I love bicentennial coins. I just find myself wondering why the pennies, nickels, and dimes were excluded from this program, especially the dimes. Canada's excellent 1967 centennial set contains a penny, a nickel, a dime, a quarter, a half dollar, and a dollar. I can understand why there weren't bicentennial pennies and nickels than the dimes. A 40% silver bicentennial dime would have been neat. A NIFC bicentennial dime with the war nickel composition and a NIFC bicentennial penny with the 1943 steel composition would have brought the mint millions of dollars. I would buy the complete set. Did they just overlook these coins, or was there a reason?
This is just a wild guess, but the "dual date" design that was used for the 25c, 50c & $1 coins may have been too long for it to fit on the smaller coins. Chris
I think it was more symbolic. The quarter depicts Washington, who was a great leader in the fight for our independence and the founding of this country. On the other hand, lincoln wasnt even born yet and had nothing to do with our independence. It makes more sense to me that it was on the quarter.
Yes, jefferson did do a great amount. But for me I look at it as Washington being the more important figure in the fight for independence. As for the half dollar goes, I don't know. It may be because its a large coin and can hold a nice image. I dont think it wasnt on cents because of size. Remember in 2009 the mint released 4 different lincoln cents depicting lincolns life. I believe on one of them, the "cabin" it even has his birth date 1809 on it. Theres plenty of room to fit a dual date.
The dime is the one circulating denomination that has never had a commemorative coin - some would argue the 1996-W dime for the 50th anniversary was a commemorative - but it is a NCLT coin only. The nickel waited until 2003 and the cent until 2009 to get commemoratives.
Possibly for the very same reason that you can understand not including the nickels and pennies, someone else thought it acceptable to exclude the dimes . . .
One would think it wasn't an oversight. Surely they discussed it. My guess is that it had something to do with money (cost).
Random ramblings from the internet... I've been trying to find articles online that discuss this issue. 1973 coinage discussion in the House keep being mentioned, but I can't find anything yet. Issue 499 of the Numismatist referenced.
pdf link... http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2265&context=clevstlrev which is a very intersting read... In its exhaustive study of current problems in the American coin-age system, RTI concluded that the quarter was probably not the most efficient denomination, and that a twenty cent piece should, in an optimally efficient system, be used as a replacement. 1 6 0 RTI recognized that there was little likelihood of this occurring because "the quarter has become a standard unit of account and value ... [and] equipment modification and commercial transaction costs associated with its elimination and subsequent replacement with a twenty cent coin would far exceed those which could be offset by the marginal increase in theoretic efficiency."'
Nice to know the same problem existed 40 years ago. And I was thinking congressional inaction was a more recent phenomenon.
Trying to remember back in 1976 when I was 12 that the push seemed more for the new 2 dollar bills more than the bicentennial coins. Seems like everyone got one and it had the new design of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence. With Thomas Jefferson being the main author of the declaration and President, it seemed only natural to push these 2 dollar bills. I remember my uncle showing all the 2's he got from the bank when he cashed his pay check. I guess the banks were pushing them big time. I don't think that people asked for them at the bank..they just gave them out. I looked up who signed the Declaration and I see that George Washington was not it. I think he was not a member of Congress and was appointed by Congress to start a Army. ? Chime in if this is wrong . Thanks snowman
You also have to remember that back then the Treasury dept was adamantly opposed to design change and/or having more than one design on a denomination in circulation. (The official line is that it would confuse people, they wouldn't know what was a real coin and what wasn't, and that it would encourage counterfeiting. Of course now having 78 different quarters and 34 different dollar coins is no problem.) It was a long hard fight just to get those three coins. If they had tried to get all six coins redesigned they probably wouldn't have gotten any.
