Talk:Presidential dollar coins

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Presidential dollar coins article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Numismatics: American currency Mid‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American currency task force (assessed as High-importance).

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

True or false: the coins in this act will include pictures of all the Presidents from Washington to Nixon and Reagan. 66.245.127.112 23:44, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

True Juppiter 18:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The above should probably be included in the article. I'll add it, but I have some assumptions I'd like verified. One has to be dead to be included on a coin, I'm quite certain, so if this bill had gone through and, say, Ford were to die soon, he would be included in the series as well, right? Or would he have to be dead for a certain length of time? -R. fiend 23:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From what I've heard, it will be all presidents, including those that are currently alive, such as the Bushes. It's thus quite likely that it will break the custom of only dead people on the money. I don't have references for this, though, so it shouldn't be added unless it can be verified or discredited Nik42 22:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking right now at the text of the bill, and it says all $1 coins issued on and after January 1, 2006, shall have a design on the obverse selected in accordance with paragraph (2)(B), which is emblematic of a deceased former President of the United States, and a design on the reverse selected in accordance with paragraph (2)(A). (emphasis mine) So, it looks like living former Presidents will not, in fact, be on the coins [1] Nik42 07:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By law, a person must be dead for at least two years before his/her image can be placed on U.S. coinage.B.Wind 22:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for that? This might preclude presidential widows from getting coins together with their deceased husbands, contradicting what is currently said in the article. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005. It has passed the House and at the time of this post, is in a Senate committee. 24.54.208.177 05:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington dollar

Any info on what the George Washington dollar that will be the first of the dollars in this sequence will look like?? Feel free to put any info, including whether it is silver or gold, in your list. Georgia guy 22:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Future presidents

OK, we know the series is going to go at least until 2016 and maybe into 2017, depending on how many past presidents pass away between now and then. But being the slightly anal-retentive nitpicker that I am (and God loves me for it), I'm compelled to ask this question.

Does the Act provide for any future presidents to be included in the set? Between now and 2016 we'll have had at least two, maybe three new presidents in our nation's history (and perhaps more, in the event that one dies in office or resigns). Let's say, theoretically, that President X, newly elected President in the 2008 election, dies of pneumonia shortly after taking office. Would President X be included in the set eight years later, or does the act only allow for the possibility of everyone up to and including George W. Bush to be in the set? ekedolphin 04:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, nevermind. Just read part of a sentence that I'd missed the first time, and my answer, apparently, is yes. Reading is fundamental. :D ekedolphin 04:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How shortly? Are we talking dethroning William Henry Harrison?

Immediately after finishing the Oath of Office, he drops dead of a heart attack. ;-) Nik42 05:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing most of the following will have kicked the bucket in time: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush. Also, William Henry Harrison was the greatest president. --Kalmia 08:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Nixon on a coin will be a very special moment for the USA. Not that far down the road, either...I wonder if we can get congress to pass a law specifically to exclude the guy who was not a crook? 70.61.22.110 21:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Newt[reply]

@Kalmia: Why do you think so? At least the last two in your list are unlikely to die so young IMO. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It now seems that Carter will not get a coin since he's still alive (and his coin would have been due June to August 2016). The Bushes and Clinton will also be out if they don't die in the next few months (or are already out if the timetable for the last coin of a year remains at August like this year's FDR coin), so the program is likely to finish with Ford and Reagan. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What color?

What color will the coin be? 71.199.123.24 07:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland counted twice

As mentioned above but starting a new section for it: will Cleveland get two coins? I can't image that he would but stranger/odder things have happened. :) Cburnett 23:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here we go 31 USC 5112(n)(3)(B):

(i) IN GENERAL- Subject to clause (ii), only 1 coin design shall be issued for a period of service for any President, no matter how many consecutive terms of office the President served.

(ii) NONCONSECUTIVE TERMS- If a President has served during 2 or more nonconsecutive periods of service, a coin shall be issued under this subsection for each such nonconsecutive period of service.

Cburnett 23:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is it yet known whether the 2 Cleveland coins will look different?? According to the rule of when they will be released, they will be in the spring and fall of 2012, respectively. Georgia guy 18:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it doesn't look like a quarter

The day I gave away a sacagawea dollar thinking it was a quarter is the day I stopped using them. They really need to differentiate them more. And considering the first one will have George Washingtons portrait on it...

