Why doesn't the Mint change circulated coinage design?

dsessom

This is a question that enters my mind quite a bit. Modern coins designs, that are meant for circulation haven't really changed in a very long time. Why is that?

The Lincoln cent has been around since 1909 (112 years!)
The Jefferson nickel has been around since 1938 (85 years!)
The Roosevelt dime has been around since 1946 (77 years!)
The Washington quarter has been around since 1932 (91 years!)
The Kennedy half dollar has been around since 1964 (59 years!)

It seems to me that our US circulating coinage needs a facelift desperately. Our designs have been stagnant for far too long. It sure would be nice to finally see some new designs, in my opinion.

BStrauss3

Because they are essentially a factory and don't need the controversy.

privatecoin

The dime is definitely due for a change.

jmlanzaf

Since you are only taking about obverse changes, it is as @BStrauss3 said

@BStrauss3 said:
Because they are essentially a factory and don't need the controversy.

To remove those Presidents risks a political battle. So they've only tinkered with reverses.

If you include reverse changes, the quarter and cent have recently changed. The nickel obverse was changed, though still Jefferson. The only ones with no changes are the non-circulating half and v the Roosevelt dime.

I'd also add that changes do confuse some folks. So it is much easier to just keep them the same.

BillJones

The only one on your list that has not changed at all, except for the move from silver to clad, is the Roosevelt Dime. The others have all had special reverses and/or obverses, and the cent got a new reverse in 2010. Perhaps you question is why haven't other people been honored on coins?

In the old days, changing coin designs was a big deal because it often led the withdrawal of the old designs from circulation. That led to coin shortages. The mint system had to push to replace most of the coins with the old designs.

Today, coins seem to circulate less and less. The mint system has also done a remarkable job with high volume mintages. When the State Quarter program was announced in 1999, I thought that it would cause a lot of trouble with coin shortages. It didn't because the mints could make very large numbers of quarters.

Frankly I have more new coins than I want these days. I can't keep up with them. I can't buy them in certification holders so I can't keep my registry type set complete. So, I've seen enough new coins.

dsessom

@jmlanzaf said:
Since you are only taking about obverse changes, it is as @BStrauss3 said

@BStrauss3 said:
Because they are essentially a factory and don't need the controversy.

To remove those Presidents risks a political battle. So they've only tinkered with reverses.

If you include reverse changes, the quarter and cent have recently changed. The nickel obverse was changed, though still Jefferson. The only ones with no changes are the non-circulating half and v the Roosevelt dime.

I'd also add that changes do confuse some folks. So it is much easier to just keep them the same.

Yes, obverse design is what I am referring to. There have obviously been numerous reverse changes. I wish the Mint would totally ditch the "dead Presidents" motif in favor of ANY other updated designs.

privatecoin

@dsessom said:

@jmlanzaf said:
Since you are only taking about obverse changes, it is as @BStrauss3 said

@BStrauss3 said:
Because they are essentially a factory and don't need the controversy.

To remove those Presidents risks a political battle. So they've only tinkered with reverses.

If you include reverse changes, the quarter and cent have recently changed. The nickel obverse was changed, though still Jefferson. The only ones with no changes are the non-circulating half and v the Roosevelt dime.

I'd also add that changes do confuse some folks. So it is much easier to just keep them the same.

Yes, obverse design is what I am referring to. There have obviously been numerous reverse changes. I wish the Mint would totally ditch the "dead Presidents" motif in favor of ANY other updated designs.

Bring back liberty.

291fifth

Politics. politics, politics. Changing designs is a political minefield, especially today.

TurtleCat

Yep, politics is the only correct answer. Either by groups trying to hijack an existing design or monopolize what should be on a future design. Keeping what are basically the designs people grew up with takes less effort.

The_Dinosaur_Man

If it makes you feel any better, Switzerland has kept the same basic design since 1875.

Wasn't there an attempt to put Ronald Reagan on the dime after his passing?

jmlanzaf

@privatecoin said:

@dsessom said:

@jmlanzaf said:
Since you are only taking about obverse changes, it is as @BStrauss3 said

@BStrauss3 said:
Because they are essentially a factory and don't need the controversy.

To remove those Presidents risks a political battle. So they've only tinkered with reverses.

If you include reverse changes, the quarter and cent have recently changed. The nickel obverse was changed, though still Jefferson. The only ones with no changes are the non-circulating half and v the Roosevelt dime.

I'd also add that changes do confuse some folks. So it is much easier to just keep them the same.

