Re: Proposed signature changes on modern U.S. Currency. Is there enough room in the current designs?
CaptHenway
Posts: 33,701 ✭✭✭✭✭
From a strictly practical aspect, on the current $100 bill the amount of space taken up by the name and title of the Treasurer of the United States of America is relatively small, and seriously constrained by the name and title of the Secretary of the Treasury above. On the $50, the $20 and the $10, the amount of space is equally small, and heavily constrained by the inscription THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE above. There is a tiny bit more space above on the $5. On the $2 and the $1, the space above is constrained by the lower left serial number.
The standard proposed signature in question is quite tall. To fit into the currently available spaces, it might have to be shrunken down quite a bit, perhaps more than the signatory in question would like to see.
Given these geometrical facts, is it likely that other parts of the various note designs will have to be altered to accommodate a large signature? I was of the understanding that it takes several years to create a new U.S. currency design, though I suppose that it might take less time to redesign only one portion of each design.
Thoughts?
Comments
Non issue. Signatures of all sizes and shapes have been accommodated over the years. Appropriate signature sample is obtained and/or shrunk to fit.
Lol.
I’d be a bit cautious about posting opinions here—sometimes discussions get shut down if they involve signatures people feel strongly about.
BST references available on request
Mocking the forum rules and the moderators is probably not a good idea.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that someone is mocking the forum rules or the moderators simply because it’s written that way. That feels more like an interpretation than a clear fact.
It comes across as though you may be trying to frame the situation in a certain way, which could potentially create unnecessary issues with the moderators. I’d prefer if we focused on what’s actually being said rather than assumptions about intent.
I’m wondering if this is your usual way of navigating disagreements, by trying to steer or even subtly manipulate the narrative.
The post and GIF were meant to address those who may have concerns or differing views on this topic, as well as the patterns in how they tend to respond, which may stem from underlying issues that aren’t always openly acknowledged.
The post and GIF were NOT to target or mock anyone.
BST references available on request
OK. I just won't believe my lyin' eyes.
Am not concerned with who signs the note as long as it's genuine and the vendor accepts it for payment.
simple and blunt, it's cash, it spends and nobody really cares in the real world who signs the note
1997-present
Then why the change? Let's discuss some possibilities.
I can suggest a possible solution. Make it a background tint that covers the entire or a large portion of the note. This would allow it to be large but not that prominent in the design.
Another would be to design a new security feature that would incorporate the signature.
Do you like either of these suggestions?
then present your ideas to the govt and see what happens
1997-present