Trang chủ » blog » The U.S. Presidential dollar series: Failure or success?

The U.S. Presidential dollar series: Failure or success?

The Reverse Proof 2015-P Kennedy dollar featured mirror devices and frost fields, the face-to-face of the traditional Proof ( or Cameo Proof ). All four of the Presidential dollars in the 2015 Coin & Chronicles set bear the Reverse Proof finish up, and all four coins are unique to the sets. The four 2015 Coin & Chronicles sets all sold out, with the Truman and Eisenhower sets reaching that point in 15 minutes ; the Kennedy typeset after several days ; and the Johnson jell in about four hours. All contained a Reverse Proof 2015-P President dollar, a Presidential decoration, and early items. religious groups circulated rumors that the motto “ In God We Trust ” had been removed from the presidential dollars as region of a continuing campaign to remove God from Americans ’ lives. While the claims were false, Congress reversed its original mandate and ordered that the Mint move the motto from the boundary to the obverse or turn back. It began appearing on the obverse of the coins in 2009. One or two hoppers of 2007 George Washington dollars like this one bypassed the edge-inscription station at the Philadelphia Mint, resulting in tens of thousands, and possibly even hundreds of thousands, of coins placed into circulation with plain edges.

This shows a segment of the edge-inscription device used to impart the incuse inscription on a strike coin. A plain edge struck coin would be fed into the edge die and propelled along the channel by a rotate roulette wheel, with the edge forced into the raise elements of the die. The first four presidential dollars celebrate George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. The Statue of Liberty design is the coarse overrule used throughout the series. mint officials originally provided sketches of presidential portraits derived from historic Presidential medals to the two federal review panels ( different borders were offered ). The Mint said using the older designs is what the presidents would have wanted. The concept was bluffly rejected and raw designs were solicited. The member of Congress behind the presidential dollar program had high hopes that the coins would circulate widely. They didn ’ thymine. But they do offer much to collectors. If success of the 2007 to 2016 presidential dollar program were to be measured by how well it met the primary finish of the authorizing legislation — to increase the use of dollar coins in circulation — then it can justly be said that the goal was not met .
From 2007 to 2016, the United States Mint issued 39 unlike presidential dollars to celebrate 38 different men. The first 20 coins were issued for circulation, at least technically if not in actuality, with the remainder of the series produced only for collector sales because the coins of 2007 to 2011 had gone uncoiled to Federal Reserve vaults to sit, unneeded in department of commerce .
Connect with Coin World:
Sign up for our free eNewsletter
Like us on Facebook  
Follow us on Twitter

For collectors, this result was no surprise. The Eisenhower dollar, the Anthony dollar, and the Sacagawea dollar — they all failed to replace $ 1 Federal Reserve notes in circulation. Americans persistently have avoided using bulky dollar coins — even the smaller ones like the Anthony and Sacagawea coins — since they much prefer foldable $ 1 notes that can be tucked away in wallets and pockets. even as far back as the Morgan silver dollar, the public largely preferred the note to the coin .

indeed why were presidential dollars issued in the first locate ?
A few years before the end of the State quarter dollars program in 2008, its legislative godhead, Rep. Michael Castle, R-Del., began looking for a like coin program — one that would pump multiple modern coin designs into circulation every year, and both promote mint gather and continue a concept that the State quarter dollars represent : neologism as history lessons .
however, rather than just repeating the State quarters series, Castle conceived of depicting every U.S. president of the united states on a circulating dollar mint, struck on the same manganese-brass clothed planchets being used for the Sacagawea dollars. He predicted that not alone would the program be embraced by collectors, it would encourage wider circulation of a dollar mint .
He was wrong, intelligibly. When was the last meter any of you reading this article received a presidential dollar back in switch from anyone ringing you up at a cash register ?
few in the collector residential district expected the Presidential dollars to circulate any more wide than any other dollar coin for the past hundred years. And however, Castle ’ s legislation did create a series that some collectors have embraced. During the plan ’ randomness run, coins were released into circulation without their edge inscriptions, rumors circulated that the government had voted to remove the motto “ In God We Trust ” as however another assault on religion, coins were released with a stove of different finishes, and even a few highly limited-mintage versions sold out. And it all began with legislation that failed the first clock time it was placed before Congress .