I dont know how you could have done it, since theyre different colors. Assuming the rpesidentital cards will also be gold, there shouldnt be a problem. Also, dont forget to sign your comments. Jamesinclair 05:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention having a smooth edge and a very different design, plus being noticeably larger. Nik42 08:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're quite golden and impossible to mistake for a quarter if you're not legally blind. 70.61.22.110 21:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Newt[reply]

They're also very hard to mistake if you are blind, as the blind are taught to recognize coins by their size, shape, and whether or not the edge is smooth.--Ibagli (Talk) 17:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image release

[2] I'm not too familiar with editing coin pages, so here's a launching point to update. Zz414 14:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

First U.S. coin with numerical value?

I note that the denomination is shown as "$1" and not "One Dollar." All other current U.S. coins state their value in words only (One Cent, Five Cents, One Dime, Quarter Dollar, etc.). Is this the first time a number has been used instead? If so, this ought to be mentioned. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing an old nickel with a roman numeral "V", does that count? Some of the bullion coins currently being minted use numerals, but that's not quite the same as a circulating coins. With all the circulating coins that have been issued by the U.S. Mint in the last couple of centuries, I would think at least one of them would have used numerals. It might take a bit of numistmatic research to verify such a thing.

Oops, forgot to sign the previous comment. I found an example of a U.S. coin with a number. The shield nickel. Jwolfe 14:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, capped bust silver coinage used numerals and early cents and half cents used a 1/100 or 1/200 fraction. --Kurt 00:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The one with the 'V' is the Liberty Head nickel. Coemgenus 16:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Presidential dollars are by no means the first US coins for general circulation to have a numeral for the value. Very early cents had "1/100" on them, three different coins had Roman numerals, "2", "5 c", 10 c", "25 c" and "50 c" have all appeared on US coins. And I'm probably forgetting some. Nibios (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First U.S. money with "$" sign?

I thought I read it somewhere, maybe Coin World, that this will be the first time the actual dollar sign will be used on American money, paper or coin. Is that true? I can't find any research on that. The BEP and Mint's websites have nothing and Google won't allow a "$" character search. Any experts out there? This should get a trivia mention in a number of wiki articles if true. 209.26.38.244 18:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first coin for sure. Some early nineteenth century coins used "c" for cents, but that's the closest any US coinage has had to currency symbols. I'm fairly sure there haven't been any paper money with the dollar sign, but I'm not 100% positive. Nik42 02:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - I found a Coin World article from April 20, 2004 that says it has appeared on a U.S. coin. Quote below. 209.26.38.244 14:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Although the dollar sign does not appear on any current circulating U.S. coins and is rarely encountered on U.S. coins, the American Eagle platinum coins do feature the dollar sign." -- Coin World, April 20, 2004; by Michele Orzano, Coin World staff.

Ah, correction, then, it's the first circulating coin for sure. Nik42 17:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Update - Yes it seems so. The 2007 U.S. Presidential dollar coins use is the first appearance on a circulating U.S. coin issued by the federal government. See the second article excerpt below. Any editors out there can use this article as a reference to revise the article if they want to. The article was all about the history of the dollar sign, U.S. and internationally. I've added this excerpt to the talk page at $ sign also.209.26.38.244

Page 18: "The term "dollar" has a German name and Spanish symbol, but few U.S. coins have ever carried the famous symbol (the exceptions are the American Eagle platinum bullion coins), until now. The $ sign's placement on the reverse of the Presidential dollar coins is the first on a circulating U.S. coin (or at least the first on a U.S. coin intended to circulate)."

Page 22, article continues: "Though no federally issued U.S. circulating coin depicted the symbol before the George Washington Presidential dollar, one circulating piece made in the United States does: Templeton Reid struck a pioneer gold $5 piece dated 1830 in [the state of] Georgia. The piece is expensive and rare, with a Red Book price of $240,000 in Extremely Fine condition. The denomination appears as $5 on both sides of the coin, with the $ and 5 widely separated. As noted, the [noncirculating] American Eagle platiunum bullion coins all bear the $ sign in the denominations on the reverse: $10, $25, $50, and $100." -- Coin World, April 16, 2007, "A sign of the times," by Jeff Starck, Coin World staff.