Yes, obverse design is what I am referring to. There have obviously been numerous reverse changes. I wish the Mint would totally ditch the "dead Presidents" motif in favor of ANY other updated designs.

Bring back liberty.

You might recall the controversial over the ethnicity of Liberty on the Liberty medals. It's simply easier to not change.

SaorAlba

@The_Dinosaur_Man said:
If it mes you feel any better, Switzerland has kept the same basic design since 1875.

Wasn't there an attempt to put Ronald Reagan on the dime after his passing?

Yes and there were some privately minted examples sold. Nancy Reagan was against it, and I appreciate her opinion as politicians on coins is a minefield.

TwoSides2aCoin

Just put the silver and gold back into the coinage. Put the heads of the FED on it. I wouldn't care. That would be music to my ears, and would enrich us as a people, again.

cladking

This is a question that concerned me greatly back in 1993. Diane Wolf wanted to do something about it and nearly got something through Congress when the bill was torpedoed with the lie that proponents just wanted to remove "IGWT" from the coinage.

On the second attempt a new bill made it and we now have lots and lots of new quarters. While up to now I've kindda liked all these new designs I'd still say be careful what you wish for. Any new designs would be politicized with Congress fighting on partisan grounds not to have a good coinage system or better designs but to maintain the numbers from each "party". There is nothing so messed up that Congress couldn't turn it into a shambles of what it had been.

bsshog40

@SaorAlba said:

@The_Dinosaur_Man said:
If it mes you feel any better, Switzerland has kept the same basic design since 1875.

Wasn't there an attempt to put Ronald Reagan on the dime after his passing?

Yes and there were some privately minted examples sold. Nancy Reagan was against it, and I appreciate her opinion as politicians on coins is a minefield.

olympicsos

I agree with those who say politics is preventing a redesign. At the same time with Quarters, it is politics that is getting all these new reverse designs. They're always looking to redesign reverses to honor someone who can't get on the obverse of a coin because if you try to remove a circulating coin portrait, then a member of Congress from that state will say something. The only way you can get new obverse designs is if you have a co-circulating program like the Native American $1 + Presidential/Innovative $1.

olympicsos

@jmlanzaf said:

@privatecoin said:

@dsessom said:

@jmlanzaf said:
Since you are only taking about obverse changes, it is as @BStrauss3 said

@BStrauss3 said:
Because they are essentially a factory and don't need the controversy.

To remove those Presidents risks a political battle. So they've only tinkered with reverses.

If you include reverse changes, the quarter and cent have recently changed. The nickel obverse was changed, though still Jefferson. The only ones with no changes are the non-circulating half and v the Roosevelt dime.

I'd also add that changes do confuse some folks. So it is much easier to just keep them the same.

Yes, obverse design is what I am referring to. There have obviously been numerous reverse changes. I wish the Mint would totally ditch the "dead Presidents" motif in favor of ANY other updated designs.

Bring back liberty.

You might recall the controversial over the ethnicity of Liberty on the Liberty medals. It's simply easier to not change.

Reusing Saint Gaudens design has that covered. It's a design nearly universally admired by coin collectors and the model for it is Hettie Anderson, a biracial woman.

jmlanzaf

@TwoSides2aCoin said:
Just put the silver and gold back into the coinage. Put the heads of the FED on it. I wouldn't care. That would be music to my ears, and would enrich us as a people, again.

It would impoverish the entire country.

jmlanzaf

@olympicsos said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@privatecoin said:

@dsessom said:

@jmlanzaf said:
Since you are only taking about obverse changes, it is as @BStrauss3 said

@BStrauss3 said:
Because they are essentially a factory and don't need the controversy.

To remove those Presidents risks a political battle. So they've only tinkered with reverses.

If you include reverse changes, the quarter and cent have recently changed. The nickel obverse was changed, though still Jefferson. The only ones with no changes are the non-circulating half and v the Roosevelt dime.

I'd also add that changes do confuse some folks. So it is much easier to just keep them the same.

Yes, obverse design is what I am referring to. There have obviously been numerous reverse changes. I wish the Mint would totally ditch the "dead Presidents" motif in favor of ANY other updated designs.

Bring back liberty.

You might recall the controversial over the ethnicity of Liberty on the Liberty medals. It's simply easier to not change.

Reusing Saint Gaudens design has that covered. It's a design nearly universally admired by coin collectors and the model for it is Hettie Anderson, a biracial woman.

You really think that no one will complain that she ISN'T ethnic?

oih82w8

There are so many pattern coins that would strike interest in coin collecting, in addition to the classics.

