Comments on the proposed $250 bill?
sellitstore
Posts: 3,084 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have a few. We shouldn't fear discussing them here. And the politics of George Washington shouldn't be off limits here, should it?
We'll need to change several laws if this is going to happen.
Yes, there's the prohibition of a living person appearing on our currency-that would need to be changed. But why was this law created back in the 1860s in the first place. It was the public outrage of the Sec of the Treasury daring to put his own image on a 50 cent note. George Washington was the first President to offer an opinion on the idea of the head of state depicted on a coin. He prohibited it. That was what European kings did- not what the president of a democracy should do. Washington set this precedent back in the late 1700s. That's the symbolic significance of such a change.
Nobody (that I've heard) has mentioned the fact that this denomination would need to be authorized by law. We, along with other nations, decided to eliminate high denomination banknotes in order to combat money laundering. Would a new high denomination facilitate it?
Anyone else have some insights or thoughts or comments on mine?
Comments
"We, along with other nations, decided to eliminate high denomination banknotes in order to combat money laundering."
I do not believe this to be the reason for the elimination.
End Systemic Elitism - It Takes All of Us
ANA LM, LSCC, EAC, FUN
I agree. I don't think it had to do with money laundering. It was to try to curb the movement of ill-gotten proceeds of criminal activity. (That is not in itself money laundering).
And I don't think it took a law - the Treasury just stopped issuing large bills. Similarly, the EU Central Bank stopped issuing 500 euro notes several years ago.
i think it slowed it some with big bill loss but didnt eliminate it. im waiting to see what happens when then the system goes cashless
Aside from all the other issues, a $250 note is not very practical. The $100, the $500 and the $1000 bills have had a lot of use, but what are you going to pull a $250 note out for? All around this just makes a mockery out of the original purpose of paper money, many others are far more schooled in the history of paper. Roger Sherman wanted precious metals written into the Constitution. During the Civil War a new age of paper money started developing. The biggest denom. notes strike me as a "big shot" thing back when they circulated. Many of us use $50 and $100 notes weekly in transactions. Whenever a new type of bill comes out people are going to ask "...is it real?" and then there will have to be a way to tell one way or other, with counterfeiters not far behind their production.
I can just see me going thru the Scanners at The Airport with $250.00 Bills' TSA Agents have enough curiosity when I have Bricks of $1.00 Bill's still shrinked wrapped ( $1000.00 Value )
In 1969, when the government stopped issuing all paper notes above $100, ten dollars had about the same purchasing power as $100 today. So in 1969 terms, our highest denomination paper money is only $10.
Therefore, I think it's time to bring back the $500 and $1000 notes. That would restore the highest denomination note to its value in 1969.
As for a $250 note, the denomination seems unwieldy to me. I doubt that it would be used much in everyday commerce. There is precedent in the 2 1/2 dollar gold piece, but that coin was much less popular than its $5 cousin.
Didn't the government recall all $500 & $1,000 notes in 1946?
"The U.S. stopped issuing $500 bills in 1969 due to a lack of public circulation and growing concerns that high-denomination notes were being used by organized crime networks to facilitate money laundering, tax evasion, and other illicit activities"
That's Google AI, so if you disagree, take it up with Google AI. No, "money laundering", isn't "curbing" the movement of ill-gotten gains-it is the movement, in a concealed way, of ill-gotten gains. "Curbing" it's movement would be "anti-money laundering". But, the semantics really aren't important. The point is we agree and do not disagree. A primary purpose of the removal of higher denominations was to make money laundering more difficult, wasn't it? At least this was true for the $500s and $1000s.
It was the $5000 and $10,000 that were redeemed and not issued after WW2. I think that overdate has it right with 1969 being the year that $500s and $1000 were officially "discontinued"
I agree with the comments that a $250 doesn't make much sense from a practical point of view and if we are going to start issuing $500s and $1000s again, that would make more sense.
@JBK- It doesn't take a law to stop issuing currency but it would take several to start issuing a $250 bill. This will take Congress and this is likely where it won't fly. The opposition seems to be bipartisan.
Current Polymarket odds put the chances of a Trump $250 bill by year-end at 10% currently.
About 35 years ago, long before the TSA was created, I was stopped and my carry on briefcase searched at DFW airport because the rolls of coins purchased at Heritage looked like gun barrels in the X-Ray.
I believe it was around that time that the government quit printing $500 and $1000 notes. They stopped issuing them to the public in 1969.
To whatever extent money launderers are now moving $100 bills, they will welcome the opportunity to move 2.5X that value with the same effort, or with only 40% of the expense. Probably with exactly the same risk of loss and success. Of course, it’s moot if they have trouble getting their hands on the $250 notes, which will probably be the case. Bottom line is that I don’t think a $250 note will move anyone’s needle very far.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Personally I don't imagine that a $250 note would be issued for general circulation. If it is approved, I expect it to to sell as a commemorative issue from the government at far above the denomination value. While it could be be issued as legal tender(with approval)... much like a $50 gold eagle.... if you wanted to go to the extreme, they could make it a very limited print run to where none of them would ever get spent. Just my opinion.
I would like to see it, although I would much rather a non-current president on principle. I could use larger notes than $100.
“Land of the free because of the brave”
“Saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone”
In Deo solo confidimus
ΙΧΘΥΣ
ΙϹ ΧϹ ΝΙΚΑ (ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΝΙΚΑ)
Member since 2026
Successful BST transactions with: Ted 1, JWP, bigjpst, Vetter, nickelsciolist, ajaan,
A note with a higher denomination is needed due to the reckless expansion of the money supply. Should it be $250 or $500? I think $500 but I get why they want to do $250 to line up with the semi-q. As to subject matter, I generally support the current administrations policies but I do not want to see any president, or any other person for that matter, on our currency any longer. How about some landmarks or personifications of Liberty? Educational Series or the wood chopper come to mind for example.
We can do better for our circulating coins and currency. Historical figures can be polarizing in one direction or another. Let's get rid of them all.
Yes, I would agree that a $500 would be more useful and practical than a $250 note.
Lots of collectors love the Educational series of 1896 but the public and bank officials didn't like them due to difficulties in reading the denominations and their similar look.
Kalshi odds for a $250 bill by the end of this year have dropped from 10% when this thread was posted to 7% this morning, 6/18/26, so it's not looking too likely.
We'd been told before that previous redesigns take years to introduce for security/anti-counterfeiting reasons. Either that's completely false, or this $250 would be an easy target if released this year.
Physical money is slowly losing favor in the market. There are times where I need to run around with $5000 in cash, and wish I could just use a credit card. But those times are few and far between (Tucson Gem Show & coin shows, basically)
Can't wait for the $250 bill to celebrate the Semiquincentennial!
I think they just took the pic for the reverse image this last weekend:
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 700
Yes, but I wonder if that trend might be slowing or could even backslide a bit. Some countries (and venues in the U.S.) have gone cashless but others are clinging tightly to their cash, mostly for privacy reasons. The U.S. and Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Japan seem to be among the countries reluctant to give up cash totally.
So many businesses have stopped accepting cash! Many others that do take cash will only accept up to a twenty dollar bill! For general commerce, I think the practicality of a new higher denomination note is unnecessary...
However, a new $250 bill would be great to potentially create new paper money collectors, like the state quarter program helped create brand new coin collectors.
Yeah, that's true. I was commenting while I was eating lunch (how I usually read this forum) so tapping out comments on my iPad is a bit of a pain. But as others have mentioned, large bills help facilitate a variety of crimes. And when I do these events where I'm walking around with thousands of dollars in cash on me, I'm usually a LITTLE nervous. Not so much about getting mugged (I'm 6'2") but just about "something" happening where I misplace/lose the money.
I just got back from a trip to Southern Africa. Zimbabwe uses US dollars as currency. They don't like anything bigger than a $20 bill because of counterfeit concerns. They are ALSO super picky about the quality of the bills. If you have even a TINY tear in one, they won't accept it.
Not sure that a $250 bill would create new collectors. Everybody uses quarters and sees them and can afford to put them aside. The opposite would be true for a $250 bill. As you point out, higher denominations are less and less used.
Not sure that the state quarters increased the number of real collectors by much either. Hobbyists like to think this but numbers do not support this. Is attendance at shows or membership in numismatic organizations up or down over the past few decades? Population has increased substantially and number of collectors should increase proportionally to at least hold our ground. I don't think that it has.
Let's correct the record here. The act prohibiting a living person appearing on US currency was a response to Spencer Clark putting his own portrait on the 5 cent Fractional instead of William Clark's (of Lewis and Clark fame) portrait. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_M._Clark
At the time the 50 cent Fractional with Frances Spinner's portrait was already incirculation; it was allowed to remain in circulation. The 15 cent Fractional with portraits of Sherman and Grant had been designed and Specimens were printed and released. But the note itself had not been and production halted. The only way to obtain a copy of the Sherman and Grant is to obtain a Specimen.
Thank you for the correction in the details but the point remains the same. The record SHOULD be set straight. And thanks for showing the notes involved. They are all nice examples and illustrating them helps make your point.
There is still a law prohibiting the portrait of living persons on U.S. currency which has it's origins in the public outrage of placing treasury officials on our Fractional currency during the 1860s-70s, and these are the relevant facts. Donald Trump can't legally put his portrait on U.S. currency without Congress changing the laws.
Kalshi still puts the odds at 10% of this happening with Trump on a $250 bill by years end. It's gone up and down a few points but is pretty much the same long odds since this thread was started one month ago. I would expect that if there is no congressional action the odds will become longer as the end of year approaches.