What is the story behind the 1999 SBA Dollar ?

SilverEagle1974

Hi All,

Can someone explain to me what the reasoning was for making the 1999 SBA Dollar ?
Was it aimed at Collectors ?
Was it the starting off point to the Sacagawea Dollar being produced in 2000 ?
I know it was confused with the quarter when first minted from 1979 - 1981.
I can NOT understand why the Mint would reintroduce & produce a confusing coin.

Thanks,

Chris

MarkKelley

The coins minted in 1979 and 1980 were enough to fill the Federal Reserve's needs until sometime in 1999 when the well went dry. More had to be minted to fill orders until the Sac dollar was ready in 2000.

mvs7

If I remember correctly, by 1998 or so the mint had drawn down most of their stockpile of 1979-81 coins - at the time they were still used for transit fares around the country and at post office vending machines. The idea to change the composition to what became the "golden" Sacagawea Dollar was already in process, but they were going to run out of dollar coins before it was ready to go. Thus, they minted more SBAs in 1999 to meet at-the-time current demand before the Sacagawea Dollar was ready to go the following year in 2000.

OAKSTAR

This could very well be everything you ever needed to know about the SBA dollar.

http://www.smalldollars.com/index.html#sba-toc

MWallace

Also from the Home page of SmallDollars.com:

"In the early 1990's, discussion of striking a new small size dollar coin was begun. This time government officials were armed with the knowledge of the mistakes of the Anthony Dollar. Discussions centered on striking a new small size dollar coin that would be golden in color and have a distinctive edge so that it could be easily distinguished from the quarter dollar. The striking of a new small size dollar at that time was not to be. Besides the queasiness of the mint to venture into another failed dollar coin, there was one other major problem. That is, more than a decade after the Anthony Dollar was discontinued, there were still millions of them in Federal Reserve vaults.

By the late 1990's the supply of Anthony Dollars was finally dwindling down. After congressional and public hearings, it was decided that a new small size dollar coin with a plain edge and golden in color would be struck in 2000. The obverse would have the likeness of Sacagawea, the Shoshone Indian girl that helped guide Lewis and Clark through the northwest on their exploratory expedition of the Louisiana Purchase. In the mean time, the Anthony Dollar supply was decreasing so quickly that the mint struck 1999 dated Anthony Dollars to fill the need for a dollar coin until the Sacagawea Dollar could be struck and placed into circulation."

Sapyx

The Mint doesn't make circulation coins unless expressly ordered by Treasury to do so.

So, your question is more properly phrased as "Why did Treasury insist the Mint produce a bunch more coins that had already been rejected by the public?"

The answer's the same - because the stockpile of SBAs had finally dried up and orders for delivery of more $1 were coming in. It just more fairly directs the blame towards the correct party.

So, why were orders for $1 coins suddenly ramping up? Because Treasury was still hoping that there would be legislative momentum to see the dollar note abolished and fully replaced with the new $1 coin. This is also why they ordered the Fed to produce a fresh batch of $2 notes at about the same time - in anticipation of more orders for $2 notes, once the $2 replaced the $1 as the smallest banknote in circulation.

But Congress dug its heels in, bowing to pressure from the cotton state representatives (who supply the raw material needed for the wasteful $1 note production and didn't want to see their orders for banknote paper suddenly cut in half).

davewesen

@MarkKelley said:
The coins minted in 1979 and 1980 were enough to fill the Federal Reserve's needs until sometime in 1999 when the well went dry. More had to be minted to fill orders until the Sac dollar was ready in 2000.

That does not explain the 1999-P in proof, behind the 1942-P nickel the second US mint proof with a P mintmark.

SilverEagle1974

Thanks, everyone.

Chris

CaptHenway

The 1999 S-Mint proof sets had already been made and sold. Making a 1999-S proof dollar might have been awkward, so they made a 1999-P proof.

Overdate

@CaptHenway said:
The 1999 S-Mint proof sets had already been made and sold. Making a 1999-S proof dollar might have been awkward, so they made a 1999-P proof.