I always like the "Schoolgirl" pattern.

https://coinauctionshelp.com/Pattern_Guides/schoolgirldollar.html#.ZCNp_eBOlPw

Sapyx

Having a constant, unchanging coinage is a good thing, as far as governments are concerned - it is a demonstration of the strength and resilience of the country's economy. So countries, generally, don't change circulating coin designs unless they have to. "Having to " might be inflation causing a coinage reform (making the old coins becomes too expensive), it might be adopting a new currency unit, it might be a political change making the old regime's coins politically incorrect. Rarely are countries so economically stable that a country has the luxury of simply getting bored of their old coin designs, and changing things up just for funsies.

There are only three countries on the planet where it's even theoretically possible to obtain pre-WWII coins in change: the US, Canada, and Switzerland. Everywhere else, the coins in circulation have changed beyond all possible recognition or confusion.

Dreamcrusher

@Sapyx said:
Having a constant, unchanging coinage is a good thing, as far as governments are concerned - it is a demonstration of the strength and resilience of the country's economy. So countries, generally, don't change circulating coin designs unless they have to. "Having to " might be inflation causing a coinage reform (making the old coins becomes too expensive), it might be adopting a new currency unit, it might be a political change making the old regime's coins politically incorrect. Rarely are countries so economically stable that a country has the luxury of simply getting bored of their old coin designs, and changing things up just for funsies.

There are only three countries on the planet where it's even theoretically possible to obtain pre-WWII coins in change: the US, Canada, and Switzerland. Everywhere else, the coins in circulation have changed beyond all possible recognition or confusion.

You are correct. The general populace does not like change and as far as money goes, sees it as a sign of weakness or maybe even debasement. With that being said, during National Coin Week, we would often offer a Buffalo nickel or a World War II nickel at the ANA museum if someone could tell us who appears on the dime and why. Most people had no clue.

Snowman24

Hard to think that FDR would be taken off the dime .... being the Founder of the March of Dimes with polio.
After his passing in 45, it seemed plausible for him be on dimes.

privatecoin

@jmlanzaf said:

@olympicsos said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@privatecoin said:

@dsessom said:

@jmlanzaf said:
Since you are only taking about obverse changes, it is as @BStrauss3 said

@BStrauss3 said:
Because they are essentially a factory and don't need the controversy.

To remove those Presidents risks a political battle. So they've only tinkered with reverses.

If you include reverse changes, the quarter and cent have recently changed. The nickel obverse was changed, though still Jefferson. The only ones with no changes are the non-circulating half and v the Roosevelt dime.

I'd also add that changes do confuse some folks. So it is much easier to just keep them the same.

Yes, obverse design is what I am referring to. There have obviously been numerous reverse changes. I wish the Mint would totally ditch the "dead Presidents" motif in favor of ANY other updated designs.

Bring back liberty.

You might recall the controversial over the ethnicity of Liberty on the Liberty medals. It's simply easier to not change.

Reusing Saint Gaudens design has that covered. It's a design nearly universally admired by coin collectors and the model for it is Hettie Anderson, a biracial woman.

You really think that no one will complain that she ISN'T ethnic?

She? Be careful.... you mean they / them?

BryceM

The Mint is bound to do the bidding of the US Congress.

What, if anything, have they managed well in our lifetimes?

Really, the whole thing needs a huge overhaul. The higher inflation is, the more acutely we need it. There's no reason to have coins smaller than quarters, and there's no reason you shouldn't be able to buy a sit-down meal with a handful of pocket change.

Zoins

@BryceM said:
The Mint is bound to do the bidding of the US Congress.

Congress does the bidding of the citizens, us.

Congress did their part with legislative bills like H.R. 2535 in the thread below, but there wasn't enough constituent support. I haven't met a single person that wrote to their Congressional representatives to change coin designs.

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/971838/does-lady-liberty-have-a-better-chance-now#latest

erscolo

No living or deceased person should ever be on any United States coin. The problem today in this politically correct country we live in is that the alternative would be much worse.

BryceM

@Zoins said:

@BryceM said:
The Mint is bound to do the bidding of the US Congress.

Congress does the bidding of the citizens, us.

Since when? Their current approval rating is 18%.

And, for the record, I've contacted my state and federal reps several times........ with no discernable result.

Zoins

@BryceM said:

@Zoins said:

@BryceM said:
The Mint is bound to do the bidding of the US Congress.

Congress does the bidding of the citizens, us.

