Options
Why did the US Mint try to "reinvent the wheel" with the modern dollar coin alloy?
lordmarcovan
Posts: 43,218 ✭✭✭✭✭
Lots of countries have produced nice looking gold-colored coins for generations, which seem to stand the test of time better than our dollar coins do. The Canadian "Loon" dollars, for example.
Why'd they spend all that time and effort and money to come up with this strange copper-manganese-brass-whatever alloy, that just goes brownish over time, anyway? I watched a documentary on the Mint, once, that showed them testing the various alloys for the then-new Sac dollars, and now, with hindsight, I wonder if it was worth all the hassle.
Aluminum-bronze seems a well-tested "golden" alloy. I have plenty of aluminum-bronze world coins that are at least 50 years old and still bright gold color, for the UNCs. And even some of the circulated stuff, like some 80-year-old French aluminum-bronze francs from the 1920s, are a pleasing goldish color that has mellowed a bit but done so evenly, and attractively.
Is the current alloy cheaper than aluminum-bronze or something else would be? I mean, I don't hate it completely, but I've seen plenty of modern dollars that have already gone dull brown, after only a couple of years. Seems like they could have done better with a time-tested alloy, instead of trying to invent a new one from scratch?
Why'd they spend all that time and effort and money to come up with this strange copper-manganese-brass-whatever alloy, that just goes brownish over time, anyway? I watched a documentary on the Mint, once, that showed them testing the various alloys for the then-new Sac dollars, and now, with hindsight, I wonder if it was worth all the hassle.
Aluminum-bronze seems a well-tested "golden" alloy. I have plenty of aluminum-bronze world coins that are at least 50 years old and still bright gold color, for the UNCs. And even some of the circulated stuff, like some 80-year-old French aluminum-bronze francs from the 1920s, are a pleasing goldish color that has mellowed a bit but done so evenly, and attractively.
Is the current alloy cheaper than aluminum-bronze or something else would be? I mean, I don't hate it completely, but I've seen plenty of modern dollars that have already gone dull brown, after only a couple of years. Seems like they could have done better with a time-tested alloy, instead of trying to invent a new one from scratch?
0
Comments
These coins are essentially brass.
The extra Manganese and Nickel serve to harden the brass so that the coins will have better wear properties. It makes them last longer. One needs to strike a balance between malleability and hardness, because they want to make a bazillion of these and don't want the dies to wear out either. I remember the documentary as well and I think they made a point about getting the right color. But I think the real reason is durability and hardness control of the alloy.
At the rate they are circulating, I project an average lifetime of 500 years for a golden dollar. 470 of those years stored in a vault.
You are absolutely correct that they could have used other metals. I wonder if that's the sole reason for the cosmetic complaint? A well thumbed coin gets ugly. A well preserved one tends to stay nice.
Some golden dollars i've seen have toned nicely, showing a sheen of colors. Most get ugly. But i've seen some interesting ones in bank rolls once in a while.
I've got a Dansco album full of them sitting in the back of a closet that I hope to forget about for a decade. I wonder how they album-tone?
that people couldn't tell it from a quarter. The idea is absurd since
the difference in size is far more than is needed. The SBA was sup-
posed to be seven sided to start with which would have taken care
of any problem but they didn't do it and then just repeated their errors
with the Sac.
They wanted a composition which would work in vending machines and
be a different color so they are distinguishable from the quarter. Of course
thay still wouldn't go into circulation because the banks still don't distri-
bute them. Then they proceeded to mix them with the old SBa's to negate
any advantage that might have been gained from changing the composition.
It's simply a comedy of errors.
In their defense though the new composition really isn't that bad. If the
coins were circulating they wouldn't be tarnished. They get an attractive
patina when they actually get used.
<< <i>I think one of the things they were concerned with is that they had the same "magnetic signature" of the SBA dollars so that vending machines would not have to be re-done. I don't know if that had anything to do with your query though, but I wouldn't be surprised. Vending machines are the only place I ever get dollar coins so it might really have something to do with it! >>
That is correct. They didn't want to interfere with the limited vending machine usage they already had, so the new composition had to work side-by-side with the SBA.
The copper-nickel clad on copper composition adopted in 1965 was chosen for the same reason--- so that it would work in machines alongside 90% silver coins. It is funny that CoinStar machines routinely reject 90% silver coins, presumably because they are too heavy.
TD
<< <i>Circulated Canadian Loonies look quite brown and unattractive to me, although they work fine as spending money. Uncs that I have set aside still look pristine after quite some time. >>
Really? I've never seen many ugly Loonies. But then I live in the Deep South, far from the northern border, and therefore am less likely to see them in circulation. The circs I have seen looked pretty good in comparison to some of the circ US dollars. But I'll admit I haven't really seen enough to make a valid comparison.
<< <i>They had the idea that the reason the SBA didn't circulate was
that people couldn't tell it from a quarter. The idea is absurd since
the difference in size is far more than is needed. >>
I've had a number of people confuse SBAs with quarters during commercial transactions so I'd suggest the claim isn't entirely absurd.
<< <i>
<< <i>They had the idea that the reason the SBA didn't circulate was
that people couldn't tell it from a quarter. The idea is absurd since
the difference in size is far more than is needed. >>
I've had a number of people confuse SBAs with quarters during commercial transactions so I'd suggest the claim isn't entirely absurd. >>
Perhaps my statement was something of an exaggeration.
It is certainly true that there was some confusion initially. There is even a
relatively common 1980 mint set packaging error with a second Denver quar-
ter where the Denver SBA should be.
People would get used to this very quickly if they were circulating. To my
knowledge no banks were issuing these coins in 1979. My bank would only
supply one coin and only on request.
<< <i>People would get used to this very quickly if they were circulating. To my
knowledge no banks were issuing these coins in 1979. My bank would only
supply one coin and only on request. >>
Funny, I remember my Mom giving me a whole roll of 'em for my birthday in '79.
I spent 'em, of course. That was big money to me then.
I tried to keep one or two but eventually spent them, as well.