| Author |
 Replies: 56 / Views: 6,555 |
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
189340 Posts |
Quote:
As to eliminating the one cent coin: NOOOOOO! I am deeply opposed to it. But, I will admit that is mainly due to my position as a coin collector. If the mint were smart, it would continue to mint and sell them for mint sets, proof sets, and rolls (it has worked well for the Half Dollar). Of course, they would have to be bronze instead of zinc.  Quote:As to the 5 cent coin, same reason, but that's reason #2. Reason #1 is bigger... If we eliminate the nickel, then how do you make change for a quarter? ... The only thing they could do at that point is to also eliminate the quarter dollar, and replace it with a Twenty Cent Piece again. Yes, this is a real problem. We all wish the Twenty Cent coin had won that battle 136 years ago.  We could change the five cent coin to something cheaper (zinc) and let the vending industry deal with it, or just get rid of it and let chaos ensue.  Quote:
Changes would need to be slow. I agree. So let's nix the cent now and worry the nickel for the next few years. Quote:
IF the shortage bit in 2008~2009 thing is true, then people DID return their cents to the bank, so if the bank starts running out people will start depositing them. No. It was not because a shortage of coins. It was because of a shortage of income. The economy tanked and people were broke, so they started turning in their change for extra cash. |
|
Pillar of the Community
1325 Posts |
The other thread got me thinking and looking at other countries and calculating....
1 pound worth of copper right this minute is about $3.03
1 pound of aluminum right this minute is about 77 cents.
not taking into account (because I do not know it) the cost to turn both into coin shapes of the same size:
19.05 mm wide x 1.52 mm thick
387, 1.17 gram coins could be made with 1 pound of aluminum for 77 cents worth of aluminum.
116, 2.5 gram coins could be made with 1 pound of copper for $3.03 worth of copper.
Why are we using copper+ to make cents when aluminum costs less and you can get more out of the same weight amount? you can get 3 times as many aluminum cents for one third the cost of raw materials. that would mean material costs would be 1/9th. Wouldnt that cut some of the cost of cents?
"Canada got rid of there cents.", so lets follow them?
"Dozen or more other countries have started using copper." Why are we not following the thing that has worked longer for more people? Why follow Canada?
Just needed some place to put my math, and thought this thread a good place to share the thoughts for any that care about that sort of thing. Maybe someone else that knows more about production costs could finish the equation to see how much if any would be saved making aluminum alloy cents in the US over copper ones.
|
|
Moderator
United States
189340 Posts |
Quote:
Wouldnt that cut some of the cost of cents? Unfortunately, no. First, the cost of zinc is what matters (cents are 97.5% zinc), not copper (cents are only 2.5% copper). As I write this, zinc is only 13 cents more than aluminium per pound. Both are under a dollar. Second, the material is a very small part of the cost. The problem is that the actual manufacturing process costs the mint lot more than a cent to make a cent. Even if the metal were free, they would still lose money. |
|
Pillar of the Community
1325 Posts |
Quote:
Cost of Producing the Penny, Nickel, Dime, Quarter, and Golden Dollar Coins.
Penny
2.41 cents
(United States Mint, 2011 Annual Report, pg. 11) Anyone got the cost of copper and zinc per 2011 so we can see what the percentage of the cost is for the metal? Or is the cost listed just for production and NOT for the metal itself? 0.0019896 is the cost per metal per all aluminum cent as above 0.0261206 is the cost per metal per all copper cent as above So it looks like unless prices of copper and aluminum have skyrocketed that price the Mint lists for production is JUST for the metal itself (copper+zinc) Again math isn't working out for we are lacking information... material costs manufacturing costs personnel costs If the 2011 report is only for the metal costs itself, the you could make 5 aluminum cents for 1 cent, which would mean you could make 25 aluminum cents for about the same $0.05 it takes to make 2 zincolns. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
In 2011 the cost of each cent was 2.4 cents apiece, roughly 1 cent for production costs and 1.4 cents for metal.
In 2012 the cost dropped to 2.1 cents apiece, again 1 cent for production and 1.1 cents for materials. (metal costs had dropped.)
In 2013 the cost went down again. This time they managed to cut production costs to .9 cents each and the metal costs still around 1.1 cents for a total of 2 cents each.