Update list for Gerald Ford

He died around 11:00PM on the 26th of december. he will be right behind regan

Since the presidents must be depicted in consecutive order, Reagan would be ineligible unless Carter passes away before 2014, as Carter's ineligibility due to longevity would put a chronological gap between Ford and Reagan. If the gap was ignored, then only one coin would have sufficed for Grover Cleveland in the first place (had the Act not specified two for his unique situation). The series schedule listed on the US Mint's website extends only to Richard Nixon, but should contain Ford as well (http://usmint.gov/mint_programs/$1coin/index.cfm?action=schedule) and Reagan is not listed. - Deeplogic 19:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get that idea from? Section 102 (2)(E):

(E) LIMITATION IN SERIES TO DECEASED PRESIDENTS- No coin issued under this subsection may bear the image of a living former or current President, or of any deceased former President during the 2-year period following the date of the death of that President.

and section 102 (3)(A):

(A) ORDER OF ISSUANCE- The coins issued under this subsection commemorating Presidents of the United States shall be issued in the order of the period of service of each President, beginning with President George Washington.

and section 102 (8):

(8) TERMINATION OF PROGRAM- The issuance of coins under this subsection shall terminate when each President has been so honored, subject to paragraph (2)(E), and may not be resumed except by an Act of Congress.

I see nothing mentioning an inter-dependence of presidents. If a president has been dead for 2+ years at the time when his coin would be issued then he gets a coin, otherwise he is skipped. There is no requirement that Carter must die before Reagan can get one. If GW Bush were to die tomorrow then he'd get a coin (it'll take more than 2 years to get to him) despite, Clinton, G H Bush, etc. still being alive. I find nothing to support your assertion. Cburnett 05:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His assertion is supported by the laws that you yourself have cited, and by the Mint's current interpretation (which he cited). The Mint's website reinforces this; note that Reagan is not currently on the coin schedule. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Detail on First Spouse Program at US Mint

I added a new section for the detail now provided on the US Mint website for the "First Spouse Program". I didn't reproduce the entire schedule & table, with coin images, because I wasn't sure whether or not it deserved its own page, or a really large section of this one. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so I figured I'd start with the basics, and experts would jump in with the full detail.

First Spouse

The recent addition reads: "the act as written does not create an exception for First Spouses who are not yet deceased". I find this sentence confusing. The word "exception" itself implies negation, and now we have "not an exception". So what does the act say? Any person, or just the presidents, has to be dead for 2 years before showing on coins? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded it. The spouse is honored whenever their presidential spouse is honored regardless of if the first spouse is alive or dead. Cburnett 06:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that. Isn't there a law that living people can't be featured on US currency? Has it been changed? Oogabooga 17:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This lists the 21st first spouse as Alice Paul. This seems to be completely false and may be vandalism, seeing as Alice Paul was born less than two months before the 21st president, Chester Arthur's term ended. Arthur was a widower during presidency, so it seems like this should be either Arthur's Liberty or perhaps his sister Mary McElroy, who was unofficial first lady. omnijohn 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Paul is correct. I have added a reference for this to 31 USC 5112 (o)(D)(ii) which reads:

as represented, in the case of President Chester Arthur, by a design incorporating the name and likeness of Alice Paul, a leading strategist in the suffrage movement, who was instrumental in gaining women the right to vote upon the adoption of the 19th amendment and thus the ability to participate in the election of future Presidents, and who was born on January 11, 1885, during the term of President Arthur

Cburnett 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One interesting consequence of the First Spouse programme is that, if Bill Clinton were to die before 2012, the US mint could end up issuing a coin with the image of the sitting president in 2014. Esquimo 23:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. A living president cannot be on a coin no matter who dies and when. Cburnett 00:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if the president used to be a First Spouse?! The First Spouse coins specifically DON'T need to be of someone dead. Esquimo 13:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still incorrect. If Bill is the next and only president to die then he would get the 4th 2016 coin (if he died at least 2 years prior) That would mean Hillary would have to win the 2012 election, not the 2008, to be sitting in 2016 when Bill's president coin and Hillary's First Spouse coin are issued.

