Commems Collection Classic: What If? 1950 Intermediate Coinage - Part II

Continuing the story from Part I... (What If? 1950 Intermediate Coinage - Part I

Day 2 of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Currency and Coinage Hearing on Intermediate Coinage began with the entry of 18 letters into the Official Record of the Hearing. Most of the letters indicated support for the new coins, especially among soda/beverage companies, though opposition to the coin measures was voiced by multiple vending machine manufacturers/distributors.

One letter, in particular, caught my eye. It was from J. M. Rogers of the Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Vallejo, California. The letter stated:

"Being submitted for your approval is a proposal that the
Government mint 2-1/2 and 7-1/2 cent coins. We are in the bottled-beverage industry. It was a small group of men in this industry who originated and are promoting the proposal with the idea that it will benefit our particular business. We disagree with this group for several reasons.

"It is true that our business is caught in a squeeze. Our product, to maintain its sales volume and popularity, must sell on a one coin basis. lt is not practical to set a retail price of 6, 7, or 8 cents. It must he a nickel or a dime or 7-1/2 cents, if such a coin is minted. The argument has been made that more and more dealers are retailing for a dime to the detriment of the general public. This may be true, but our own surveys show that although 50 percent or over are charging a dime, 75 to 85 percent of the volume of sale is coming to nickel outlets."

"It is likewise true that the bottling industry is operating generally at a profit far below what it should be in proportion to capital investment. This Is because sugar, our principal ingredient, is more costly than it should be, together with other generally higher operating costs. The standard size bottle for soft drinks is 7 ounces, yet many hottlers are merchandising their products in 9-, 10- and 12-ounce bottles. This group at least is not justified in advocating a disruption of
the coinage system when the simple solution is to reduce the size of their bottles to normal.

"There is not a cash register in the United States that will he able to handle the proposed coins. The proposed change will necessitate an outlay of billions of dollars for small merchants to. convert their cash-registering equipment. Rather than throw the regular coinage system into confusion for the whole country, we believe it is better for our one industry to put up with present coinage and divert its efforts to raising sugar quotas to bring the Nation's supplies more in line with the demand and reduce sugar prices accordingly.

"What our country needs is not a 7-1/2-cent coin. What we really need is a nickel that is worth 5 cents."

This one hit home for me because back in March 2022, I posted about a proposed 7-1/2 Cent Coin (see it here, What If? 1924 Warren G. Harding - 7-1/2 Cent Coin. In the post I stated:

"Side Note: Stories have circulated about The Coca-Cola Company requesting Congress, in the 1950s, to authorize a 7-1/2 cent coin to be used in vending machines to match a price increase it was considering for a bottle of Coke - the Company had maintained a price of five cents per bottle for decades and believed doubling the price to ten cents represented too big of an increase. I've not come across such discussions in the Congressional Record, so it does not appear to ever have been officially considered - definitely a "backroom" discussion!"

While the letter (above) was not from Coca-Cola HQ, it does cast further doubt (at least for me) as to Coca-Cola being the primary driver of the intermediate coinage bills.

The first witness on Day 2 was Clyde Bailey, Executive Vice President, United States Independent Telephone Association. Members of the Association were "neither owned nor controlled by the Bell system."

The Association was not a supporter of the proposed new coinage:

"In our business we see no need for coins of new dimensions. Indeed, we can very easily anticipate that the introduction of new coins would complicate the rendering of coin-box telephone service to the public."

(In today's age of cell phones, how often do you come across coin-box/pay telephones?)

Edward Renner, General Manager, Northern Virginia Music Company was next to testify.

Mr. Renner supported the fractional coins for economic reasons. All of the costs associated with providing music vending machine (i.e., jukebox) entertainment had risen and the nickel-per-song model supported by the public was no longer viable for business operators. Renner stated that folks couldn't afford a dime per song, but believed a 7-1/2 cent coin would be palatable and enable operators to earn a profit vs. a loss.

Renner was followed by the testimony of five witnesses of varied backgrounds. Each, however, was in favor of the intermediate coinage proposals.

The witnesses were:

- Maurine Loos, Housewife
- William Loos, Credit Manager
- Ray Derges, President, Derges Bottling Company
- Leonard S. Levison, President, Spencer Equipment Corporation of America (earth-moving and road-building equipment) and Secretary, American Insitute for Intermediate Coinage
- Mitchell Cox, Sales Promotion Manager, Pepsi-Cola Company (Represented franchised bottlers of Pepsi-Cola)

After Mr. Cox completed his statement, the Hearing recessed but was subject to the call of the Chair if additional witnesses merited such action.

In addition to the Senate bills discussed, the House of Representatives ("House") also saw intermediate coin bills introduced.

6-1/4 and 12-1/2 Cents]/u]

Not to be left out, John William Wright Patman (D-TX) introduced a interesting coin bill in the House in mid-January 1950. The bill called for two new circulation coins - the "Bit" and "Half-Bit" (12-1/2 and 6-1/4 cents, respectively).

The bill was referred to the House Committee on Banking and Currency (the same name as the Senate Committee, but it operated separately).

[u]7-1/2 Cents

Cecil Rhodes King (D-CA) followed Patman's bill in the House with one that called for the striking of a 7-1/2 cent coin. As with Patman's bill, it was referred to the House Committee on Banking and Currency upon its introduction.

In all of the bills (Senate and House), the coin specifications (e.g., designs, specifications, mintages, etc.) were left to the Director of the Mint in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury.

None of the bills (Senate or House) progressed, and thus new intermediate coinage was not made a part of US coinage. Ultimately, the Congress was not swayed by the arguments of the Institute and sided with the Treasury Department.


For other of my posts about commemorative coins and medals, including more What If? stories, see: Commems Collection.