A switch to aluminum would result in a further savings in metal costs, but unless the aluminum is plated with another metal there will be an increased cost in dies because aluminum, although soft, is very abrasive to dies. (Aluminum when exposed to air immediately forms a coating of aluminum oxide, corundum, which believe it or not is one of the hardest substances known. It rates as a 9 on the Mohs hardness scale. Diamond is a 10, die steel is a 7 or 8.) Even with the lower cost of the metal you still can't produce the cent for less than face value because the production cost almost equals the full face value of the coin.
Your figure for the metal cost of a full copper cent looks accurate, but isn't meaningful because they haven't made cents out of copper for 32 years. they have been making cents at a loss for about 10 years now.
Edited by Conder101
03/29/2014 10:18 am
|
|
Valued Member
United States
186 Posts |
its seems the everyone moans with the mint having production cost more than face value on the cent and nickel. I don't know why the mint doesn't start to extend the use of the dies and use them for as long as possible. Its like every cent and nickel has to be top notch condition. I have never seen any poorly struck ones anymore and I could imagine a lot worse condition like the nickels in the 80's. I bet the mint could use the dies until they broke or at least they are severely mushed down. Even dollar bills and paper money in general. I think the Fed could push bills a lot farther in circulation than they do. I hardly ever see any poor condition paper money where as they need to be taped together. This could cut down on the overall costs but someone would take a hit like the die makers and Crane paper Co.
|
|
Moderator
United States
189340 Posts |
Quote:
I don't know why the mint doesn't start to extend the use of the dies and use them for as long as possible. They do. This is why modern coins have such low relief. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
998 Posts |
Quote:
its seems the everyone moans with the mint having production cost more than face value on the cent and nickel. I don't know why the mint doesn't start to extend the use of the dies and use them for as long as possible. Its like every cent and nickel has to be top notch condition. I have never seen any poorly struck ones anymore and I could imagine a lot worse condition like the nickels in the 80's. I bet the mint could use the dies until they broke or at least they are severely mushed down. Even dollar bills and paper money in general. I think the Fed could push bills a lot farther in circulation than they do. I hardly ever see any poor condition paper money where as they need to be taped together. This could cut down on the overall costs but someone would take a hit like the die makers and Crane paper Co. Like Jbuck said, the dies are pushed further by using low relief. Compare the relief of current circulation coinage to that of coins of 40, 60 80 years ago and you will see. Nickels appear to be the worst IMHO, the obverse relief is almost nonexistent these days. This is due to the mint numbers, they make exponentially more coins each year than they did in prior years because of the lack of recirculation. That's also the reason you don't see a lot of worn coins these days; coins just do not circulate like they used to. They go from the mint to the bank, then to the store, used as change once and end up in a jar for a year or so and then cashed in back at the bank or a CoinStar. They then go through the same cycle and a year or so later get used a second time. Back when coins actually had real purchasing power they would get used over and over and over and over and have the wear to prove it. Paper money is a different story. It gets used over and over and when it starts showing wear and tear (or tears) it is sent back for shredding. The bank gets full credit for bills it sends back for destruction. This explains why it is common for new bill styles to take over almost overnight. It is unusual to see bills in circulation with Series dates over 10 years old. Due to the higher value of paper bills collecting older bills is seen less; who is gonna stick a 1990's $100 bill in a book just because it is relatively old? |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
Changes would need to be slow. Well considering they started talking about changing the cent or doing away with it back in the early 70's, the "slow" change has taken over 40 years so far. |
|
Pillar of the Community
1325 Posts |
Quote:
the "slow" change has taken over 40 years so far. Give it a few more decades since it took until 2014 from when FRD and JFK started working on health care reform. Then they will alter the dime which features FDR to commemorate the event and make it the size of a current cent and make the cent the size of a current dime, then take another century to figure out how to make electronic money work like in Demolition Man, or abolish it like in Star Trek. But when it happens be sure to have extra $1 bills on hand in case you cannot figure out how the 3 sea shells work.  Edited by shadz
04/01/2014 7:42 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
189340 Posts |
|
| |
Replies: 56 / Views: 6,555 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 03/28/2014 2:41 pm