Since when? Their current approval rating is 18%.

And, for the record, I've contacted my state and federal reps several times........ with no discernable result.

About coin designs? That’s great! You’re the first one I know of. What did you ask for?

But really we need more people. I’ve thought about having organizations like the ANA involved to drive campaigns at sscale if that’s what the membership wants, but I’m not sure that it is.

ernie11

The original post says "our US circulating coinage needs a facelift desperately". But I don't see any desperation regarding our coinage.

SaorAlba

Be careful, very very careful what you ask for...

We might end up with some hideous rendering of liberty:

Where Miss Liberty becomes 'dem, 'dey or it!

ricko

I have often said that I would prefer the elimination of dead president images on our coinage. Return to images portraying Liberty or fundamental American freedoms. Really not going to happen due to the reasons stated above. Cheers, RickO

dsessom

@ernie11 said:
The original post says "our US circulating coinage needs a facelift desperately". But I don't see any desperation regarding our coinage.

It's just a figure of speech, relaying my own personal opinion that modern coin design has remained stagnant and has become boring. It's the reason I have little interest in moderns. The "dead Presidents" have been on all circulating coinage minted for my entire lifetime. My parents lifetime too for that matter, and I'm 53.

BStrauss3

@BryceM said:
And, for the record, I've contacted my state and federal reps several times........ with no discernable result.

Did you attach the proper "campaign" contribution to your request?

olympicsos

@BryceM said:
The Mint is bound to do the bidding of the US Congress.

What, if anything, have they managed well in our lifetimes?

Really, the whole thing needs a huge overhaul. The higher inflation is, the more acutely we need it. There's no reason to have coins smaller than quarters, and there's no reason you shouldn't be able to buy a sit-down meal with a handful of pocket change.

Given the increased use of cards, phones etc., I'd even argue that we won't be able to have $1, $5 coins. Actually a 2019 GAO report came out and said that replacing dollar bills with coins would cost the government more money. Now with the changes in society with the pandemic, I think that we will never have a dollar coin replace a dollar bill in this country.

olympicsos

@SaorAlba said:
Be careful, very very careful what you ask for...

We might end up with some hideous rendering of liberty:

Where Miss Liberty becomes 'dem, 'dey or it!

Nothing would top this!

https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/category/classic-head-5-1834-1838/768

dsessom

@olympicsos said:

Given the increased use of cards, phones etc., I'd even argue that we won't be able to have $1, $5 coins. Actually a 2019 GAO report came out and said that replacing dollar bills with coins would cost the government more money. Now with the changes in society with the pandemic, I think that we will never have a dollar coin replace a dollar bill in this country.

I guess we could always go back to fractional currency!

Zoins

@ricko said:
I have often said that I would prefer the elimination of dead president images on our coinage. Return to images portraying Liberty or fundamental American freedoms. Really not going to happen due to the reasons stated above. Cheers, RickO

Who have you said it to? Have you written any of your Congressional representatives about it?

There was a bill in Congress to do this, but it needed more support.

jackpine20

Great Artists at the United States Mint are an Ultra Rarity. I am partial to the classic Liberty designs of centuries past because they are so aesthetically pleasing, unforgettably so. I am usually a great supporter of the Arts. Not here. I am still waiting for a Savior. Perhaps a second coming of Augustus Saint-Gaudens is close at hand. Repent. Come quickly.

olympicsos

@jackpine20 said:
Great Artists at the United States Mint are an Ultra Rarity. I am partial to the classic Liberty designs of centuries past because they are so aesthetically pleasing, unforgettably so. I am usually a great supporter of the Arts. Not here. I am still waiting for a Savior. Perhaps a second coming of Augustus Saint-Gaudens is close at hand. Repent. Come quickly.

Even Charles Barber and George Morgan were better than what we have today. Elizabeth Jones was the last great coin designer.

ricko

@Zoins... Actually, yes I have. Received no reply/acknowledgement. This was seven years ago. Might try again. Cheers, RickO

Zoins

@ricko said:
@Zoins... Actually, yes I have. Received no reply/acknowledgement. This was seven years ago. Might try again. Cheers, RickO

Great to hear! It's definitely important to get people involved.

BryceM

In the past, the technology around running a mint wasn't mature. We had some great designs and some that were, in terms of coining, epic failures. Today, the "standard process" is pretty entrenched, and doesn't lend itself to creative ideas. Low-relief, computer rendered, "sterile" designs are easy to execute, and the chance of even a slight hiccup has been mostly eliminated. We make big noise about slightly modifying our Chuck-E-Cheese tokens, but, in reality, not much is really changing.

There isn't the appetite now to try something as novel as a high-relief Peace dollar or even a hand-cut buffalo nickel design. Public backlash centered around the eternal attempt to push small dollars on the populace has removed the desire to try. Art has been relegated to the world of medals and innovative thought to the area of small-run, expensive commemoratives.

Maybe someone will come along who cares enough to attempt something bold (like T. Roosevelt), but bold ideas don't seem to get much traction these days.

olympicsos

@BryceM said:
In the past, the technology around running a mint wasn't mature. We had some great designs and some that were, in terms of coining, epic failures. Today, the "standard process" is pretty entrenched, and doesn't lend itself to creative ideas. Low-relief, computer rendered, "sterile" designs are easy to execute, and the chance of even a slight hiccup has been mostly eliminated. We make big noise about slightly modifying our Chuck-E-Cheese tokens, but, in reality, not much is really changing.

There isn't the appetite now to try something as novel as a high-relief Peace dollar or even a hand-cut buffalo nickel design. Public backlash centered around the eternal attempt to push small dollars on the populace has removed the desire to try. Art has been relegated to the world of medals and innovative thought to the area of small-run, expensive commemoratives.

Maybe someone will come along who cares enough to attempt something bold (like T. Roosevelt), but bold ideas don't seem to get much traction these days.

I'd say small dollars is on the bottom of most people's concern list. Coins in general are on the bottom of most people's concern list. Notice how a lot of coin legislation passes with unanimous consent. A hand cut modern Peace Dollar or Walking Liberty Half is doable IMO. We are the customers and we can push them to do it. If they're charging $85 for a modern silver dollar, at least we'd get something for that $85.

BryceM

Are we talking commemoratives or circulating coinage?

BillJones

@dsessom said:

@olympicsos said:

Given the increased use of cards, phones etc., I'd even argue that we won't be able to have $1, $5 coins. Actually a 2019 GAO report came out and said that replacing dollar bills with coins would cost the government more money. Now with the changes in society with the pandemic, I think that we will never have a dollar coin replace a dollar bill in this country.

I guess we could always go back to fractional currency!

The trouble is, in those days the Treasury used to put living people on the notes. Spenser Clark, whom some people credit as the father of wet printing process, put his portrait on the Third Issue five cent note and got into big trouble.

His boss, Spinner, did the same thing and had no problems at all. Spinner even signed them, with his distinctive signature, and gave them out to admirers.

oih82w8

More possibilities;

https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1099914

CoinHoarder

I'm good with the current circulating coins, with one exception. I would return the eagle to the reverse of the quarter. The frequent changes to the reverse of the quarter makes them look like arcade tokens.

Batman23

As a kid in the 80s I had noticed that previous designs lasted about 50 years. I had no idea about politics or how things really worked. I would talk with my grandfather about what the coins would look like in the year 2000 since most would be due for a change by then. Boy was I disappointed! And here we are 23 years later, disappointment is the new normal. Good luck.

olympicsos

@CoinHoarder said:
I'm good with the current circulating coins, with one exception. I would return the eagle to the reverse of the quarter. The frequent changes to the reverse of the quarter makes them look like arcade tokens.

That isn't going to happen at this point because of politics. There will always be a program. Only thing we can hope for is more classic designs on bullion.

cladking

@BryceM said:
In the past, the technology around running a mint wasn't mature. We had some great designs and some that were, in terms of coining, epic failures. Today, the "standard process" is pretty entrenched, and doesn't lend itself to creative ideas. Low-relief, computer rendered, "sterile" designs are easy to execute, and the chance of even a slight hiccup has been mostly eliminated. We make big noise about slightly modifying our Chuck-E-Cheese tokens, but, in reality, not much is really changing.

There isn't the appetite now to try something as novel as a high-relief Peace dollar or even a hand-cut buffalo nickel design. Public backlash centered around the eternal attempt to push small dollars on the populace has removed the desire to try. Art has been relegated to the world of medals and innovative thought to the area of small-run, expensive commemoratives.

Maybe someone will come along who cares enough to attempt something bold (like T. Roosevelt), but bold ideas don't seem to get much traction these days.

Again the problem is politics and that we must continue to mint less than worthless and toxic pennies. So much of the mint's productive capacity is given over to making these that there literally isn't time for the metal to flow into higher relief coinage. We can't stop pennies so long as there are so many lobbying groups.