Coin redesign should be total makeover

I am reading with interest the idea of a $50 gold piece with silver dollar planchet coins, and your article says that the $50 coin would be available as a non-legal tender bronze medal.

My question is why does it have to be a non-legal tender bronze medal? Why can’t they simply issue a $50 bronze or silver coin for circulation that could be issued at face value in the banks across the nation? This would really increase interest in the hobby. The same should be done with a silver or bronze high relief $20 coin. If we collectors have to always shell out mega bucks for expensive coins, why don’t we ever get any of the things for face value? The state quarters are a step in the right direction, and so are the national park coins.

I definitely feel we should have Theodore Roosevelt on the front since he was instrumental in getting national parks and new coin designs, and he has never been on a coin. The Washington portrait is but a caricature of the 1932 design and it is time for something reasonably new.

Too often our coins are presently redesigned, but they are not redesigned. Examples: the new state quarter, but with the old portrait of Washington turned in caricature; new portraits of Thomas Jefferson with the hackneyed old Monticello design; supposedly new cent designs in 2009, but with the old Lincoln portrait.

Why can’t we ever have complete new coin designs front and back? We are putting new wine in old caskets, which is what the Bible told us not to do.

I like the idea of the Indian history Sacagawea dollar but I think we also should have a companion black history dollar, perhaps featuring Martin Luther King on the front and each year a different reverse featuring a black history theme.

I am tired of reading about the debate between those who like the dollar coin and those who complain that dollar coins are too heavy. I see no validity in this argument since almost every other country uses an equivalent of the dollar coin successfully and without complaints.

To make everyone happy, I propose a compromise. For those who like the money-saving coin, eliminate the paper dollar and for those who like paper money, print more $2 bills so these too would circulate. When someone wants change for a $5 bill, one needn’t carry five dollar coins but only one coin and two $2s. This idea makes so much sense I am surprised no one has thought of it before. It would make everyone happy and save our government money.

With all these commemoratives being cranked out like sausage, why hasn’t anyone ever suggested commemorative paper money? One can do so much more with the larger surface of paper money than on a coin. People say the Lincoln bicentennial designs are too cramped for the cent, so then why can’t we have the counterpart for the back of the $5 bill? Also, I am surprised no one has thought of this.

I truly enjoy my hobby and all the interesting articles on everything you have in your paper.

Bob Olekson is a hobbyist from Parma, Ohio.

Viewpoint is a forum for the expression of opinion on a variety of numismatic subjects. The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Numismatic News.

To have your opinion considered for Viewpoint, write to David C. Harper, Editor, Numismatic News, 700 E. State St., Iola, WI 54990. Send e-mail to david.harper@fwpubs.com.