They still could have made a 1999-S Suzie as a stand-alone product. The 1971-S and 1972-S proof Ikes were sold that way, even though "S" proof sets (without dollar coins) were made and sold during those years.

gumby1234

Why have they been making dollar coins for over 200 years would be a better question. Dollar coins have never been popular. Look at how many bags of Morgans sat in bank vaults for 70 or 80 years before being dispersed.

olympicsos

@gumby1234 said:
Why have they been making dollar coins for over 200 years would be a better question. Dollar coins have never been popular. Look at how many bags of Morgans sat in bank vaults for 70 or 80 years before being dispersed.

At the time it was thought that replacing dollar bills with coins would save the government money. But now that seems to be changing, a 2019 GAO report found that replacing dollar bills with coins would result in no savings.

jmlanzaf

@olympicsos said:

@gumby1234 said:
Why have they been making dollar coins for over 200 years would be a better question. Dollar coins have never been popular. Look at how many bags of Morgans sat in bank vaults for 70 or 80 years before being dispersed.

At the time it was thought that replacing dollar bills with coins would save the government money. But now that seems to be changing, a 2019 GAO report found that replacing dollar bills with coins would result in no savings.

Which is a totally different issue from the Morgans which had a lot to do with the silver lobby. But Morgans did circulate, just not in the numbers produced.

ricko

The SBA coin is perhaps the only coin I have never been interested in collecting. Just does not appeal to me in design, size, material. Cheers, RickO

jmski52

I'm surprised that there was any demand at all for it in 1999.

BStrauss3

@Sapyx said:
The Mint doesn't make circulation coins unless expressly ordered by Treasury to do so.

Not quite the whole story. They also make coins - typically "in quantities determined by the Secretary [of the treasury]" for commemoratives as defined by law and for collectors. NIFC.

jmlanzaf

@jmski52 said:
I'm surprised that there was any demand at all for it in 1999.

It was the post office. To use the hoard, they started using the dollar coins in postage dispensers in the 1990s. Since people tended to save them and not return them, the supply was exhausted and the Sacs came along. While they were waiting for Sac striking to start, the issued SBAs.

CaptHenway

@jmlanzaf said:

@jmski52 said:
I'm surprised that there was any demand at all for it in 1999.

It was the post office. To use the hoard, they started using the dollar coins in postage dispensers in the 1990s. Since people tended to save them and not return them, the supply was exhausted and the Sacs came along. While they were waiting for Sac striking to start, the issued SBAs.

Yes, and many transit systems were pushing dollar coins in the 90's. There was a legitimate demand for dollar coins and the Treasury did not want to kill this demand by not having any coins available, so they struck the 1999 SBA's.

CaptHenway

@Overdate said:

@CaptHenway said:
The 1999 S-Mint proof sets had already been made and sold. Making a 1999-S proof dollar might have been awkward, so they made a 1999-P proof.

They still could have made a 1999-S Suzie as a stand-alone product. The 1971-S and 1972-S proof Ikes were sold that way, even though "S" proof sets (without dollar coins) were made and sold during those years.

Yes, but those were 40% silver. The 1999-P Proof was standard composition.

CaptHenway

Just an idle thought. The copper-nickel clad dimes and quarters from 1965 on and the half dollars and dollars from 1971 on had a cladding/ copper core/ cladding ratio of 1-4-1, so that each cladding layer was 1/6th of the thickness of the coin.

The SBA's from 1979-1981 had a ratio of 1-2-1, so that each cladding layer was 1/4th the thickness of the coin. This was done because the coins were expected to receive such heavy use that they did not want the cladding layers to wear through. Yeah, right!

Such cladding strip had to be specially prepared differently than the standard 1-4-1 cladding strip. They did not make it after 1981. Since the decision to strike 1999 SBA's was a last minute thing (they had hoped that they would not need to do so), I wonder if they actually made 1-2-1 strip for the coins or if they just quietly used some standard 1-4-1 strip rolled to dollar thickness?

Attention @MWallace. Have you ever heard this question asked?

