"For Coins, This Is a Postmodern Era"

cladking

Link

This is a very insightful article though I believe today there is still a more appropriate dividing
line at 1965 based primarily on collector behavior. In the future with the perspective of time
this will probably be increasingly true.

CoinWeek is becoming a real force now days is it not.

DIMEMAN

Don't really understand the artical. Modern...postmodern???? All the same. Anything made now is modern,

Zoins

I agree 1964 is what most people think of as the cut off between classic coins and modern coins.

I think 1932 is a compromise and not an especially good one. The authors want to use the move away from Lady Liberty as the cutoff between classics and moderns; however, the move away from Lady Liberty happened in 1909 with the Lincoln Cent. Because of this, their reasoning and date selection don't match. Additionally, most people don't think of this as the cutoff between classics and moderns.

I understand the 1982 cutoff a bit more since this is when coin minting became more of a commercial, profit-generating operation.

Overall, I think the article is a good discussion but may not have as a strong of an impact due to their selection of the classic - modern cutoff year which does not match their reasoning for the selection.

cladking

<< <i>I agree 1964 is what most people think of as the cut off between classic coins and modern coins.

I think 1932 is a compromise and not an especially good one. The authors want to use the move away from Lady Liberty as the cutoff between classics and moderns; however, the move away from Lady Liberty happened in 1909 with the Lincoln Cent. Because of this, their reasoning and date selection don't match. Additionally, most people don't think of this as the cutoff between classics and moderns.

I understand the 1982 cutoff a bit more since this is when coin minting became more of a commercial, profit-generating operation.

Overall, I think the article is a good discussion but may not have as a strong of an impact due to their selection of the classic - modern cutoff year which does not match their reasoning for the selection. >>



I thought of the Lincoln cent as well but I thought of it as the exception that proves the rule.

Most big changes have precursors.

DIMEMAN

I don't think the cutoff between classic and modern can be a given year. I think the cutoff year is different for different denoms.

I would place the cutoff's as follows.

All half cent, 3 cents and 2 cents and 20 centers are classics

Cents 1909
Nickels 1938
Dimes 1945
Quarters 1930
Halves 1947
Dollars 1935

Zoins

<< <i>

<< <i>I agree 1964 is what most people think of as the cut off between classic coins and modern coins.

I think 1932 is a compromise and not an especially good one. The authors want to use the move away from Lady Liberty as the cutoff between classics and moderns; however, the move away from Lady Liberty happened in 1909 with the Lincoln Cent. Because of this, their reasoning and date selection don't match. Additionally, most people don't think of this as the cutoff between classics and moderns.

I understand the 1982 cutoff a bit more since this is when coin minting became more of a commercial, profit-generating operation.

Overall, I think the article is a good discussion but may not have as a strong of an impact due to their selection of the classic - modern cutoff year which does not match their reasoning for the selection. >>



I thought of the Lincoln cent as well but I thought of it as the exception that proves the rule.

Most big changes have precursors. >>



When discussing the cutoff between classics and moderns, some people, myself included, often use a per-denomination approach depending on when historical figures were introduced. I think that approach would better align with their reasoning. Like DIMEMAN and myself, I think the authors would be better served using different dates per-denomination and thus not dilute their argument.

My guess on why they didn't want to use 1909 is because that would preclude the buffalo nickel, mercury dime, SLQ, WLH, peace dollar from being classified as classics. However, their choice of 1932 also contradicts and dilutes their argument. Since they say the year is a start, and future denominations indeed switch over at the year of design, it seems plausible that they should have chose 1909

Also, from the discussions here, it also appears few would choose 1932 to be the date.

OnlyGoldIsMoney

IMO the modern era began in 1907-1908. During those two years the Coronet Head type (a last link to the 1830's) was abandoned for the $2.50, $5, $10 and $20.

Zoins

Examining coins to see if they can fit the definition of postmodernism is an interesting exercise. Here's some text from Wikipedia:



<< <i>Postmodernism postulates that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs and are therefore subject to change. It claims that there is no absolute truth and that the way people perceive the world is subjective and emphasises the role of language, power relations, and motivations in the formation of ideas and beliefs. In particular it attacks the use of sharp binary classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial; it holds realities to be plural and relative, and to be dependent on who the interested parties are and the nature of these interests. Postmodernist approaches therefore often consider the ways in which social dynamics, such as power and hierarchy, affect human conceptualizations of the world to have important effects on the way knowledge is constructed and used. Postmodernist thought often emphasizes constructivism, idealism, pluralism, relativism, and scepticism in its approaches to knowledge and understanding. >>



Using this description for postmodernism, perhaps a good way to view postmodern coins may be the introduction of more type pluralism in coins, specifically, multiple types per denomination per year as in the SHQs, PDs, Westward Journey nickels, etc.