At the beginning

On March 9, 2004, Castle introduced the Presidential $ 1 Coin Act of 2004. The meter called for temporarily abandoning the portrayal of Sacagawea on the obverse of the dollar coin and replacing it with portraits of american presidents, with a Statue of Liberty design on the inverse. Castle ’ randomness placard called for several design innovations — for the presidential portraits and Statue of Liberty to be rendered rim-to-rim, for dropping LIBERTY as one of the inscriptions ( the Statue of Liberty design would stand in for the dedication ), and for moving certain mottoes, emblems, year date and Mint marker to the edge of each coin. Castle ’ s goal was to have clean and clutter-free designs by moving the majority of the textbook to the edge .
Coin World editor Beth Deisher praised the marriage proposal in an column in the March 22, 2004, issue, calling it “ an estimate whose time has come. ” She added, “ Defying the conventional wisdom that no dollar coin will successfully circulate american samoa long as the paper equivalent is available, Castle is betting that once most Americans see and use the coins, they will want to continue to use them. ”
In proposing the estimate of a presidential dollar mint broadcast, Castle had cited a 2002 study conducted by the General Accounting Office that reports more Americans would use the dollar coin if there were a rotating design alike to that of the 50 State quarters, Deisher noted in her comments. According to the report, “ many Americans who do not seek, or who reject, the newfangled $ 1 coin for use in department of commerce would actively seek the coin if an attractive, educational rotating design were to be struck on the coin. ”
In an interview with Coin World’s Michele Orzano, Castle stressed the results of that report, saying that he hoped that people would start asking banks for each new Presidential dollar, equitable as they had for the State quarter dollars. The State quarters program was a angry success, with some 120 million Americans collecting them at the acme .
Collector reaction, however, was mix. A young collector, 17-year-old Jeremy Katz, precisely the kind of collector that Castle hoped would embrace the program, expressed opposition in a Guest Commentary in the April 12, 2004, Coin World. Katz wrote, “ Supposedly, the legislation for the two serial proposes to ‘ revitalize the purpose of United States neologism ’ and return to these circulating coins ‘ aesthetic beauty. ’ Are presidents beautiful ? I personally have never picked through my pocket and exclaimed, ‘ Wow ! This portrait of George Washington is exquisite. I bet I could look at this all day ! ’ ”
In Letters to the Editors columns in Coin World in the weeks that followed, collectors debated the merits of the program, with some in favor of the estimate and others skeptical that the dollars would circulate any more widely than the Anthony and Sacagawea dollars .
Both of those programs were widely promoted by the government before their insertion and officials had high hopes that the use of dollar coins would result in lower use of dollar bills. That never happened. The 1979 Anthony dollars were struck to the tune of 757.8 million pieces — that cipher wanted to use in department of commerce outside of the transportation system industry. Mintages declined precipitously in 1980 and 1981 as the coins were struck rigorously for collector sales those two years. More were struck for circulation in 1999 after the hundreds of millions of coins languishing in vaults were ultimately used up. When the Sacagawea dollar was introduced in 2000, the leave was the same — a massive coinage of 1.28 billion coins in the first base class, rejection by the public, vastly smaller mintages in subsequent years, and, starting in 2002, production directed alone to collector sales .
No wonder then many collectors were doubting about the presidential dollars succeeding where the two previous hadn ’ t .
One expostulation to one provision of Castle ’ south beak arose in the Senate — to the removal of Sacagawea, the lone womanhood and only native American depicted on an existing mint. Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., said that stopping production of the Sacagawea dollar as the country was celebrating the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition was particularly ill-timed .
The objections in the Senate were potent enough that, despite enactment in the House, the 108th Congress closed without approval of the legislation. Castle, undeterred, reintroduce legislation in February 2005, in the 109th Congress .
In reintroducing the legislation, Castle said, “ Just like the State quarter program that has been sol successful, the Presidential dollar coins bill is a win-win suggestion. The presidential coins will teach history while generating gross for the U.S. Treasury. … ”
The House passed the bill in April 2005, though not before being amended with a planning seeking the four different change by reversal designs for the Lincoln cent in 2009, the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln ’ s give birth. The beak besides permitted continuing some production of the Sacagawea dollar, though no totals were required .
belated in 2005 the Senate published its own version of the bill and on Dec. 13, the House approved the Senate version. The measure as approved not lone authorized the Presidential dollars, it approved companion First Spouse amber coins and bronze medals ( besides part of the House bill ), continued production of the Sacagawea dollar, the four 2009 Lincoln cent commemoratives, and the american Buffalo aureate bullion coins .
With passage of the presidential dollar platform, it was nowadays time for the United States Mint to get busy creating the designs for the first four coins. The Mint ’ s initial efforts pleased no one outside of the Mint ’ s top echelon and, quite honestly, were considered diss by many in the collector community .

