Options
The quarter shouldn't exist!
Billet7
Posts: 4,923 ✭✭✭
I've been thinking the last few days about the quarter, which is one of my main focuses in numismatics. The quarter is not really a very effective division of the dollar. It isn't easy to break down into different denominations, it's an odd number, it just doesn't make as much sense a denomination as the 20 cent piece...but the quarter has been a staple of american commerce since before the american government even issued currency. Our construct piggy-backs on the 8 real piece. 8 Reales=dollar, 4 Reales=a half dollar, 2 Reales=a quarter or 2 bits, 1 Real=1 bit (or 12.5 cents.) Since a 12.5 cent piece is ridiculous, we changed it a little bit (pun intended.)
So, we did away with the one-bit coin and replaced it with the ten and five cent pieces (which makes sense.) With the introduction of a "new" money system why did the US government decide to keep the quarter when a 20 cent piece would have been a much better unit of measure? We even tried to change it later by introducing the 20 cent piece, but by then it was too late.
Anyone know why it was kept? Possibly it was political, perhaps the people couldn't handle too much change, maybe they just didn't think about it, or perhaps it's a huge conspiracy.
Do you have any thoughts or facts on the matter?
(edited for spelling.)
So, we did away with the one-bit coin and replaced it with the ten and five cent pieces (which makes sense.) With the introduction of a "new" money system why did the US government decide to keep the quarter when a 20 cent piece would have been a much better unit of measure? We even tried to change it later by introducing the 20 cent piece, but by then it was too late.
Anyone know why it was kept? Possibly it was political, perhaps the people couldn't handle too much change, maybe they just didn't think about it, or perhaps it's a huge conspiracy.
Do you have any thoughts or facts on the matter?
(edited for spelling.)
0
Comments
<< <i>Inertia? >>
Armadillo?
<< <i>Another question might be the logic of the 3 Cent Nickel. >>
Completely agree. I'm sure that one was political (something to do with some politician owning some nickel mines right?)
.25
.30
.50
.55
.75
.85
.95
By comparison, a 20-cent coin can make exact change in fewer coins for only the following amounts:
.20
.40
For all other amounts, the number of coins needed will be the same for both denominations.
So the quarter is actually a more efficient denomination than a 20-cent coin, by a score of 7-2.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>Using five-cent increments (and ignoring half dollars, which don't circulate much), the quarter can make exact change in fewer coins for the following amounts:
.25
.30
.50
.55
.75
.85
.95
By comparison, a 20-cent coin can make exact change in fewer coins for only the following amounts:
.20
.40
For all other amounts, the number of coins needed will be the same for both denominations.
So the quarter is actually a more efficient denomination than a 20-cent coin, by a score of 7-2. >>
Interesting analysis
And inertia has meaning here.
Inertia makes this hard to change. More inertia, harder to change. The status quo has inertia. I wasn't trying to be obtuse.
But overdate has a great observation.
<< <i>It's simple as the hammer and chisel. Try dividing a 8 Reale into five parts. >>
Actually, it must have been quite easy. I have a number of cut coins, and John Kraljevich once told me that proper quarter cuts (from 8 reales coins) are notably more difficult to find than 1/5 cuts. People who made the latter likely did so with the intention of trying to pass them off as 1/4 cuts.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
I've never worked out the math before, but Overdate does bring up a very good point. The OCD in me wants to see even increments, but it appears that you have a very valid point.
<< <i>The 3 cent piece was created for stamp purchases I think. (at least the silver 3 cent). the nickel version would be much easier to keep track of. >>
RWB mentioned recently ATS that this is incorrect. Linky to some info...
Not really looking for much these days but if I were, it might be a toner.
<< <i>
<< <i>The 3 cent piece was created for stamp purchases I think. (at least the silver 3 cent). the nickel version would be much easier to keep track of. >>
RWB mentioned recently ATS that this is incorrect. >>
Could you link the post here?
Not really looking for much these days but if I were, it might be a toner.
<< <i>I've been thinking the last few days about the quarter, which is one of my main focuses in numismatics. The quarter is not really a very effective division of the dollar. It isn't easy to break down into different denominations, it's an odd number, it just doesn't make as much sense a denomination as the 20 cent piece...but the quarter has been a staple of american commerce since before the american government even issued currency. Our construct piggy-backs on the 8 real piece. 8 Reales=dollar, 4 Reales=a half dollar, 2 Reales=a quarter or 2 bits, 1 Real=1 bit (or 12.5 cents.) Since a 12.5 cent piece is ridiculous, we changed it a little bit (pun intended.)
So, we did away with the one-bit coin and replaced it with the ten and five cent pieces (which makes sense.) With the introduction of a "new" money system why did the US government decide to keep the quarter when a 20 cent piece would have been a much better unit of measure? We even tried to change it later by introducing the 20 cent piece, but by then it was too late.