TD

MWallace

@CaptHenway said:
Just an idle thought. The copper-nickel clad dimes and quarters from 1965 on and the half dollars and dollars from 1971 on had a cladding/ copper core/ cladding ratio of 1-4-1, so that each cladding layer was 1/6th of the thickness of the coin.

The SBA's from 1979-1981 had a ratio of 1-2-1, so that each cladding layer was 1/4th the thickness of the coin. This was done because the coins were expected to receive such heavy use that they did not want the cladding layers to wear through. Yeah, right!

Such cladding strip had to be specially prepared differently than the standard 1-4-1 cladding strip. They did not make it after 1981. Since the decision to strike 1999 SBA's was a last minute thing (they had hoped that they would not need to do so), I wonder if they actually made 1-2-1 strip for the coins or if they just quietly used some standard 1-4-1 strip rolled to dollar thickness?

Attention @MWallace. Have you ever heard this question asked?

TD

The difference in cladding "thickness between SBA's and the other clad coinage was done in particular because of the clad Half. By making the magnetic properties of the SBA different than the Kennedy Half, a person couldn't cut down a half dollar and use it as a dollar in a vending machine.

MWallace

@CaptHenway
My above post is also mentioned here:
smalldollars.com/dollar/page08.html

Overdate

@CaptHenway said:
Such cladding strip had to be specially prepared differently than the standard 1-4-1 cladding strip. They did not make it after 1981. Since the decision to strike 1999 SBA's was a last minute thing (they had hoped that they would not need to do so), I wonder if they actually made 1-2-1 strip for the coins or if they just quietly used some standard 1-4-1 strip rolled to dollar thickness?

If they used standard strip for the 1999 Susies, wouldn't their weight be slightly different from the earlier dates?

Bullsitter

My only SBA....

BuffaloIronTail

The 1999 SBA's are cool because along with the regular coins, they made proofs for collectors.

They minted them at Philadelphia instead of the usual San Francisco.

Pete

JBK

@MWallace said:

The difference in cladding "thickness between SBA's and the other clad coinage was done in particular because of the clad Half. By making the magnetic properties of the SBA different than the Kennedy Half, a person couldn't cut down a half dollar and use it as a dollar in a vending machine.

Darn it! That was my retirement plan.

I'm impressed that the mint thought of this scenario.

Oh, well, I guess i can still make quarters out of half dollars or dimes out of quarters. 🤔

CaptHenway

@Overdate said:

@CaptHenway said:
Such cladding strip had to be specially prepared differently than the standard 1-4-1 cladding strip. They did not make it after 1981. Since the decision to strike 1999 SBA's was a last minute thing (they had hoped that they would not need to do so), I wonder if they actually made 1-2-1 strip for the coins or if they just quietly used some standard 1-4-1 strip rolled to dollar thickness?

If they used standard strip for the 1999 Susies, wouldn't their weight be slightly different from the earlier dates?

The densities of copper and nickel are so close that if you substitute a small amount of copper for an equal amount of nickel (just slightly over 4% of the total volume of the coin in my hypothetical situation), any difference in the weight would be negligible.

The_Dinosaur_Man

Were there any discussions to use the SBA with the manganese-brass composition that the Sacagawea Dollars used? Occasionally, I'll come across a misprinted Whitman folder with a spot for a 1999-S SBA.

MWallace

@The_Dinosaur_Man said:
Were there any discussions to use the SBA with the manganese-brass composition that the Sacagawea Dollars used? Occasionally, I'll come across a misprinted Whitman folder with a spot for a 1999-S SBA.

I've never heard of a discussion to do so. Interesting thought though.

BuffaloIronTail

@MWallace said:

@The_Dinosaur_Man said:
Were there any discussions to use the SBA with the manganese-brass composition that the Sacagawea Dollars used? Occasionally, I'll come across a misprinted Whitman folder with a spot for a 1999-S SBA.

I've never heard of a discussion to do so. Interesting thought though.

You can't blame Whitman for that. There is a certain amount of lead-in time given for the albums.

The Mint threw Whitman a curve.