The wrong approach

All U.S. coinage and decoration designs must be reviewed by two federal panels — the Commission of Fine Arts and the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee. The panels look at the designs submitted to them, make their recommendations ( sometimes asking for modifications to certain designs or rejecting an entire series of designs ). The CCAC, in particular, affords the public a means to provide lineal input to the Mint on coinage designs .
Some CCAC members were wary of the Mint ’ s ability to produce quality artwork for the presidential dollars. In 2004, sculptor Daniel Altshuler, who at the time was one of the CCAC ’ s most blunt members, said that the “ bigger issue ” would be the Mint ’ s lack of good portrayal artists. “ It ’ s a err to do it right nowadays, ” he said .
The worst fears of the CCAC and CFA were realized during their respective January 2006 meetings. The Mint presented the panels portraits copied from the bronze Presidential medals that the U.S. Mint had been offering to collectors for years. As Coin World reported in its Feb. 6, 2006, write out, “ The only differences are the ornamentation and inscriptions surrounding the portraits of Presidents George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. ”
This was an amazing decisiveness and about everyone thought it a bad set about .
The Mint explained its choices in a statement released Jan. 20, 2006 :
“ The United States Mint has produced presidential medals from the earliest days of the republic, ” it began .
“ Most of these medals were designed during the terms of the presidents with input from the administration and sometimes family of the president of the united states. The design action approvals originally came from the secretary of war .
“ We ’ d like to think that this is how the presidents, themselves, would like to be portrayed. In most cases, these designs are classical when viewed today. But they are contemporary to the president ’ s own life and offer a historic window through which the populace can view the timeline of our state. These are authoritative, beautiful designs, often from periods when sculpt and medallic blueprint were regularly employed for the production of official United States Mint coins and medals .
“ From the terms of Thomas Jefferson through Benjamin Harrison, a time period of about 100 years, the presidential medals were used by the United States government in concurrence with official treaty negotiations .
“ These images are in the public domain, ” the Mint added, as a puzzle reconsideration .
At its Jan. 24 meet, the CCAC unanimously urged the U.S. Mint to abandon its plans to use the images from its Presidential decoration series for the new Presidential dollar coins. As Coin World reported in its newsworthiness coverage, “ If we go ahead with this, there will be fantastic criticism, ” predicted committee member Donald Scarinci of New Jersey, a mint collector and a decoration specialist. He led the charge against the nominate designs, labeling them “ an insult ” to Congress, the american people and to coin collectors. He pleaded with Mint officials not to press forward with their plans, despite their statements that they need to promptly get the new coins into production .
Coin World’s Deisher blasted the Mint editorially for its border on as well .
Facing such criticism, Mint officials got the message and fast. Three days after CCAC rejected the design concepts, Mint officials announced a decision to seek extra designs from their team of designers .
When the CCAC next meet, Feb. 28, the Mint had 41 new portraits ready for review. This time, the CCAC praised the Mint ’ mho efforts and promptly voted on their preferences. In doing so, the CCAC favored frontal or three-quarter views of the four presidents and rejected profiles like those rejected in the January meet. The gore ’ south approach would govern the style of portrayal to appear on the huge majority of the coins issued in the years that followed, and ensured that new portraits, not portraits resurrected from the past, would be used .

