| Author |
 Replies: 32 / Views: 4,327 |
|
Valued Member
United States
425 Posts |
I was looking at some of my silver coins/bullion and was wondering is there a reason we,(maybe just the US Mint), moved from the beautiful (IMO) Liberty coins to the President portrait coins we have now? And why we moved away from the use of the Eagle and started to put buildings on the reverse?
It all seems to have started w/the penny in 1909, but then it really went crazy with the quarter in 1931, the nickel in 1938, dime in 1946, Half in 1948, and so on.
And then I was thinking maybe the use of a President as a symbol of our moneys worth is not such a good idea. Liberty and the Eagle are such perfect symbols of our country and its worth to us, but with a president,(or any person), they may have done great things but they all have faults and short comings. This and the fact that our silver coins are now sandwiches and the penny is as lite as a feather! Does this cause us to trust our money less and open us up to more I.D. theft and Credit Card fraud?
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
304 Posts |
I agree with you for the most part. I had been thinking about this as well. When did we decide to "lower ourselves" to celebrate "false idols"? Why don't we use true symbols like lady Liberty and the Bald Eagle any more?
Obviously this is my opinion, but:
Liberty/Eagle = Freedom, Liberty, a unified country.
Presidents/other historical figures = failable, faultable, maybe you personally didn't vote for them or like their policys, not everyone stands behind the President as a true American should.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
304 Posts |
Why don't we use "Old Glory", the stars and stripes, the flag of our nation on coins? I think they could make a beautiful coin with a flowing American flag on it. The flag is obviously a great symbol for the citizens of our nation, just look at how many flags were displayed after Pearl Harbor and after WWII, also more recently, after 9/11.
I think it's time we hold ourselves to a higher standard.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
187760 Posts |
It happened because of politics and once it did, there was no going back.  The justification for Lincoln was that he saved the country. Remember, the civil war was still a recent memory in 1909 (the time scale is similar to the Vietnam War for us). But once you justify one political leader, you have set a dangerous precedent. |
|
Valued Member
United States
406 Posts |
I believe that the Washington quarter was originally supposed to be a one-off thing to celebrate George's 200th birthday in 1932 and then revert to the Standing Liberty design in '33, but then, once he was there no one wanted to take it off again. Then, I guess they felt they had to put Jefferson on a coin when his 200th came around in 1938. I agree that dead presidents need to be off our coinage (especially the dollar). It's stifled our coin designs for far too long. I'd love to see the designs rolled back to their previous versions for all coins (except for the half, that needs to go back to Walking Liberty). |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5841 Posts |
I couldn't agree more! I'm currently working on designing some products that feature photographs I have taken of my favorite coins, and I early on decided to not include any with presidential portraits on them. No offense meant to the memory of the great men whose images adorn our modern coins, but they weren't exactly elected for their physical beauty....
|
|
Moderator
United States
187760 Posts |
Quote:
...once he was there no one wanted to take it off again. That is the problem. More politics prevent removal. Quote:
Then, I guess they felt they had to put Jefferson on a coin when his 200th came around in 1938. I know I am picking nits, but his 200th was actually in 1943.  I think the reason that the Jefferson design was five years early is because the Buffalo nickel had its 25 year run. Although it is a popular design now, it was not as well liked in its day and the mint was eager to replace it. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
Why not have native US animals on the coins like the Aussi coins. A Grizzly on one side and the bald eagle on the other would make a splendid $1 coin  |
|
Valued Member
United States
406 Posts |
Quote:
I know I am picking nits, but his 200th was actually in 1943. Umm... yeah, I knew that, but you know how easy it is to type in "38" when you meant to type in "43"... That's my story and I'm sticking to it... |
|
Moderator
United States
187760 Posts |
I like the way you think. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
968 Posts |
I think most of us would like to go back to Liberty. One problem the presidential precedent gives us is what to do about future coins. There are a lot of people that want Reagan on a coin, but there are an equal number of people that don't want that. Same thing would happen if they proposed Clinton for a coin. Going back to Liberty would be best, but at the very least I'd like it if we did away with all of the presidents from Roosevelt on up. I think the last person deserving of being on a coin that would also be considered acceptable by virtually all of the public would be Teddy Roosevelt.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
425 Posts |
But Clinton is already on a coin!
*** Offensive Link removed by the Staff ***
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2200 Posts |
We agree that we prefer metaphors to real life. Lady Liberty and the eagle are metaphors and symbols for what we as a people stand for. I think the reason we like metaphors and symbols so much is that they stimulate our intellect as well as give us something artistic to look at. But the mint, in its infinite wisdom, has chosen politicians instead. And I believe that the whole Presidential dollar coin series is one big money-making ploy in the hopes that collectors and the public alike will hoard in droves. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1372 Posts |
Washington was adamant about our coinage reflecting out identity as a nation. The Liberty Cap cent is a good example. The phyrigian cap was given to slaves when they were freed. For Miss Liberty to have that Cap on a pole was to send a clear message to England, that we were a free people and we have the cap to prove it. He was against deifying men on coins. To him, that was what medals were for. He would be torqued if he came back today. Our nation's first coinage law was never taken off the books. and it clearly states that "the obverse of the coin shall bear a depiction of Liberty" .... notice that it says "SHALL" and not "can" or "could", or "should".... It's meaning is not ambiguous. From time to time I purge my holdings of dead politicians, and I counted up 10.90 face today. Look for it to hit the listings here in the next little while, probably this evening. I don't collect US coins bearing illegal designs. Chance |
|
Valued Member
United States
304 Posts |
I don't think I care enough to spearhead the effort, but I would certainly sign a petition to the Mint/politicians to stop the use of recognizing individuals on our currency and use symbols of our country instead.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
Although it is a popular design now, it was not as well liked in its day and the mint was eager to replace it. Also at the time the people at the mint seemed to operate under the mistaken impression that the Coinage act of 1890 REQUIRED the designs to be changed every 25 years instead of ALLOWING them to be changed no more often than every 25 years. Quote:
But the mint, in its infinite wisdom, has chosen politicians instead. The Mint does not chose what the design theme is to be. They are selected by Congress or other high government officials, and the final design is approved by the Secretary of the Treasury. |
| |
Replies: 32 / Views: 4,327 |
Posted 11/03/2011 12:43 pm