Pete

CaptHenway

@MWallace said:

@CaptHenway said:
Just an idle thought. The copper-nickel clad dimes and quarters from 1965 on and the half dollars and dollars from 1971 on had a cladding/ copper core/ cladding ratio of 1-4-1, so that each cladding layer was 1/6th of the thickness of the coin.

The SBA's from 1979-1981 had a ratio of 1-2-1, so that each cladding layer was 1/4th the thickness of the coin. This was done because the coins were expected to receive such heavy use that they did not want the cladding layers to wear through. Yeah, right!

Such cladding strip had to be specially prepared differently than the standard 1-4-1 cladding strip. They did not make it after 1981. Since the decision to strike 1999 SBA's was a last minute thing (they had hoped that they would not need to do so), I wonder if they actually made 1-2-1 strip for the coins or if they just quietly used some standard 1-4-1 strip rolled to dollar thickness?

Attention @MWallace. Have you ever heard this question asked?

TD

The difference in cladding "thickness between SBA's and the other clad coinage was done in particular because of the clad Half. By making the magnetic properties of the SBA different than the Kennedy Half, a person couldn't cut down a half dollar and use it as a dollar in a vending machine.

I had not heard that but it makes sense. I was still working at Coin World up until the end of October, 1978, and we were getting a lot of information from the Mint about the new coin. That is when I heard the explanation that the thicker copper-nickel layer was to prevent it wearing through in circulation, but I do not remember the source.

I remember when we got the official mint mock up photograph of the accepted designs. There was no mint mark shown on either side, so I asked our Editor, Margo Russell, "Where are they going to put the mint marks?" She said that she did not know, and she went into her office and called her friend Mary Brooks, the Mint Director. She came out and said that Mary did not know, but she would ask and get back to her (Margo). About half an hour later Ms. Brooks called back, and after finishing the call Marge said "The mint marks are going to be at the back point of the bust, and they are going to use a P for the Philadelphia coins!" That was the first that we had heard of the P, as it had not been mentioned in any of the material we had received up until that point.

Snowman24

David Lange did an article of the SBA's ..here is link to it... this link is part 2

I always enjoyed his articles.
https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/1886/USA-Coin-Album/

Overdate

@CaptHenway said:

@Overdate said:

@CaptHenway said:
Such cladding strip had to be specially prepared differently than the standard 1-4-1 cladding strip. They did not make it after 1981. Since the decision to strike 1999 SBA's was a last minute thing (they had hoped that they would not need to do so), I wonder if they actually made 1-2-1 strip for the coins or if they just quietly used some standard 1-4-1 strip rolled to dollar thickness?

If they used standard strip for the 1999 Susies, wouldn't their weight be slightly different from the earlier dates?

The densities of copper and nickel are so close that if you substitute a small amount of copper for an equal amount of nickel (just slightly over 4% of the total volume of the coin in my hypothetical situation), any difference in the weight would be negligible.

One other possible way to tell which type of strip they used would be to compare the edges of 1999 Susies with the edges of earlier dates. Standard strip should show more copper on the edges.

CaptHenway

@Overdate said:

@CaptHenway said:

@Overdate said:

@CaptHenway said:
Such cladding strip had to be specially prepared differently than the standard 1-4-1 cladding strip. They did not make it after 1981. Since the decision to strike 1999 SBA's was a last minute thing (they had hoped that they would not need to do so), I wonder if they actually made 1-2-1 strip for the coins or if they just quietly used some standard 1-4-1 strip rolled to dollar thickness?

If they used standard strip for the 1999 Susies, wouldn't their weight be slightly different from the earlier dates?

The densities of copper and nickel are so close that if you substitute a small amount of copper for an equal amount of nickel (just slightly over 4% of the total volume of the coin in my hypothetical situation), any difference in the weight would be negligible.

One other possible way to tell which type of strip they used would be to compare the edges of 1999 Susies with the edges of earlier dates. Standard strip should show more copper on the edges.

Or cut one of each in half along the same line relative to the design and compare the cross sections.