The coins circulate, or not

The broadcast was bare. Beginning with the turn of the George Washington Presidential dollar Feb. 19, 2007, four presidential dollars were to be issued every year through 2016 at least, and possibly beyond. Sitting presidents and living erstwhile presidents were ineligible to be depicted. Any early president had to be deceased at least two years before being eligible for depicting on one of the coins .
In the days leading up to the official plunge ceremony for the beginning Presidential dollar, scheduled for Feb. 15, banks in a twelve states began releasing the coins a week early. But finally, the foremost coins were in circulation, or were they ?
No groundswell of public matter to originate to use the new Presidential dollar coins in stead of the Federal Reserve note of the same denomination. Mintages for the Washington coin would be the pinnacle of presidential dollar product, with the John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison coins that followed in 2007 all struck in smaller numbers. basically, the only members of the populace concerned in the coins were collectors, and not even all of them wanted the coins in their collections .
By mid-2008, it was clear that the presidential dollar course of study had not resulted in widening circulation of the coins in department of commerce. failure of the coins to circulate had the like effect on mintages as it had for the earlier Anthony and Sacagawea programs : Mintages for the presidential dollars ( like the Anthony and Sacagawea coins ) fell steadily through and after 2007, and most of the coins went into Federal Reserve vaults alternatively of active circulation .
By the middle of 2011, the number of presidential dollars in memory at Federal Reserve facilities had reached more than 1.25 billion coins. The trouble of insufficient storage space was thus acute that, as Coin World reported in its July 25, 2011, issue, plans for building a modern repositing facility were afoot at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas to handle the excess armory, according to the 2011 Annual Report to the Congress on the Presidential $ 1 Coin Program submitted in June by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System .
distinctly, something needed to be done to avoid making coins that no one other than a small count of collectors wanted .
On Dec. 13, 2011, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner suspended output of Presidential dollars for circulation, while ensuring that the Mint retained authority to strike circulation-quality Presidential dollars for numismatic sales .
Stopping the menstruate of dollar coins to the Federal Reserve had an immediate effect on collectors : they no longer could acquire new releases from local banks at confront value. That had been a problem for some clock already in some regions of the nation, as local banks were loath to order the new issues when released for theoretical circulation. But for collectors who had been successfully acquiring the coins at boldness measure from their banks, the Geithner decision was unpopular : nowadays they would have to pay a premium for the coins .
so, as many in the hobby had predicted before the Presidential dollar series was authorized, the coins failed in commerce. But did anything catch the collector ’ south attention, beyond the four new portraits each year ?
Yes, and it involved the coins ’ distinctive edge inscriptions .

Problems with the edge

As noted earlier, Castle wanted many of the statutory inscriptions moved to the edge of the Presidential dollars to free up space for larger design elements and the add inscriptions identifying the depicted president, his years in position, and his arrange in the credit line of those who served in the office.

The date, Mint scar and mottoes IN GOD WE TRUST and E PLURIBUS UNUM were required to appear on the edges of the earliest presidential dollars .
edge inscriptions are nothing new for U.S. neologism. Some of the earliest U.S. coins bore boundary inscriptions identifying their denominations. Edge inscriptions disappeared in the 1830s but were resurrected in 1907 on the Saint-Gaudens gold double eagle and used vitamin a late as 1933 .
When the presidential dollar program became a reality, Mint officials began exploring techniques for applying the edge inscriptions and, for circulation strikes, settled upon a technique very exchangeable to that used in the 18th and 19th centuries : the boundary inscriptions would be added in a measure offprint from and following the hit of the obverse and reversion sides. ( A different system, involving a three-piece edge collar bearing the inscriptions, was used for Proof coins. )
In rehearse, the coins were struck with complain edges, fell in random positions from the press and were transported, by grounder, to a break station where they were passed through a quickly rotating round die that impressed the incused letters and numbers into the edge .