(It would have helped if you stated in your first post that you're assuming Hillary will win an election. In fact, you didn't mention Hillary at all nor said Bill would be the First Spouse.) Cburnett 13:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page rename

I'm not sure the page rename from Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005 to Presidential $1 Coin Program was a good idea. The $1 Coin Program was only one of the programs to be initiated by the $1 Coin Act. The other programs are listed lower on the page, but they're now out of place there. Plus, the law is still called the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005, regardless of what the program is called, so the intro will have to be fixed even if the page is left where it is currently. Jwolfe 05:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is about the "Program," but still has components of the First Spouse Program, the Lincoln Penny, and other mintage changes. I think renaming the article was a bad move, unless someone's going to create articles for all the other sub-programs right now. --Zz414 14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I say that the question "What year is it an act of??" sounds a little too trivial. Georgia guy 21:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

the metallic content needs to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.53.23.58 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 26 February 2007

I think the coin is mostly made up of a copper nickel clad mixture (as has been since '65) and a bit of manganese for the color. - Thanks, Hoshie 19:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you source exact percentages and put it in the article? Cburnett 20:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's written in Dollar (United States coin). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Paul?

The table of presidential spouses shows Alice Paul right behind Mrs. Garfield. While Alice Paul was an admirable and admired woman, President Arthur was a widower, like Presidents Jefferson and Jackson, so I presume this intrusion is an act of vandalism. Does anyone know otherwise? J S Ayer 04:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism. The Act itself specifically requires a coin for Alice Paul for Arthur's term. See [3] Jwolfe 11:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference in the article. Cburnett 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This bill appears to have been put together like the budget resolutions. A little from here, a little from there, until all the interest groups are satisfied -- then, don't disestablish the dollar bill, so it's all for collectors, anyway. Coemgenus 18:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way it was written it sounded as if Paul was in a relationship with Arthur, and functioned as de facto Firat Lady but lacked official status. Of course nothing like that is true. So I rewrote it to make it clear that she had no relationship with him whatsoever, and has simply been jammed into a convenient empty slot on the grounds that she was born during that interregnum. -- Zsero 04:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Godless dollar

(This issue appears RESOLVED, as Godless dollar redirects to this article.)

Support

Support The so called Godless dollar is an error of the Presidential $1. Such a small niche doesn't deserve its own article. Imagine if every error coin/note have its own article. The name "godless dollar", which is made up by some reporters in a day, is probably not suitable for an article title anyway. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- yes, merge it. The article will never be bigger than a stub on its own, and would be better placed within this article. Coemgenus 16:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, please merge. 66.114.93.6 03:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Against

Spouse images

I see the images have been deleted from commons (I believe because they were unsourced). If anyone has the time and motivation the images can be downloaded at http://www.usmint.gov/pressroom/index.cfm?action=photo#2007Spouse. Cburnett 22:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image links fixed. I presume the link will still be valid for future coin images. Cburnett 16:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Arthur

Alice Paul is on the coin not because "Arthur also refused to let anyone fill the roll [sic] that would have been his wife's." Mary McElroy, his sister, in fact, did fill that role. I'm not entirely sure why they decided to place a prominent woman there and not for other bachelor/widowed Presidents, but it's not for the reason Cburnett said Nik42 04:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Chester A. Arthur#Pre-political career:

He asked his sister Mary, the wife of writer John E. McElroy, to assume certain social duties and help care for his daughter.

So which is it? Did Mary fill that role or not? I find this [4]:

Although Mary McElroy served as her brother's First Lady, she was not accorded any formal recognition. Out of respect for his wife, Chester Arthur refused to grant his sister the protocol rank associated with the position of First Lady. Such a deficiency did not hurt Mary's reputation, and she was considered a popular and competent hostess. Her duties, however, were limited, as the Arthur administration minimized its social calendar in deference to the late President Garfield.

