By the time the state quarter program debuted in 1999, many Americans – coin collectors and non-collectors alike – had grown tired of the static designs used on U.S. coins in the preceding decades. I recall reading many articles about how dull and uninspired modern U.S. coin designs were. Some argued that depicting former presidents was fine, but the profiles needed a facelift to bring them into the modern era.
State quarters were designed to address some of those concerns by using designs that evoked Americans’ pride in their home state and also sought to attract new collectors to numismatics. It certainly accomplished the latter since it has been estimated that as much as one third of the U.S. population collected them. Many people got hooked on coins through the state quarters and became either casual or more serious collectors.
From an artistic point of view, though, most state quarter designs were viewed as generally lacking by collectors, although the average person found them to be appealing. And after a ten-year state quarter program followed by a year of territory quarters and then a new eleven-year program beginning in 2010 that honors the nation’s national parks, the America the Beautiful series, the saturation point in new coin designs has been reached for many people.
The presidential coin series that started in 2007 only added insult to injury. The concept of a series depicting every deceased U.S. president has its merits. But to be implemented, such a series requires images of the highest artistic caliber and perhaps less use of computer graphics. It also requires an effective system of distribution because the whole point is to build a set from change or by going to the bank. The current series essentially failed on both of these fronts, and Americans remain reluctant to use it for commerce.
Many people said they would never collect the America the Beautiful quarters. Others wanted to, but they have had a lot of trouble locating the new quarters. No one seems to know exactly why they are so hard to find except through coin dealers and U.S. Mint numismatic sales. But it appears to be some combination of poor distribution by the Federal Reserve, reduced demand for coinage because of the economic climate, and the increasing tendency to use non-cash forms of payment. Many people saved their state quarters, but it is not clear how many are saving the parks quarters since they are so much less available.
2012 Quarter Design Candidates (Final Designs Not Yet Announced)
The parks quarters could have been, and may ultimately be, more effective than either the state quarters or the presidential dollars at least aesthetically. The designs from the first two years are all appealing in their own way in my view, and few previous coins depicted state parks. The main criticism one can make regarding the designs is that over time there will be too many that look alike. It simply will not do to keep depicting trees and animals.
2009 marked the high point of the changing reverse concept. We seemed to have gone from one extreme to another. After decades of virtually no change other than commemorative issues for collectors, there were more coins with updated obverses and changing reverses than there were coins with static or stable images. There were the 2009 commemorative pennies, the Westward Journey nickels, and the Native American dollar plus all the recent collector series with changing designs. It was enough to make some collectors get a little dizzy.
Coin Update editor and founder Michael Zielinski made this argument in a May 2009 New York Times op-ed, “Change We Don’t Need (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/opinion/21Zeilinski.html).” He explained that too many changes in coin designs were creating “coin fatigue” and suggested that the classic image of Liberty be updated for the modern era and used for decades on our coins.
While I agree that the park quarter series is “too much of a good thing,” I believe that there are some important distinctions to be made here and that if not overdone, coins with rotating reverse designs have substantial appeal to collectors.
First, Congress should not have mandated a second changing reverse quarter program that would last eleven years immediately after another eleven year program, especially while also issuing presidential dollars. And to also issue a five-ounce silver version of the quarters in both bullion and collectible formats was overkill to be sure. I think the five-ounce coins were on balance a good idea, as I have argued before (http://news.coinupdate.com/collecting-america-the-beautiful-ounce-silver-coins-numismatic-vs-bullion-versions-0811/), although their long-term future is unclear because of rising silver prices and uncertain demand. But Congress probably should only have mandated the silver coins, not the quarters, or vice versa.
The Lincoln commemorative designs of 2009 were a one-year only series that attracted a lot of collector interest. To commemorate the 200th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth with four special pennies in 2009 was a fitting tribute to the man who is perhaps our most beloved president. The new Lincoln penny reverse that began in 2010 has had some critics, but I believe that it was time for an updated reverse design.
The Native American dollars that replaced the Sacagawea dollars also use a changing reverse. I find the changing reverse to be very appealing on these coins and feel that they increase interest in the series. They also have pedagogic value because they encourage learning more about a poorly understood part of the American experience.
Many people are strongly wedded to the two most popular bullion and collector coin designs, those of the American Gold and Silver Eagles. Each has an obverse that updates one of the most beloved and inspired coin designs of all time, the St. Gaudens double eagle and the Walking Liberty half dollar. But both designs have been used for 25 years, and I believe it was very appropriate to issue collector versions of American Platinum Eagles with changing designs since 1998 as a complement to the stable designs of the gold and silver coins.
In 2009 one could make the case, as Mr. Zielinski did, that changing designs were being overused, and I favor updating the classic image of Liberty on our coins. But I don’t think the same criticism is applicable today with the important exception of the overdone America the Beautiful coins.
And the presidential dollars need to be made in much smaller numbers and are currently on the congressional chopping block, as a number of pending bills seek to end or substantially modify the program.