Since the coins were randomly, the border devices could read right-side-up in relation back to either the obverse or reverse. As well, the location of the edge elements, the date for example, was besides irregular relative to the put of obverse and reverse design elements This randomness resulted in many questions from collectors. many, noting that the inscriptions on some coins read correctly when the obverse was facing up and others when the change by reversal was facing up, wondered if they had mistake coins. They didn ’ metric ton .
But lots of veridical errors were generated .
One type involves multiplied edge inscriptions, with either partially or completely duplicated edge inscriptions found, and some coins having the duplicate inscriptions in the opposite up and devour orientation to each other. Another edge error involves improper space between individual elements of the inscription. Faint edge inscriptions are encountered, and on some coins, dropped letters from either the obverse or turn back are found impress into the edge .
The most celebrated edge error, however, involve coins with no border elements at all .
During the first base class of production, the equipment that imparted the border inscriptions was separate from the differently fully incorporate product channel at the Mint ’ randomness facilities. Most early steps in production were immediately linked ; blanks, planchets and coins moved from one orient in the output action to the future along conveyer belts, including for transport to the sacking stations, where finished coins were prepared for dispatch to the Federal Reserve Banks .
not so for the edge post in 2007 .
early in the product of the Washington coin at the Philadelphia Mint, a massive quantity of coins were moved from the coining presses directly to the bulge station, bypassing the equipment that would have added the edge inscriptions. The resultant role was the turn of tens of thousands of Washington Presidential dollars with plain edges in former February. Coin World noted that most find reports for the coins were concentrated in cities across Florida, primarily Jacksonville. Finds were besides made in the Chicago area. initial reports indicated that one or two hoppers of the mint, each grounder containing 350,000 coins, could have been involved .
government officials launched an probe and, in March, reported their initial findings, confirming that one or more hoppers of the coins had not been transported to the edge-inscription stations .
While officials took steps to prevent any more 2007 dollars from being released without border devices, smaller quantities of the Adams and Jefferson dollars were released with plain edges, presumably the result of a like bad luck .
In 2008, the edge-inscription place was physically connected to the output line, which resulted in many fewer such errors in the future .
The apparent edge coins are among the most valuable of presidential dollars, with Mint State 65 examples of the Washington coin deal for about $ 75 nowadays, and the Adams and Jefferson coins selling for $ 350 to $ 400 in the same grade .
Two refer, rather dramatic edge errors exist. At least one example is known of a 2007-D Sacagawea dollar with a 2007-D presidential dollar edge inscription, making it a design edge mule. A sacagawea dollar of that year should have had a complain edge, not an edge inscription. The mint was found in pouch change in 2007 and sold in a July 2012 auction for $ 17,161.10. Another obviously alone error, besides a blueprint edge mule, was reported in January 2010. A collector found a Zachary Taylor Presidential dollar of 2009 with a 2010-D edge inscription in a roll of 2010-D native american dollars acquired directly from the U.S. Mint. The Taylor dollar was the last of the 2009 Presidential dollars. These two errors obviously occurred when ( 1 ) the come to 2007 coin was unintentionally fed into edge dedication equipment and ( 2 ) the 2009 dollar was fed into an edge machine fitted with a 2010 boundary die .
Another category of interesting errors involving the border occurred when a number of unstruck planchets were edge lettered but not struck between obverse and reverse dies. These pieces are blank on their faces but yield knowing edges ; they were found in rolls of Washington dollars .
Some Proof 2007-S Thomas Jefferson Presidential dollars were found with elements of the edge inscriptions out of sequence. Proof coins are struck with three-piece segment collars that form the edge inscriptions at the time of striking. Mint workers created the Jefferson dollars with out-of-sequence inscriptions by installing the individual collar segments in the faulty rate. On the error coins, the motto IN GOD WE TRUST on the edge is followed by the motto E PLURIBUS UNUM .
The Presidential dollars errors were not the merely cause for exhilaration to arise from the use of edge inscriptions, however .

