Stupid P.C. Coinage, Take 3
The U.S. Mint is all set to float yet another metallic turd in the punchbowl of the nations' monetary system.
What part of Please, for the love of God, wouldja make it noticibly BIGGER than a stupid quarter for once?! don't they understand??
Let's see, we had the Anthony dollar in the late '70's-and we all know what a howling success that was.
Then once again in the 90's, some bright bulb at the Mint figured that we loved the Anthony dollar so much let's do it again. Only now let's throw that Indian chick on it and OH! Let's make it brass!...the public just love shiny things that look kinda "gold-ish". The result very well could have been a slots token from an Indian casino.
I know I have a couple of them slowly turning black with age in my sock drawer.
So, completely undaunted by past criticism and refusing to even consider the folks who would actually be using this coinage-namely us, the humble citizens of this nation- the Mint now combines everything that they have learned with the previous failures: Awkward, confusing size, brass coating and adds even yet another fabulous twist to assure failure! The famous motto: In God We Trust has been relegated to along the EDGE of the coin, almost assuring that it will be the first thing to be rubbed away...that is if it stays in circulation long enough, which, probably it won't. Once again , the "new " dollar will be "a little bigger than a quarter". That's the part that pisses me off the most. If you're gonna do it, do it right. The perfect size would be about the size of a 50 cent piece. That can never be mistakened for a quarter! And since 50 cent pieces aren't in heavy circulation (I haven't got one in my change in ages!) that combined with a faux gold finish would guarantee that it just might get used, other than as a punchline.
I am just gobsmacked at the overwhelming, blantant stupidity of the Mint.
Oh, sure the states quarters and the retooled Jefferson nickles have been a hit-but that's because they were essentially the same, just had different designs on them. Like giving a classic old car a new paint job with flames-you haven't changed the car beyond all recognition, just hipped it up some. It's still user friendly.
But to come out with yet another dollar coin design that is doomed to fail even before it's struck...well, boy howdy. I bet someone at the Mint got a big bonus for coming up with that one.
I'll be setting aside another little spot in my sock drawer for this latest token of the March of the Stupids.
4 Comments:
Dang! that is so freaking stupid. Last month, I lost another 75 cents when a dollar coin sneaked into my change and I spent it as a quarter. No one party to the transaction noticed. I wonder if there is some sort of benefit to this to the treasury?
I'm with you on this one. It needs to be a lot larger or not at all. The Anthony dollar was used so many times as a quarter there must have been millions of dollars lost and won by the person paying and the person receiving the coinage. One person that did like the gold dollar was the lady that received $5000 for the design. A quite tallented sculptress by the name of Glenna Goodacre. She also has to her credit the monument in D.C. of the Women of Vietnam.
I can't fault the imagery, Fish. It is a lovely design in that respect-both front and back. Even the Sacagwea dollar had a nice image.
But purtiness don't matter in a coin if it won't be circulated!
Damn shame.
Walker, I feel your pain. ; )
Y'know, it's almost like they have some sort of in-house contest at the Mint to see how to redefine insanity, over and over again!
Well, a judge just ruled that the mint has to come up with paper money that a blind person can differentiate between the $1.00. $5.00 etc...
I bet they are wracking their brains trying to figure out how they'll comply.
Post a Comment
<< Home