PerryHall

<< <i>IMO the modern era began in 1907-1908. During those two years the Coronet Head type (a last link to the 1830's) was abandoned for the $2.50, $5, $10 and $20. >>



I'm not comfortable calling a coin that's over a 100 years old as modern. Anything over a 100 years old is considered to be an antique. I think of the clad era where silver was taken out of our circulating coins as the modern era.

DHeath

In my mind, the early edge of the modern era is ragged-- varying by series. I almost agree with the end date chosen. I would choose 1983, as I believe that 83 was the last year that the mint was totally disinterested in collectors. In fact, there were no mint sets offered in 1983 but for souvenir sets offered in the mint gift shops and those assembled by third-party actors such as Coin World. In most disciplines, post-modern connotes a view that anything goes. I'd say that view is an accurate characterization of the Mint's approach since 1983 to NCLT offerings and collector packaging. I enjoyed reading the author's thoughts.

MidLifeCrisis

The differing opinions about how to define "modern coins" and "classic coins" will continue.

Indeed, if you look up "modern" on Dictionary.com, one of the definitions you will find is "of or pertaining to the historical period following the Middle Ages".

My own definition of modern coins is any coin minted in from 1900 to present. I'm sure many collectors don't agree with me. That's ok.

If "modern" means pertaining to the present or recent time, how can something be postmodern? Sounds like an artsy term with no real meaning.

Why does any of this matter?

DIMEMAN

"post modern" is like "tomorrow"........doesn't really exist.

AngryTurtle

Whether you like the term "postmodern" or not, the basic point seems to me to be that coins are not just divided into "Before date X"-classic and "after date x"-modern, whatever you think X is (some good thoughtful and varying proposals here) but that coinage has continued to evolve.

Zoins

<< <i>

<< <i>IMO the modern era began in 1907-1908. During those two years the Coronet Head type (a last link to the 1830's) was abandoned for the $2.50, $5, $10 and $20. >>



I'm not comfortable calling a coin that's over a 100 years old as modern. Anything over a 100 years old is considered to be an antique. I think of the clad era where silver was taken out of our circulating coins as the modern era. >>



I think it depends on what you are using to delineate and what your reasoning is. The Lincoln cent today still uses the same obverse design from over 100 years ago and started the theme of using historical figures which is still in use today.

The authors in the article discussed the Mint's varying designs and the purpose of the designs as ways to mark cutoffs. It is an interesting line of reasoning, but I think other dates could be chosen for their line of thought. For the start of the Presidents and other historical figures, a range of starting years could be given starting in 1909 and ending in 1947. For the move to seigniorage and broad catering to collectors, 1892 with the Columbian Exposition seems like a good year for that line of reasoning with CCHDs being not too different from their modern counterparts. As mentioned above, 1999 with the start of the SHQs and multiple types per denomination per year may also be a reasonable "postmodern" start.

Using the end of the Coronet Head type is an interesting cutoff. Since the Coronet Head was replaced by the representations of Indians and/or their headdress in the $2.50, $5, $10, could one also say the "Indian" period began with the IHC?

Other methods for delineation include composition (1964) and minting methods. Using the latter, the "modern" minting process can be considered the one starting with a plaster model and epoxy galvano. The "postmodern" method can be considered the use of CAD/CAM software and minting methods. Another way to delineate modern minting process may be the use of a collar.

Overall, I think the article is thought-provoking and I like the article's line of reasoning but think moving the start dates to 1909 and 1999 may make some amount of sense. If the dates are a "start" for a period overlapping periods should be acceptable.

jmski52

I think that the changes in a coinage concept is as important as any of the design changes.

I'd have to go with the major changes in composition as the cutoff dates for everything except Nickels as being Moderns. The change in concept would have been that circulating coinage doesn't have to contain precious metals in order to be functional, i.e. the introduction of fiat coinage made of base metals with face values far in excess of their melt values.

Cents, 1983

Dimes, 1965

Quarters, 1965

Halves, 1965

Dollars, 1971

For Post-Moderns, I think we'd be talking about the production and re-introduction of legal tender bullion coins as the defining concept. Thus, the key change in concept would have been that coinage having precious metal content can be issued as a legitimate store of value in times of currency devaluation whether by over-creation of currency through debt issuance, or by the creation of electronic liquidity injections through further debt issuance. I would peg this era at 1980 with the introduction of the Medallic Art Series.

ctf_error_coins

Error collectors have an entirely different cut off date.

