarters is that I don't get the benefit that would supposedly offset the hassle. I've seen a bunch of them, and I can't tell you what's on the backs of any of them. Even when I'm looking at them, I usually can't tell what they're supposed to be unless I pull out a magnifying glass. A quarter is just way too small a canvas for effective art, at least for me. So it's all hassle and no benefit.

I like the new 20s too.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: estherchaya	Date: November 11th, 2003 08:46 am (UTC)		(Link)

I agree with you. I don't remember nearly so many major alterations to existing currency in the past. This is getting kind of silly.

Well, that was actually one of the problems. The previous iteration of the 20s and 10s that you were complaining about came out in 1996 (wow! can it be that long ago?). But it had been 20 years or so previous that any other changes had been made. Not changing the bills more frequently makes it easier to counterfeit. Now, the treasury is planning to change the bills every 7 to 10 years (so we're right on track with the new 20s), which will help curb some counterfeiters.

Other countries change their currency far more often. The US has always been reluctant to follow suit.

As for your issues with the quarters... I'm irritated that there's no consistency since there's so many different types out there, but obviously it hasn't seriously changed my life. Your difficulties seeing the art on the quarter are somewhat specific to your eye issues, of course. I have sub-par vision, but I can typically appreciate the art on the quarters (with a few exceptions). That doesn't keep me from thinking it's silly.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: cellio	Date: November 11th, 2003 09:24 am (UTC)		(Link)

Wow, we've had those new-but-not-peach 20s since 1996? My, how time flies. I thought it had only been about 2 or 3 years, and was surprised by the high rate of change. Once per decade is more reasonable.

I realize that my vision issues are non-standard, but I don't think they're so rare that the minters should ignore them either. Oh well; I guess their answer is "look at the face". So long as they leave one side unambiguous, that works.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: estherchaya	Date: November 11th, 2003 09:37 am (UTC)		(Link)

Wow, we've had those new-but-not-peach 20s since 1996? My, how time flies. I thought it had only been about 2 or 3 years, and was surprised by the high rate of change. Once per decade is more reasonable.

According to the Treasury Dept., the previous iteration of bills was in 1996. I, too, thought it had only been a few years.

Oh, wait. 1996 was when the project was launched with the $100 bill.

The following is excerpted from a CNN Money article (click here for full article):

The last redesign of American currency was in 1996, when a new $100 bill was introduced with anti-counterfeiting features such as ink that appeared black from one angle and green from another; a watermark visible only when holding the bill up to the light; and a security strip running vertically through the bill -- features that will remain in the newest currency.
Other currencies with similar features followed -- a new $50 bill in 1997, a new $20 bill in 1998, and new $5 and $10 notes in 2000.

Still, it's been 5 years since the 20s were released.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: allah_sulu	Date: November 11th, 2003 09:41 am (UTC)		(Link)

The only thing I really don't like about the new $20 bills is the rain of little yellow "20"s on the back.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: estherchaya	Date: November 11th, 2003 10:12 am (UTC)		(Link)

I'm not fond of those either. I assumed they were some sort of security precaution (maybe they don't xerox well?), but they aren't listed as one of the security precautions on howthingswork.com ... so maybe they're just stupid. ;)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

	From: allah_sulu	Date: November 11th, 2003 10:24 am (UTC)		(Link)

They look stupid.

If that's some non-xeroxing super-secret ink, they still could have used it in a better way...

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Expand)

	From: estherchaya	Date: November 11th, 2003 10:28 am (UTC)		(Link)

tee hee

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)


	(no subject) - yermie - Expand


	13 comments or Leave a comment