Finally, it is my view that what bothers some people is less the rotating reverses or other changes in coin design and more the overall decline, or at least uneveness, in the level of artistic achievement of recent American coins.
There will always be a gulf between those who believe our coinage should remain the same and those who favor change in designs. Too much change does create the impression of an unstable mess, but at the same time, an unchanging approach, no matter how appealing the designs, would not work either. A balance has to be struck, and I for one would not want to return to the days of coin designs that never seem to change.
Louis Golino is a coin collector and numismatic writer. His articles have been published in Coin World, Numismatic News, and other publications. He also writes a regular column called “The Coin Analyst” for www.CoinWeek.com about U.S. and world coins and precious metals and has written widely about international politics for newspapers and web sites.
My single biggest issue with circulating American coinage is, in fact, the art quality. In general I think there should be an effort to get the presidents off the coins and get some new designs out there, preferably ones that harken back to the old classic designs of the Indian penny, mercury dime, etc. There is a reason these designs are so popular and keep showing up on rounds, commemoratives, bullion, etc. The Joel Iskowitz design of the gold Medal of Honor commemorative is a good example of what I call the “neo-classical” style and would be a good guide for designing future circulating coins. I do not like designs such as those found on the presidential dollars, or the new version of the Jefferson nickel, but unfortunately, such designs appear to be the new big trend. Artists like Iskowitz are swimming against the tide.
I do agree with you that the art quality is higher on the AtB’s than the state quarters, and further agree that the designers will need to be careful not to create an array of landscapes indistinguishable from each other. One reason I like Vicksburg so much is that the design really stands out in the landscapes of Mount Hood, Olympic, and Glacier. I also feel the same way about the bridge on the Chickasaw coin.
With that said, I feel there should be no more than one “rotating” coin design at a time, and I think it should either be the quarter or the one dollar coin. The recent flood of rotating coin designs almost feels like the Mint is just trying to cash in on the success of the State Quarter program. Hopefully, given the apparent failures of the presidential dollar and AtB program, the Mint will learn its lesson, give a general overhaul to all our major circulating coins, and then call it a day. The dime and penny obverses especially need a new look.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Captain. But I think it’s too soon to say the ATB programs are a failure. Only time will tell.
Perhaps a two-ounce silver proof, or reverse proof, series would have been better for the ATB program. The five-ouncers are impressive, but they are going to be too costly before long and they are so bulky. Why not follow in the Aussies’ footsteps and produce a two-ounce coin? It’s too late now, but that would probably have been a better way to go and would have been easier to make. And the coins definitely should have had a different obverse such as Teddy Roosevelt, the father of the parks system.
One big reason that so few state park quarters are found in change is that so few of them are being made. So far, most unique design/mintmark combinations have mintages of around 30-35 million. If we don’t care about mintmark, that makes 60-70 million quarters in change per design. The population of the U.S is something close to 330 million and growing. This means that if Americans are limited to only one quarter of each design and mintmark per person, only 1 in 10 Americans will be able to own a complete set. In reality, many people are pulling all the state park quarters out of change that they can find.
Believe it or not, many people I’ve talked to have NEVER seen a state park quarter of any design, and a lot of people don’t even know the series is being produced.
But this may be a moot point. With the rapid move toward new forms of electronic payment, many people (especially younger people) rarely use cash (or coins). Due to inflation, coins have lost roughly 98% of their purchasing power over the last 100 years, meaning that modern coins are nearly worthless. When I was a child it was possible to buy candy 2 pieces for a penny. These days it takes a quarter to buy a piece of gum from a machine. Coins are big and bulky relative to their purchasing power, making them not worthwhile to carry around.
Given these facts, maybe we should be asking if the government will keep making quarters long enough to finish up the state quarters series?
Keith,
You made a number of interesting comments and raise some good questions. I think Captain Overkill may be right that it is worth putting aside some rolls of ATB quarters. But I would be careful not to pay a big premium. If you can’t get them at face value, I’d say $15 a roll is okay because they are so hard to find, but that is the most I would pay.
Louis,
Teddy Roosevelt would be an excellent choice if we wanted to pick someone new to put on a coin. I don’t think Reagan would be all that bad an idea either though there may not have been enough time since he passed away, yet. As for the AtBs, it’s true they have a lot of time left to go, but I think we agree the program is headed in the wrong direction (looking at 5 oz sales and circulating quarter mintages) and could use a major course correction.
Keith,
I agree on your points about the AtB mintages. They are ridiculously low in the face of other coin mintages – the Mint is still producing billions of pennies for example. Is there some reason we need so many pennies versus the quarter, a coin people actually still use?
Does anyone know a good site or other source for updated info. on the ATB quarter mintages? Michael’s reports and Dave Harper’s cover sales of products with quarters but not the overall mintages.