In the year 2002 the US mint put in systems to remove error coins AND told the companies that roll coinage that in order to keep their contracts, they must return all error coins.

The supply of new major errors virtually dried up.

Try pricing a major off center cent from the year 2002 or beyond.

LindeDad

For circulation coins if you normally refer to it by a persons name to me it is modern.

DIMEMAN

I don't you can use the terms mentioned as modern for coins. It's all in the design and age of the coin.

As far as coinage evolving, as someone stated......coinage hasn't evolved at all! It's gone so far downhill that it will NEVER make it back!

mr1931S

On June 5, 1933, the United States went off the gold standard, a monetary system in which currency is backed by gold, when Congress enacted a joint resolution nullifying the right of creditors to demand payment in gold. The United States had been on a gold standard since 1879, except for an embargo on gold exports during World War I, but bank failures during the Great Depression of the 1930s frightened the public into hoarding gold, making the policy untenable.

Soon after taking office in March 1933, Roosevelt declared a nationwide bank moratorium in order to prevent a run on the banks by consumers lacking confidence in the economy. He also forbade banks to pay out gold or to export it. According to Keynesian economic theory, one of the best ways to fight off an economic downturn is to inflate the money supply. And increasing the amount of gold held by the Federal Reserve would in turn increase its power to inflate the money supply. Facing similar pressures, Britain had dropped the gold standard in 1931, and Roosevelt had taken note.

On April 5, 1933, Roosevelt ordered all gold coins and gold certificates in denominations of more than $100 turned in for other money. It required all persons to deliver all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve by May 1 for the set price of $20.67 per ounce. By May 10, the government had taken in $300 million of gold coin and $470 million of gold certificates. Two months later, a joint resolution of Congress abrogated the gold clauses in many public and private obligations that required the debtor to repay the creditor in gold dollars of the same weight and fineness as those borrowed. In 1934, the government price of gold was increased to $35 per ounce, effectively increasing the gold on the Federal Reserve's balance sheets by 69 percent. This increase in assets allowed the Federal Reserve to further inflate the money supply.

The government held the $35 per ounce price until August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon announced that the United States would no longer convert dollars to gold at a fixed value, thus completely abandoning the gold standard. In 1974, President Gerald Ford signed legislation that permitted Americans again to own gold bullion.

The minting of gold coins for commerce ceased in 1933 so my opinion is that the last classic coins bear the date,1933.The first modern coins bear the date,1934.

A Washington Quarter bearing the date 1932 is a classic coin.A Washington Quarter bearing the date 1934 is a modern coin.A 1933 Lincoln cent is classic,a 1934 cent is modern.

And so on.

cladking

<< <i>Whether you like the term "postmodern" or not, the basic point seems to me to be that coins are not just divided into "Before date X"-classic and "after date x"-modern, whatever you think X is (some good thoughtful and varying proposals here) but that coinage has continued to evolve. >>



Yes. Perspective is everything and it evolves for us both individually and collectively.

When I came to this site ten years ago I thought a 198 year old coin was extremely old. Now an
1804 dollar is quite modern from my new perspective gleaned from studying the great pyramid builders.
Now it's more than two centuries old and more modern than ever.

Indeed, the first coins made in the 7th century BC are moderns from this perspective.

There are many ways to see the world and none of them is wrong. I simply think of the article as a pre-
diction in which way the collective (and collecting) perspective is likely to evolve.

cladking

One could easily make the argument that true coins haven't even been made since about 1923.
Back in those days you could buy a house from Sears for a few double eagles or get the newest
thing out of Detroit for several such coins.

By the end of the depression inflation and government policy made it impossible to buy large pur-
chases with the contents of a small purse. By the mid-'50's even lunch would require the largest
coin in circulation (50c piece) and dinner for two normally involved paper currency.

Now days even Ramen noodles take more than our largest coin unless they're on sale. Coins now
are just used to make change and the smallest coins have no actual value because they can buy
nothing at all and serve only to slow cash transactions.

In the early days even large transactions could usually be made in silver and there was always
gold for real estate and very large transactions. The only sort of "paper" in use would be a promise
to pay in gold and this paper would always be "redeemed". Our money is backed by the "full faith
and credit" of the government but no one can be quite sure how this plays out in the real world.