No, they're not going to be wooden
November 6, 2003 11:12 AM   Subscribe

New nickels in 2004. Also, the mint is holding out the possibility of further changes after the Lewis and Clark designs are retired after 2005, so maybe they'll finally have the guts to use Felix Schlag's original design for the coin, with the oblique view of Monticello.
posted by yhbc (21 comments total)
 
What kind of tacky-expensive "new money" TV ads will these come with, I wonder?
posted by brownpau at 11:34 AM on November 6, 2003


Probably something with Lewis and Clark fighting Indians, or maybe a sasquatch.
posted by moonbiter at 11:52 AM on November 6, 2003


I still trying to figure out the "French suck" angle. ;)
posted by terrapin at 12:05 PM on November 6, 2003


Cool links, commish. I like the oblique Monticello much more than the two-dimensional elementary-school project looking design on the current quarters.
posted by Ufez Jones at 12:15 PM on November 6, 2003


quarters nickels, but you knew that.
posted by Ufez Jones at 12:16 PM on November 6, 2003


I hope the new nickels work better in vending machines than the current ones do.

Or is that just a "me" thing?
posted by Cyrano at 12:32 PM on November 6, 2003


What kind of tacky-expensive "new money" TV ads will these come with, I wonder?

I'm still trying to figure out why it's necessary to even HAVE commercials for the new bills? Can someone enlighten me?
posted by Witty at 12:32 PM on November 6, 2003


Witty -

Because the public is stupid. About a month ago someone in front of me at an ice cream stand was handed a golden dollar as change. She was totally confused as to what it was, even though there were tons of them in circulation when they first came out. Heck, they were being given out at Wal-mart.

Just because we read news and see pictures of the bills, doesn't mean everyone does, and if people thought they were fake, it'd undermine the whole economy, since paper money's based on 'full faith and credit'. Throwing 35 million in the toilet is better then having a mini-panic because 1% of the public thinks counterfit bills are suddenly becoming common place.
posted by stryder at 12:40 PM on November 6, 2003


Ahh... ok. I guess that makes sense; an "awareness" type-thing. I kept seeing commercials and thinking, "Yea... and? What the hell choice do I have?" I should have thought a little more critically I suppose.
posted by Witty at 12:51 PM on November 6, 2003


Ufez: lots of folks do (like the oblique design better), but except for a brief period at the beginning of the 20th century, U.S. coin designs have been bland to the point of nondescript. Another example of the mint choosing a "dull" design over a more artistic one was in fact the quarter - Laura Gardin Fraser actually won the design contest for that coin in 1932, but the mint didn't use her design until 1999, when they put it on a $5.00 gold commemorative coin instead.
posted by yhbc at 1:06 PM on November 6, 2003


Maybe I'm just a bit dense here... but to me the larger question is "why the redesign"? To increase demand for nickels? To raise awareness of nickels? To prevent the current massive efforts to counterfeit nickels? I mean, I kinda like the new designs on the quarters, and these new designs are nice as well - if just for some novelty, etc., but what is the motivation for this, and what does it cost in design/retooling/awareness efforts?
posted by kokogiak at 1:10 PM on November 6, 2003


I doubt retooling is a significant cost. The machines that stamp them probably have to have the stamp plate changed out frequently anyway due to the volume of nickles/quarters put out.

Now the design portion, that was probably absurdly expensive.
posted by Nauip at 1:19 PM on November 6, 2003


but except for a brief period at the beginning of the 20th century, U.S. coin designs have been bland to the point of nondescript

Yup.

I was going to say that the ECB had managed to out-dull even the US Mint with the Euro coins, but some of the country-specific sides are pretty cool. The Italian ones and the Finnish are particularly fun IMHO.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:27 PM on November 6, 2003


Because the public is stupid. About a month ago someone in front of me at an ice cream stand was handed a golden dollar as change. She was totally confused as to what it was, even though there were tons of them in circulation when they first came out. Heck, they were being given out at Wal-mart.

Be that as it may, it seems like a large amount of money was spent trying to come up with some edgy, creative ad-copy for these ads. Like the guy at the register who does the basketball tricks with his new $20 bill, which was cheesy and implausible. What's the point in that? Do we need brand loyalty here? Do we need to outdo the Honduran Lempira to get the urban market? No. Simple PSAs that will show the new features would be A) easy to write, B) cheaper to produce and C) probably more effective. I agree that awareness needs to be made, but more was likely accomplished by local news agencies and traditional media hype than the actual ads themselves.
posted by Ufez Jones at 1:40 PM on November 6, 2003


The Treasury Department has actually been making a good deal of money (no pun intended) off the state commemorative quarters -- coins that never enter circulation (due to people collecting them instead of using them) are essentially profit for the Treasury, since the cost of manufacture is so low. So maybe they're taking what they've learned to the other coins -- watch for a new dime soon.

It's sort of like stamps -- there's really no reason to have fifty kajillion stamp designs (OK, counterfitting is a reason, but turns out not to be much of a problem), but the USPS makes money off collectors who buy new stamps to add to their collection.
posted by me3dia at 2:50 PM on November 6, 2003


After getting a 1943 dime back in change I have longed for a more retro-deco look for more coinage. Simple bold lines with the value easily recognized.

The angled Monticello does nothing for me.

$32 million was spent promoting new bills. Seems like a lot of money to me.
posted by infowar at 3:00 PM on November 6, 2003


After getting a 1943 dime back in change
Value: silver about 50 cents(If siliver is 5$ an ounce), collecting/antique several bucks or more, retro-deco look priceleess.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:10 PM on November 6, 2003


Anybody remember the buffalo nickel? I wish they'd bring that one back.
posted by alumshubby at 3:14 PM on November 6, 2003


What is this 'cash' thing people keep talking about.

Thanks, but no one will be wiping their bum with my credit card and putting it into normal circulation, could happen with cash.
posted by benjh at 7:29 PM on November 6, 2003


Yes, benjh, but I don't have to worry about Johnny Ashcroft poking around my bum when I use cash.
posted by Ptrin at 8:10 PM on November 6, 2003


I like the fact that they're redesigning change, cash I have problems with, though. It's like a little history lesson. I haven't looked at change in years. Since the redesign of the quarters, I've actually looked at these things that I use every day, instead of just ignoring them. I'm all for treating them like stamps. Put new icons on them every once in a while. Make people stop for half a second and look. As long as its not costing much. The bills cost a lot because of the counterfeit slant, but that's not really there with change.
The state quarters was a decent start, but there sure are some duds. I recently found some Arkansas quarters and thought, what the hell is that? Still, I think it's surefire way to get into people's heads. Does it cost more to make a new quarter then a new stamp? I don't look at stamps, but waiting for the streetcar the quarter gets a peek a day, at least.
posted by superchris at 8:15 PM on November 6, 2003


« Older The New Global Paternalism: Fuck You!   |   church sign generator Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments