Question On Design Of Buffalo Nickel And Standing Liberty Quarter

Yes, just lousy designs.

The "Roosevelt-era redesigns" were instigated to beautify the coinage. "How the coins looked when first struck" was all they really paid attention to or cared about; they don't seem to have done any studies on how the coins would look once severely worn.

There was no government opinion that "coin collectors were bad" in the early 20th century. Both quarters and nickels were being produced for a substantial profit, so any coins that coin collectors kept could be easily and profitably replaced. That coin collectors had the favour of the government is evidenced by the fact that the 1920s saw the beginning of a prolific series of NCLT collector coin issues, in the form of the "classic commemorative" half dollars - none of which were actually intended for issue into circulation.

This is in sharp contrast to the 1960s, when nickels were noticeably less profitable to make, silver coins were being produced at a loss or breakeven costs, and their cupronickel replacements would need to be churned out as fast as possible to try to meet the demand due to the hoarding of silver. "Coin collectors" were being blamed for hoarding and removing coins from circulation. And this is why they made the deliberate design decision to remove mintmarks for 1965-1967 minted coins - to make the coins less attractive to coin collectors. Coin collectors were "the bad guys" in this narrative - and this government disfavour is also evidenced by the almost complete lack of collector coins being struck at this time. Coin collectors were supposed to make do with just keeping the proof sets.

Nice analysis Sap.

I'm not saying it would "work". I'm saying governments could do it, if they really had it in for coin collectors and/or they wanted to send a message that coin hoarding was evil. They'd probably have to pave the way with several years worth of propaganda before enacting such laws.

Look at Prohibition (of alcohol in America in the 1920s). It's often touted as an example of a failed government policy because it didn't completely stop people drinking - they just drank illegally. However, prohibition "worked" in the sense of drastically reducing alcohol consumption and eliminating its public visibility and social acceptability.

Likewise, prohibiting coin collecting wouldn't make coin collecting go away entirely, but it would drive it underground, preventing people from openly advertising and selling their coins; at the same time, many people wishing to be law-abiding or simply fearing being caught, would comply with the laws and hand their collections and hoards over. If "drastic reduction" is the goal, then "elimination" is a viable strategy.

Believe it or not, there are countries where coin collecting - or at least, certain types of coin collecting - is illegal. In Greece, it is illegal to collect coins older than 1826. The laws have been in place for many decades now and it has become part of Greek culture, being taught in schools that people who collect ancient coins are evil. The policy is supported across the political spectrum; no political party dares disagree with it. People in Greece who continue to collect ancient coins must do so in secret, and would be considered traitors by their family, neighbours and government if they were found out.