"IN GOD WE TRUST" to be placed in a more prominent location
renman95
Posts: 7,037 ✭✭✭✭✭
So Congress passes six other territories for our Statehood Quarters and want IGWT off the edges (of the dollars.) Will this make the 2009 Presi-dollars looks like "dollars" instead of Chuck-e-cheese tokens? And does that make the 2007 and 2008 more collectible in type? And what of the smoothies and double printed lettered coins?
Or, who cares the coins suck anyway and there's nothing that can be done to make them more Presidential.
Ren
Or, who cares the coins suck anyway and there's nothing that can be done to make them more Presidential.
Ren
0
Comments
Where it should well be!!!!!!
Ren
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>I don't think this change will help the presidential dollars aestheticly. I may be proved wrong but I don't see how it's going to change the fact that we have been saddled with many more years of presdiential portraiture. >>
What brought about the change was a mass production of circulating coins without the legally required mottos and inscriptions. I think it will help the asethtics since the coins should have a more uniform apperance and receive less handling as the Mint is looking to incorporate the edge lettering into the coin stamp operation as a one-step-process instead of the two part it is now.
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't think this change will help the presidential dollars aestheticly. I may be proved wrong but I don't see how it's going to change the fact that we have been saddled with many more years of presdiential portraiture. >>
What brought about the change was a mass production of circulating coins without the legally required mottos and inscriptions. I think it will help the asethtics since the coins should have a more uniform apperance and receive less handling as the Mint is looking to incorporate the edge lettering into the coin stamp operation as a one-step-process instead of the two part it is now. >>
Buff, that's a good point. One less process by the mint will give us better coins (gradewise, if that's a word) 2009 and beyond. That should make any -65 coin or greater in the 2007 and 2008 vintage that much more valuable.
Ren
<< <i>My guess is the reverse will start looking like the obverse of the Norfolk half. Several concentric rings of verbiage with a little statue o' liberty in the middle. >>
At least the Norfolk half had the space.
Ren
<< <i>"shall be put into effect by the Secretary of the Treasury as soon as is practicable after the date of enactment of this Act." >>
I believe the Mint will have the new motto inscription placements ready by the the second coin issued in 2008, John Quincy Adams to be released in May since production of the James Monroe dollar coin, the first of 2008, has already begun.
<< <i>The bill gives a timeline for the change to take place:
<< <i>"shall be put into effect by the Secretary of the Treasury as soon as is practicable after the date of enactment of this Act." >>
I believe the Mint will have the new motto inscription placements ready by the the second coin issued in 2008, John Quincy Adams to be released in May since production on James Monroe, the first coin of 2008, has already begun. >>
If this was done midstream, wouldn't that be great. Quincy's with edge lettering and IGWT on obverse. Do you think the mint could do something dastardly like that....?
Ren
<< <i>So Congress passes six other territories for our Statehood Quarters and want IGWT off the edges (of the dollars.) Will this make the 2009 Presi-dollars looks like "dollars" instead of Chuck-e-cheese tokens? And does that make the 2007 and 2008 more collectible in type? And what of the smoothies and double printed lettered coins?
Or, who cares the coins suck anyway and there's nothing that can be done to make them more Presidential.
Ren >>
What about the other edge inscriptions: date, mint mark, E PLURIBUS UNUM? Do they stay on the edge?
TD
<< <i>
<< <i>The bill gives a timeline for the change to take place:
<< <i>"shall be put into effect by the Secretary of the Treasury as soon as is practicable after the date of enactment of this Act." >>
I believe the Mint will have the new motto inscription placements ready by the the second coin issued in 2008, John Quincy Adams to be released in May since production on James Monroe, the first coin of 2008, has already begun. >>
If this was done midstream, wouldn't that be great. Quincy's with edge lettering and IGWT on obverse. Do you think the mint could do something dastardly like that....?
Ren >>
Congress has taken the mass production of circulating coins without our national mottos very serious. From my interpretation, that is what they are being required by the legislation to do. If not by John Quincy Adams, then certainly by Andrew Jackson in August.
<< <i>What about the other edge inscriptions: date, mint mark, E PLURIBUS UNUM? Do they stay on the edge?
TD >>
The bill requires 'In god we trust' to be on the Obverse or Reverse. 'E pluribus unum', the date and Mint mark could still be on the edge as there is no requirement to move those. The Mint has also spent millions of dollars on incoporating the edge lettering into the coin press to make it a on-step-process. They expected to have it in place by the end of this year so I think there will still be edge lettering on the 2008 Presidential dollars.
That would be the logical thing to do. The makeover of the Sacagawea dollar reverse was postponed until 2009 because the authorization for it fell too late in 2007 to kick in in 2008. There may be some arbitrary cutoff date that the Mint can invoke, after which they can delay a change until the succeeding year.
TD
<< <i>I am so sick of this political correctness, you can't leave God off or on, both sides are worthless pieces of junk. Get over it already. Why should we give a flying rat if its on the side or on the front. >>
Uniform apperance is impotant on circulating coins, especially on the highest denomination. To have mass produced variations on circulating coins can lead to confusion as to wether thay are genuine. Every other circulating coin has a generally uniform apperance, and certainly the Mint is capable of producing them as they do with all the rest.
<< <i>
<< <i>I am so sick of this political correctness, you can't leave God off or on, both sides are worthless pieces of junk. Get over it already. Why should we give a flying rat if its on the side or on the front. >>
Uniform apperance is impotant on circulating coins, especially on the highest denomination. To have mass produced variations on circulating coins can lead to confusion as to wether thay are genuine. Every other circulating coin has a generally uniform apperance, and certainly the Mint is capable of producing them as they do with all the rest. >>
Buf, that was a nice high road reply.
Ren
<< <i>Uniform apperance is impotant on circulating coins, especially on the highest denomination. To have mass produced variations on circulating coins can lead to confusion as to wether thay are genuine. Every other circulating coin has a generally uniform apperance, and certainly the Mint is capable of producing them as they do with all the rest. >>
Given that there are several designs being produced every year, how could we consider the dollar to have a "uniform appearance?" I, for one, would like to see the rotating designs ended in the interest of maintaining uniformity.
One could only hope this becomes true.... the series is ridiculous, poorly conceived, trashy design, ludicrous execution. Get rid of them. JMO of course - I see this series as so much 'monopoly' money in coin form. Cheers, RickO
<< <i>Given that there are several designs being produced every year, how could we consider the dollar to have a "uniform appearance?" I, for one, would like to see the rotating designs ended in the interest of maintaining uniformity. >>
Uniform in the sense that the coins would have the inscriptions & mottos in the same location. When you have mass produced variations of the same coin it can certainly lead to confusion as to wether they are legitimate. Not really beneficial to a coin which the Mint is trying to promote to get people to accept and circulate and as a possible replacement to the paper dollar.
................they're gonna put the PRESIDENTS on the coins edge!
Yes, I know some of you like to collect this stuff. As long as you are doing it purely for the pleasure of collecting, and not as an investment, and not to flip for a profit, then I salute you. Most, however, would be well advised to look elsewhere.
OK, I asked for it in the other thread (about platinum coinage) by saying that I didn't even consider those things to be coins ... in the case of golden politically correct dateless presidential tokens, I can't make that claim, because the damn things are actually intended to circulate, or so we are told. Actually, the Mint knows damn well they will never circulate, no more than the Ike, SBA, or Sac. They just want to sell a lot of high-ticket "collector" items.
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
Ren
<< <i>All mints are "for profit." >>
Some mints are better at than others. The US Mint has a lot of pork still in it. Do YOU long for the days of cheap mint and proof sets and no varieties or Franklin Mint varieties at a higher price.
Ren
<< <i>
<< <i>All mints are "for profit." >>
Some mints are better at than others. The US Mint has a lot of pork still in it. Do YOU long for the days of cheap mint and proof sets and no varieties or Franklin Mint varieties at a higher price.
Ren >>
Pork? Really? The ones that don't still use nickel and copper have more pork.
Also, we can still get smoothies, double edge lettering and maybe "IGWT" still on the rim.
What is not addressed if the Sac's of 2009 fall under the same anti-GOD-less constraints the Presi's fall under.
Ren
I think this might work, without creating a major design change:
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>I think this might work, without creating a major design change:
Nice, though they would need to use alot smaller sized font since now 'United States of Anerica" takes up the whole rim on the reverse.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think this might work, without creating a major design change:
Nice, though they would need to use alot smaller sized font since now 'United States of America" takes up the whole rim on the reverse. >>
Actually, a compressed font would work quite well.
The name is LEE!
It would show how much we really, really, really, love God. He'd probably like that, much to Satan's chagrin.
<< <i>Well, why not just obliterate the portrait altogether so the word God takes up most of the space?
It would show how much we really, really, really, love God. He'd probably like that, much to Satan's chagrin. >>
I wholeheartedly agree!!!
Just put GOD in huge letters either on the obverse or reverse in place of any silly designs. Everyone should know GOD is what makes our currency real and that's the only thing that matters.
Who cares where it is. I'd rather it not be on our money anyway, and those who have no clue that the edge is the third side to a coin can't understand that where its placed now is perfectly fine.
Blah.
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
~Wayne
<< <i>I don't have any compu-photo skills as you can see, just an idea of how they might look down the road!
That's a great effort. However it's starting to look like the Carver-Washington or Virginia Bi commems. The original intent of the clutter free design was to make more room for the subject. Which is a great idea, but the subject needs to be of better design and execution.
It is interesting how much can actually be crammed into a design.
ren
We don't know what she looks like!!!
What's amusing is the implication that if the motto were somehow reduced or [supreme consciousness forbid!] REMOVED, the "godless" dollar or other coin would somehow be saying that we don't TRUST in Him or have forsaken Her (or whatever) as if the motto were the cause rather than simply an expression of a general faith in Nature, human and otherwise.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>if folks wants to believe in dieties, no one minds as long as their imaginary beings don't instruct you to kill others in their name (them we got to stop)
What's amusing is the implication that if the motto were somehow reduced or [supreme consciousness forbid!] REMOVED, the "godless" dollar or other coin would somehow be saying that we don't TRUST in Him or have forsaken Her (or whatever) as if the motto were the cause rather than simply an expression of a general faith in Nature, human and otherwise. >>
That's an interesting point. Everyone here knows that IGWT was not on our original coinage until the two cent piece...and even then it wasn't until 1938 that all of our circulating coins contained that "motto." Many of the detractors screaming of the Godless dollars probably think that IGWT has always been on our coinage. It's a debate that goes beyond rationalization. People really get emotional.
As far as God and Country, that was outlined in the 18th century Constitution giving us inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator. That should suffice but somehow we get into this crazy debate over and over about four words. Look, the image of Christ was on Byzantine coins until the 1400's and probably much later in other nations.
I would like the date and mintmark on the obverse...that would make these dollars less token-like.
Ren
<< <i>I think the motto is great on our coins but the double mindedness of our Government drives me crazy. We end up with a situation where a you can hand a kid a coin from the federal government that says "In God we Trust" but if you put up a banner that says "In God we trust" in a federal building you might get thrown in jail. I blame liberalism. >>
On that note...why not:
In Mohammed We Trust
In Allah We Trust
In Buddah We Trust
In Odin We Trust
I don't understand a bias to any particular deity for the United States of America. Are we shooting for a theocracy?