Coins above 25 cents are available for circulation - but they do not circulate. Maybe that is wrong! They should!. But they don't. Personally, if I get one of those, I get rid of it at the first opportunity I have.
And that is PRECISELY my point - you SPEND those larger denomination coins, rather than spend paper money and accumulate ever more change. Perceptions indeed - but it is important to draw the right conclusions. John F-L ----- Original Message ----- From: Stanislav Jakuba To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 3:40 PM Subject: [USMA:50977] Re: Fw: Re: Why mint coins no one wants? It was interesting to read John F-L's analysis. How perceptions differ! John's analysis seems logical but the logic does not apply to me. Although foreigner to this country, I prefer the US currency paper/coin ratio over any other. Frequenting Europe, the abundance of EU coins amuses and irritates me. No wonder that some (two?) EU countries abandoned a few sizes. Unlike John F-L, I never need more coins here than I carry in my thin (mostly) valet. All of them, always. Coins above 25 cents are available for circulation - but they do not circulate. Maybe that is wrong! They should!. But they don't. Personally, if I get one of those, I get rid of it at the first opportunity I have. So must be the majority of Americans who do not analyse the use, just use. Our Gov't has so far not decided that it knows better and forces on us its preference, say, by withdrawing an alternative. John, how about the cost of the wear and tear of valets and pockets (and pocketbooks) with those humongous British coins? My preferred coin is the U.S. dime. Stan J. On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 6:49 AM, John M. Steele <[email protected]> wrote: I would also like to point out that according to the Bureau of Engraving the $1 bill outlasts the $5, $10, and $20 (by a considerable margin). Because the $1 is rarely counterfeited, they switched to a more durable bill, but it doesn't have some of the anti-counterfeiting features. So replacing the $1 bill may not be the place to start. No one minds if the coin exists, although no one likes to use it. Take away the bill, start a political firestorm. A politician can get unelected with a platform like that. http://www.moneyfactory.gov/faqlibrary.html What is the average life span of a Federal Reserve Note? The average life span of a Federal Reserve Note varies by denomination: Denomination Life Span $ 1 ............... $ 5 ............... $ 10 ............. $ 20 ............. $ 50 ............. $100 ............ 42 months 16 months 18 months 24 months 55 months 89 months --- On Wed, 8/17/11, John M. Steele <[email protected]> wrote: From: John M. Steele <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [USMA:50973] Why mint coins no one wants? To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>, "John Frewen-Lord" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2011, 6:39 AM John, I have to disagree with your analysis on two points: *The $0.50 and $1 coins are in circulation. They don't circulate much BECAUSE we don't like them, but they are certainly available. *The $1 coin weighs 8X as much as a $1 bill. I have found one good use for $1 coins I receive. A parking structure in a nearby town both accepts them and gives them as change when a larger denomination paper bill is tendered. I can leave them in the car and use them as parking tokens without fear they will be stolen. The Post Office stamp machine also gives them, no paper, as change when a larger bill is tendered. --- On Wed, 8/17/11, John Frewen-Lord <[email protected]> wrote: From: John Frewen-Lord <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [USMA:50973] Why mint coins no one wants? To: [email protected], "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2011, 3:36 AM This looks like another example of where Americans have been fed incorrect information, the resulting incorrect perception is everything, and why America prefers some (apparent - not necessarily real) short term gain in exchange for (not always immediately apparent) long term pain. The inefficiencies of paper money are well documented - a coin can last 50 years, a paper note/bill less than two. But there's also the huge (but hidden) inefficiency in each person handling not only two forms of money in a typical transaction (paper and coin), but also greatly increased numbers of either. I remember seeing somewhere before on this subject that America rejects higher denomination of coinage because they perceive that they will end up with more change in their pockets/purses. Like with thinking converting to the metric system is too expensive, the OPPOSITE is true! That perception is plain wrong. America has the following coinage: 0.25, 0.10, 0.05, 0.01 - and that's it! Four denominations only (I am ignoring the 0.50 coin, as it does not seem to be in general usage). For paper money there is only the 1.00 bill and the 5.00 bill. (I am ignoring everything above 5.00.) Canada has the above, plus 1.00 and 2.00 coins - 6 denominations. Plus the 5.00 bill. UK has 2.00, 1.00, 0.50, 0.20, 0.10, 0.05, 0.02, 0.01 - 8 denominations. Plus the 5.00 note. Now take a purchase that comes to, say, 3.92, paid for in coinage only. US - 15 x 0.25, 1 x 0.10, 1 x 0.05, 2 x 0.01. That's an astonishing 19 coins - not practical (too slow for one thing). Paper money will get used, thereby giving you ever MORE change! Canada - 1 x 2.00, 1 x 1.00, 3 x 0.25, 1 x 0.10, 1 x 0.05, 2 x 0.01 - 9 coins. Getting much more feasible. UK - 1 x 2.00, 1 x 1.00, 1 x 0.50, 2 x 0.20, 1 x 0.02. That's just 6 coins. In practice, it means that for ANYTHING under 5.00, you are more likely to pay with ONLY coins, meaning you end up with FEWER coins jangling away in your pockets/purses - and only having to deal with one type of money (coins). That means less time at the cash register = more efficient throughput of customers. Even tendering, say, 4.00 for that purchase is no better for Americans. Unless they pay with 16 quarters, an American has to tender 4 x 1.00 bills. He/she will receive 1 x 0.05 and 3 x 0.01 in change (net increase of four coins). A Canadian or a Brit can tender just 2 x 2.00 coins. A Canadian will receive 1 x 0.05 and 3 x 0.01 in change (net increase of two coins); a Brit will receive 1 x 0.05, 1 x 0.02 and 1 x 0.01 in change - a net increase of just one coin. If in all three countries a 5.00 bill/note is tendered, an American will receive 8 coins in change, a Canadian 5 coins and a Brit 4 coins in change. So how can Americans get it so wrong? I have lived extensively and continually travel in all three countries, and I can say from personal experience that in the UK you have far fewer coins on you, as using coins only for small purchases is a very practical proposition. Same more or less for Canada, as it too has 2.00 and 1.00 coins. In the US I ALWAYS end up with a huge pocketful of quarters, dimes and nickels, which just accumulate until one day I decide to aggregate them together and pay for something large with them - much to the annoyance of the person at the cash register, who now has to sort through and add up 20 or 30 coins or more. Being different just for the sake of it does not always mean being better. Being better means looking at how the rest of the world does something better than you - and then improving on it. John F-L ----- Original Message ----- From: John M. Steele To: U.S. Metric Association Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 2:56 AM Subject: [USMA:50973] Why mint coins no one wants? Per this article on dollar coins, the US has $1.2 billion minted reserve of the $1 coins already due to low demand, and by 2016 will have a minted reserve of $2 billion of them. At 8.1 g/coin (per the Mint), that is 16200 t of excess coins by 2016. http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20110816/OPINION03/108160335/Why-mint-coins-no-one-wants-