Anyone know why it was kept? Possibly it was political, perhaps the people couldn't handle too much change, maybe they just didn't think about it, or perhaps it's a huge conspiracy.
Do you have any thoughts or facts on the matter? >>
Actually a twenty-cent piece was in widespread use in this country prior to 1857. It is true that the quarter dollar
was based on the Spanish two reales struck in the Latin American mints (such as Lima or Mexico City) but the
two reales struck in Spain was debased and worth only twenty cents in this country. Widely called a pistareen
it was more common than than the full-value two reales in some areas. It seems possible that those who
remembered the pistareen being used in the marketplaces may have been involved in promoting the twenty-cent
piece first struck in 1875.
that thread is about a 3 DOLLAR coin and the connection to postage. I believe that the intent of the three-cent piece was due to the absence of minor coinage and to help with postage.
strangely, we were talking about 3-cent Silver at work today when a customer was asking/looking at some coins. one guy present mentioned how simply one of those tiny coins could get lost through a hole in your pocket and we all remarked about how often well circulated pieces are found bent. I'm sure both of those were contributing factors to the switch to a larger, heavier Nickel coin along with the Wharton connection.
<< <i>RWB mentioned recently ATS that this is incorrect. Linky to some info...
that thread is about a 3 DOLLAR coin and the connection to postage. I believe that the intent of the three-cent piece was due to the absence of minor coinage and to help with postage.
strangely, we were talking about 3-cent Silver at work today when a customer was asking/looking at some coins. one guy present mentioned how simply one of those tiny coins could get lost through a hole in your pocket and we all remarked about how often well circulated pieces are found bent. I'm sure both of those were contributing factors to the switch to a larger, heavier Nickel coin along with the Wharton connection. >>
Oops...yeah, he talks about both the 3 cent silver and the $3 gold but I guess he only said the postage connection was false only with regards to the $3...I wonder if the postage connection is false for the 3 cent as well. His article is supposed to cover the silver 3 cent piece though...it will be interesting to see what he has to say about it.
Not really looking for much these days but if I were, it might be a toner.
As Roger also demonstrates, the $3 gold coin isn't connected to the price of postage.
The 3 cent nickel was introduced in 1865, when no silver coins were in circulation because of the Civil War. The cent, 2 cent, 3 cent nickel and the 5 cent nickel were all used to supplement fractional currency.
If you're interested in the development of US coinage, you can read most of the original documents (including those from Jefferson and Hamilton) or you can read "Fractional Money" by Neil Carothers, which is an excellent book about how coins were used in America in the 18th and 19th centuries. It also has lots of footnotes and a great bibliography for further reading. In addition, almost all of Carothers' sources are available in digital form on the Internet (Google Books) if you want to learn more.
Check out the Southern Gold Society
<< <i>Why can't we have a $25 dollar bill??? >>
Good question, it's apparently a more efficient denomination than the 20 dollar bill.
<< <i>Using five-cent increments (and ignoring half dollars, which don't circulate much), the quarter can make exact change in fewer coins for the following amounts:
.25
.30
.50
.55
.75
.85
.95
By comparison, a 20-cent coin can make exact change in fewer coins for only the following amounts:
.20
.40
For all other amounts, the number of coins needed will be the same for both denominations.
So the quarter is actually a more efficient denomination than a 20-cent coin, by a score of 7-2. >>
At least if I'm understanding this right, I think there is a small mistake. To make change for 0.30, you can use a quarter and nickel, or a twenty cent piece and dime, both two coins each. I think the others are correct, though perhaps missing a few. I think I think the quarter wins for .35. Regardless, I agree with the general point that making change with quarters is more efficient. If half dollars circulated, then I think the twenty cent piece would actually hold a slight lead. The quarter winning for .25 and .75 and the twenty cent piece winning for .20, .40, .70, and .90.
Interesting stuff.
<< <i>The quarter is not really a very effective division of the dollar. It isn't easy to break down into different denominations >>
Try cutting a silver dollar into quarters vs. into fifths. There's a reason why a piece of 8 was carved into quarters and not fifths.
<< <i>At least if I'm understanding this right, I think there is a small mistake. To make change for 0.30, you can use a quarter and nickel, or a twenty cent piece and dime, both two coins each. I think the others are correct, though perhaps missing a few. I think I think the quarter wins for .35. Regardless, I agree with the general point that making change with quarters is more efficient. If half dollars circulated, then I think the twenty cent piece would actually hold a slight lead. The quarter winning for .25 and .75 and the twenty cent piece winning for .20, .40, .70, and .90.
Interesting stuff. >>
You're right, .30 should have been .35 in my list. The quarter would still win 7-2.
If half dollars circulated, the quarter and the 20-cent coin would be tied for efficiency in making change, 4-4.
The quarter would win for .25, .35, .75 and .85.
The 20-cent would win for .20, .40, .70 and .90.
The British Pound and the Euro both use 20-cent (pence) coins instead of quarters.