Ugly (and false) rumors

The initiation of the Washington coin in January 2007 spurred an e-mail campaign that apparently arose early, according to a mail at, the democratic rumor-busting web site. The web site in 2013 posted the textbook from the following electronic mail collected in February 2007 :
“ U.S. government to Release New Dollar Coins
“ You guessed it
“ Who originally put ‘ In God We Trust ’ onto our currentness ?
“ My bet is that it was one of the Presidents on these coins .
“ All our U.S. Government has done is Dishonor them, and disgust me ! ! !
“ If ever there was a rationality to boycott something, THIS IS IT ! ! ! !
“ together we can force them out of circulation. ”
The writer of the e-mail could not be bothered to inquiry the history of the motto ’ mho use ( it was authorized under authority of the Treasury Department during the Civil War, first appearing in 1864 on the new 2-cent mint, and not put on a mint by “ one of the Presidents ” ) .
The web site, of class, labeled the rumor as “ False ” and explained the circumstances behind the coin. however, the report appears to have circulated pretty widely in certain religious circles .
Deisher, in an editorial in the Oct. 1, 2007, issue of Coin World, related a neighbor ’ south question. She wrote that the neighbor, after discussing some rebuilding plans with her, said, “ I ’ ve got a wholly nonrelated question, and I ’ m certain you know about this. ”
After Deisher prompted him, the valet asked, “ Well, I want to know why our government wants to remove ‘ In God We Trust ’ from our coins ? ”
She assured him that there was no such plan and asked where he had heard the rumor. She shared his response : “ He explained that he had attended a hideaway recently sponsored by his church and that the removal of the motto from the new Presidential dollars had been discussed there. The tenor of the discussion had been the need to ‘ regenerate ’ the motto to the new dollar coin. ”
The criticism reached such a level that Congress passed legislation ordering that the motto IN GOD WE TRUST — which by congressional ordain had been placed on the edge — be moved to either the obverse or reverse, at the Mint ’ s delicacy. Starting in 2009, the religious motto began appearing on the obverse of each Presidential dollar .
The Mint ’ s many products
Over the years, the United States Mint has offered the Presidential dollars in assorted products, including :
? ? Bags, boxes, and rolls of circulation-quality coins .
? ? Proof sets of diverse kinds, including sets that contained only a given year ’ s four presidential dollars .
? ? Uncirculated sets of assorted kinds, including an annual located containing lone that year ’ mho Presidential dollars in Uncirculated hardening quality .
? ? An annual Uncirculated Dollar Coin laid, which contains the year ’ s Presidential dollar, native american english dollar, and American Eagle silver dollar .
? ? Sets of circulation examples of the coins .
? ? presidential dollar and First Spouse bronze decoration sets, one for each couple .
? ? presidential dollar coin covers, containing Philadelphia Mint and Denver Mint examples of a particular coin housed within an illustrate philatelic cover .
? ? And respective Presidential Coin & Chronicles sets containing, among other memorabilia, presidential dollars with extra finishes and a associate decoration honoring the same president of the united states .
The latter product was offered for merely a handful of presidents, the first issued in 2013 to celebrate the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt .
The place contained a standard Proof 2013-S Theodore Roosevelt dollar, a .999 very well silver Presidential decoration from his second term ( the first time for the decoration to be struck in silver ), a bronze 1.5-inch Bald Eagle National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial decoration, and a 4-inch by 6-inch print honoring President Roosevelt ’ s military avail .
The set was sold for $ 57.95 with no product or family limits. Today the set sells in the secondary market in a fairly wide price range, with holocene eBay transactions at prices from $ 122 to $ 212 .
The following Coin and Chronicles set offered honored Theodore ’ south aloof cousin, Franklin Roosevelt. That set contains Proof 2014-S examples of the Roosevelt dollar and Roosevelt dime bag, a silver Roosevelt Presidential decoration, a bronze Roosevelt Presidential decoration, and four stamps with Roosevelt themes ( he was a celebrated collector of stamps ). It was offered at the same price as the first Roosevelt set, with the merchandise limited to an version of 20,000 pieces .
All four presidents honored in 2015 — Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson — were the root of separate Presidential Coin & Chronicles sets, each with a concoction of coins, medals and other items. however, one initiation resulted in heighten collector demand for the sets. Each presidential dollar in the four sets was a inverse Proof 2015-P adaptation, making each coin a clear-cut topic ( the earlier sets had regular Proof versions, which are indistinguishable from the Proof versions offered in other sets ) .
As with the Franklin Roosevelt jell, the 2015 sets were offered in limited numbers, with Reverse Proof dollar helping the 17,000 Truman sets and 17,000 Eisenhower sets to sell out in about 15 minutes each. predict demand for the Kennedy adjust with its Reverse Proof dollar led Mint officials to boost the mintage of that determined first to 25,000 and then to 50,000 ; the higher merchandise limit resulted in the set being available for a longer menstruation of time ( though it, besides, finally sold out, after 80 percentage sold in the first base day ). The Johnson stage set, with a product limit of 25,000, sold out in about four hours .
The Mint changed course in 2016, the close up year of the program, by offering a Coin & Chronicles set only for Ronald Reagan. No sets were offered for Richard Nixon, the lone president of the united states to resign from office, and Gerald Ford, the entirely president not elected to either that status or the frailty presidency. No Jimmy Carter dollar was issued since the erstwhile president is hush living .

What have we learned?

The presidential dollar proved, again, that Americans do not like to use dollar coins. The dollar note is seen as more commodious, and designs on the dollar coins seem to play little character in whether the coin is accepted ( the design of the Anthony dollar was widely disliked, at least among many coin collectors, while the design of the Sacagawea dollar is widely praised ; no matter, neither coin circulated widely ).

The program besides seemed to indicate that the State one-fourth dollars program was a good luck in gaining wide popularity outside of traditional collector circles. The public did not embrace collecting the series from circulation ( fair as it has not embraced the America the Beautiful quarter dollar series to the lapp degree as the State quarter dollars program ) .
Will Congress learn any lessons from the presidential dollar program ? In the last Congress, legislation authorizing a 56-coin commemorative modest dollar program honor american initiation was introduced Sept. 14, 2016, in the House by Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn. The course of study, had it passed, would have limited production to numismatic issues with none intended for circulation. however, the standard gained no real number patronize in Congress and did not pass .
It seems clear that dollar coins are a bad idea, surely for circulation. Let ’ s see whether Congress has learned anything .

informant :
Category : Economy

Post navigation

Leave a Comment

Trả lời

Email của bạn sẽ không được hiển thị công khai.