Louis, I’m sure you already know about it, but the Mint’s main site has circulating coin production:
http://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/coin_production/?action=production_figures
And the direct AtB numbers: http://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/coin_production/index.cfm?action=production_figures&allCoinsYear=2011#starthere
I’m not sure where to get more detailed information though, possibly you could contact the Mint directly.
Thanks, Captain. It looks like the Philly coins have slightly lower mintages. Based on your recommendation I am thinking of starting a roll set but it has to be either p or d. I can’t do both.
I’m surprised that the low quarter mintages for designs released in the last 2 years have gotten no publicity. These are mintage numbers not seen for circulating quarters since Dwight Eisenhower was president. Designs released in the state quarters program had mintages 10-20 times higher.
I think these low mintages are the result of multiple factors:
The massive production numbers of quarters from 1999-2008, and people saving huge numbers of these quarters.
Hard times, which encouraged a lot of people to cash in their stash of quarters
CoinStar machines, which makes it real easy to put a coin horde back in circulation
The movement toward electronic payments
Minimal purchasing power of coinage these days
The coin collector in me says to stash away some rolls of the ATB quarters because someday people will wake up and notice the extreme low mintages. There are not enough quarters being made for one in ten Americans to assemble a complete set.
But I also wonder about the future of these coins. Will anyone want to collect coins when they no longer handle them on a day-to-day basis? With the drop in usage, are these low mintage numbers here to stay, possibly going even lower? Or will quarter production pick up in a few years when the economy finally recovers? After all, mintages did drop to extreme low levels during the 1930’s depression and production did increase when the economy improved.
While it’s easy to “bash the Mint” for the proliferance of coin designs, let’s try and remember that coin bills originate in Congress. The Mint only designs and strikes coins it is required to do so under the law. Too many designs? Blame Congress.
Robertzon,
I agree about the Congress and have said this many times in my articles. I never bashed anyone. But it is also the case that the Mint can consult with the Congress and tell it that changes need to be made when a coin program is not working instead of waiting until Congress does something in a fit of rage, as seems to be happening now with the presidential dollars.
Historically, the Mint has rarely taken a proactive stance with Congress on matters that deal with coin designs or even production figures, the latter of which are determined by demand, or the amount of coins the 12 Federal Reserve banks informs the Mint they need. Besides, how does one tell when a program is “not working?” From my understanding, all the coins the Mint strikes turn a profit or seigniorage, except for the cent and nickel. I still mostly blame Congress for the presidential dollar mess – they created the program with certain ratios that require the Mint to strike a large number of both presidential dollars and Native American dollars. They also did not eliminate the dollar note, which is the main reason why the coins are not circulating.
Congress just passes a bill for a certain coin with vague parameters, “emblematic of a National Park” etc. so forth. But the designers at the Mint are responsible for a bad design. When they are presented with a bunch of bad designs, they just pick the least terrible looking one instead of scraping them and bringing the hammer down on people to get the show on the road. PC gets in the way, the Marketing Department gets in the way, and people’s sensibilities get in the way. People today can’t interpret symbolism these days. If the meaning behind the design doesn’t hit them square in the face when they look at it, they don’t pay any attention to it or they don’t like it at all. The Mint and Treasury Department needs to just tell people to bad, just look deeper, and they people need to wake up. Sometimes things require some deeper thought processes.
The dollar coin doesn’t circulate because it is big and heavy and doesn’t buy much. Eliminating the dollar bill would force people to use them, but most people would just take them home and throw them in a jar just as they do with their other pocket change, then cash in the jar of coins when they need money for something.
James Mackey,
Yes, but that is just fine. People who use cash probably get backed up with a lot of ones anyway. I consider the bills change to begin just because they buy so little. I do have a bunch on me to spend. I have kept up to $50 worth at one time, and I hardly noticed them. Sometimes I had to check that it was still in my pocket in the pouch I made for them. When I was in Ireland, I used the Euro. I would bring cash to the bar and buy beers. When I ran out of cash, I would pull the change out and see that I had enough 1 Euro and 2 Euro coins to buy probably 3 more beers. It was like getting free beer. I loved it. I didn’t notice the change over there, it was very easy to get used to the 1 and 2 Euro set up. It came natural. I just think people in the US are resistant to change, no matter what the change is. Besides when I do spend them, half the clerks I give them to have never even seen them. People would get used them very quickly. The government needs to save money right now and the money that would be saved isn’t a small amount.
This article brings up some valid “issues” and the comments as well. I must say though, the coin will never die. As long as there is sales-tax, there will be a need for physical coinage/currency. As much as the digital age has blown currency… it will be always be the basis of wealth, etc… An all-digital currency is WAY too risky… think about it… sure money can be “counter-fitted”, but NOT to the same scale that money can be stolen online. Anyway, as for the ATB quarters….. COLLECT THEM ! Due to the lack of collectors/mintage… these are going to be VERY desirable later on and considerably rarer than the State Quarters. Esp, the proof sets. Not to mention they’re quite beautiful.