Redesign the Minting Process

Kejun99

It's my opinion that they should redesign the Coin Minting Process in order to afford a good Coin Design... The flat token look, no matter the graphic is always going to inhibit the potential beauty of a coin.. The beauty of the antique Greek and Roman coins is partially due to their 3 dimentional sculptural look.. Even the Classic Coins of the 30s and 40s were better than the "fast food coins" of today... What's your opinion?
Ken

nwcs

Yes, there needs to be a change for sure. Right now, though, it's all about the cheapest equipment and processes. Maximizing the money. Looks great for the GSA, but doesn't lend itself to the coin world, unfortunately. The question is, what alloys can they turn to that allow for economy but also good designs?

ara

Too cost prohibitive. You must remember that the first and foremost goal of mints is to produce cost effective coinage for circulation and not for collections.

prooflike

I don't like "spaghetti hair" either but the fact is, low relief dies last longer, especially in the harder clad metals used.

I don't know if low relief issues can be pressed faster or if that is more a function of equipment technology.

It is in place and won't change so a moot issue.

Kejun99

Alloy, Quantity in the Billions, Speed, Distribution, seems like good design is not wanted or required, just production and at the same time many want the present designs changed... Everyone should be aware that those new designs are going to be a Huge disappointment... they're likely to be new "Tokens" ... Not that I'm not ready for new stuff, I am, but I'd like to see Quality design..
Ken

cladking

The mint has been making the cheapest coins in the world because no one cared.
Other countries actually make attractive coins and change the dies when they wear
out. The mint makes huge amounts of money on their numismatic programs and now
makes far larger amounts on the difference between the cost of production and the
face value for all the coins in circulation which people are holding out for their collections.
It would cost tiny fractions of a cent per coin to make dramatic improvements in quality.
People are beginning to demand better quality and the mint has responded with some
improvements. Don't look for more relief on the coinage until the cent is discontinued
or a new die shop is built. There simply isn't the capacity to make the requisite number
of dies.

stujoe

It don't think it is the alloys. Things didn't start to get really bad until the late 1980ies and mostly in the 1990ies. Take a good look at the coins from the mid 60ies to mid 80ies. They looked a lot better than today's coins but were the same alloys. Part of the problem is the current minting process and part of the problem is that no one cares. We have no Teddy Roosevelts in office today.







What have they done to our coins?

Conder101

<< <i>It don't think it is the alloys. Things didn't start to get really bad until the late 1980ies and mostly in the 1990ies. Take a good look at the coins from the mid 60ies to mid 80ies. They looked a lot better than today's coins but were the same alloys. >>



True but from then until now the number of coin produced annually has sky-rocketed. In 1967 - 69 period the mint made in the neighborhood of five to six billion coins annually. A decade later it was in the nine billion range. The next decade, mid to late 80's, saw mintages rise to the twelve billion range. Today the mint is having to produce 19 to 23 billion coins annually. That is four times as many as in the mid sixties. You don't want to take down time to change dies that wear out quickly. If it takes a half hour to change a die that fails on a quad press that is a production loss of over 14,000 coins. You want those dies to last as long as possible and that means low relief and usually ugly coins. Yes other countries can produce some beautiful coins, even with prooflike surfaces etc, for circulation, but they don't have production requirements that are anywhere close to what we do. Sure, if we were producing a billion coins a year, like in a busy non-US mint, it would be a different matter.

And Cladking, yes it might only cost a tiny fraction of a cent for a vast improvement in quality, but those mintage figures get to you again. For every .01 cents more per coin for your improved quality (That's one one hundredth of a cent, not one cent.), for a mintage of 19 billion coins it would cost the government $1,900,000 or a little less than 1% of their annual seniorage. And that is for EVERY .01 cent increase.

stujoe

What kind of die life do they get these days contrasted with say 25 years ago? I have been searching for some stats but haven't come up with anything yet.

smprfi

Wouldn't a harder metal for the dies give them a longer life?If it did then they could improve the design depth.

cladking

<< <i>What kind of die life do they get these days contrasted with say 25 years ago? I have been searching for some stats but haven't come up with anything yet. >>




Off the top of my head, I think they routinely get nearly a quarter million stikes
from a quarter die now. Twenty five years ago it was about half of that. It's in
the mint reports (at least up to the '98), just divide mintage by number of dies
used.

They are continually improving die steel and this metal is state of the art.

Conder101

I'm not sure what the die life was 25 years ago but todya it is on average 300,000 for five cent pieces, 750,000 for one cent pieces, and about 500,000 for the dimes quarters and halves. 120 years ago it was 150 to 200 thousand for everything except the five cent piece. It was 20,000 yes twenty thousand. At least according to mint records.

cladking

<< <i>
And Cladking, yes it might only cost a tiny fraction of a cent for a vast improvement in quality, but those mintage figures get to you again. For every .01 cents more per coin for your improved quality (That's one one hundredth of a cent, not one cent.), for a mintage of 19 billion coins it would cost the government $1,900,000 or a little less than 1% of their annual seniorage. And that is for EVERY .01 cent increase. >>




The cost of improving the quality would be almost zero if the cent were eliminated.
There is quite possibly no profit at all on this coin and the mint would have more than
adequate capacity to make more dies and slow the presses if they were not so busy
making a coin for no profit which is actually a drain on the economy due to expenses
related to it's distribution and handling.

The mint is making a billion dollars a year just on the states quarters. Perhaps a big
increase in quality would result in even larger profits.

Kejun99

Thanks guys for the Quality answers and the many who contributed to this subject...
As usual you guys have demonstrated your excellent expertise and knowledge...
The numismatic knowledge on this forum board is staggering !

Perhaps after 2009, we can think seriously of putting Abe at Rest and concentrate on revamping the machinery with advanced technology.

Ken

richbeat

There is still profit on the cent, it varies between one tenth and two tenths of a cent per coin. At least that's what I've been reading. Using the latest production figures in the red book (2000) at just over 14 billion P and D cents struck for circulation, that comes to roughly $14 to $28 million profit. No doubt that eliminating the cent would free up a lot of production. Copper and zinc lobbyists would have something to say about that. If the cost of a cent ever rises above one cent and stays there, I would think the mint would quickly (as soon as congress would allow) change to a less expensive alloy or discontinue.

Conder101

<< <i>The cost of improving the quality would be almost zero if the cent were eliminated. >>



Agreed, and it would take a tremendous amout of pressure off of he mint by dropping that 19 billion coin figure down to a more reasonable 7 billion or so. With a lower figure like that they could run a little slower, down time wouldn't be as much of a problem. They could then go back to a higher relief on the coinage. Of course they would also lay-off a LOT of workers and cut way back on their metal purchases which means more lay-offs in the metals industry and possibly the mining industry. But I'm sure the Cogressmen and Senators won't have aproblem with that.