Sounds like to me that the Chester A. Arthur article is correct. Since Mary was not granted the official title then I think it's sufficient to say it is why Mary is not on the coin. Perhaps my wording can be made more correct but the point is there. Cburnett 05:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Mary McElroy counts as a First Lady has nothing to do with why Alice Paul is on the coin. Other non-spousal First Ladies are not on the coins, even when there's no question as to whether they were First Ladies. I suspect that's part of the reason Presidential Spouse was chosen instead of First Lady for the name of the series. Nik42 05:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both the text I wrote and the text you reverted to contained ancillary and irrelevant information. Because of that, it is not worth further discussion. (There is no reason to even mention first lady as it is irrelevant. Only the lack of a spouse is relevant.) I opted to rewrite the footnote and tried to be more precise and less irrelevant. Please review. Cburnett 06:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there is an explanation for why Alice Paul is honored in the Act, we should try to find what the rationale was for not having an "Arthur's Liberty" coin. It's kind of like Arthur is getting cheated. We know what the Act says, and the article reports it accurately, but it is an apparent inconsistency that demands an explanation if any is available. Holy 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means search around. Write a senator or rep who sponsored the act and ask them why. Cburnett 14:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't mean that I am demanding an explanation from Congress; I mean that from an encyclopedic perspective, the context of the information given demands an explanation. The apparent inconsistency, left hanging, makes the article incomplete. If one of us were to write to a member of Congress to demand an explanation, and then received an explanation, it could not be included in the article as it would be original research. Holy 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. OR would be injecting your own opinion after being a history sleuth and finding the relation between them yourself. I do not agree that having a congressman (perhaps an author or sponsor of the act) explain the link would be original research. The two examples I have provided are very different. The latter is posing a question directly to a primary source. Cburnett 23:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double-check WP:NOR and WP:V. Asking your Congressman for an opionion, interpretation, or other uncited information about the article is original research and cannot be stated in the article without using a primary or secondary source and not someone's direct interview or email. While I was writing articles for Florida State Roads, I gave this analogy: If you see that a particular road connects with the turnpike, seeing the road itself and the signs along it would be original research, but if you see it in a published map, then you can cite the map and it would be OK under WP:V and WP:CITE. Now, if the sighting of the road and the signs contradict the map, then neither should be used until a source that supports the sighting is found. B.Wind 23:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you too. Asking for the rationale of a congressman who chose Alice Paul is not original research. It's like asking a witness of an accident what happened. It would be OR for them to guess why the person did something, but certainly not to ask what they saw. Likewise, it is not original research to ask what made them choose Alice Paul, it's another to use them as a source for explaining "the why" in the reasons they chose Alice Paul (i.e., explaining history). I'd take a published source of some kind, but an interview would satisfy me.

I also disagree with your analogy. In particular, res ipsa loquitur. You shouldn't and don't need a source to state that ViewSonic makes monitors. A monitor proves itself that they do. You shouldn't and don't need a source to state that I-35 is a north-south interstate nor that it doesn't go through Italy. It speaks for itself. Cburnett 00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A better source for Wikipedia policy on this is WP:OR. It says repeatedly that the source must be published. A letter from a Congressman is not published material. Jwolfe 08:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the meaning of original research nor what it's trying to avoid.

"Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it."

The word "and" dramatically changes the meaning of what OR is defined as. Besides, you are missing the entire point here. The question is motivation of the sponsor. The answer is coming directly from the sponsor's mouth. It is not an aide suppositioning the sponsor's motivation. It is not an aide asserting he knows the sponsor's motivation. It is the sponsor stating his own motivation. That is a primary source of the utmost reliability, for who better to ask to get the sponsor's motivation than the sponsor himself? Cburnett 16:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is, in my mind, that there are no public witnesses to the inverview. I know that today, the line between journalist and the rest of the citizens of the country is increasingly blurry. That said, Wikipedia is not the place for citizen journalism. Wikinews is the place for that. I'd say if you want to conduct an interview, write a Wikinews article, and perhaps then add it in the reference section. Psu256 15:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think it is necessary to include "journalism" into this issue. It will only serve to blur the issue and draw focus away onto that. Making it a "news" story is wholly unnecessary. As policy stands, an email response from a representative is not original research nor is the meaning of OR inclusive to such an email. The response is "from the horse's mouth" and you don't get any more of a primary source than that and I'm not pawning it off as my opinion. Ergo, it is not OR. Cburnett 15:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is, is there an artifact of the input from the primary source that is available elsewhere than on Wikipedia? I'd be much more comfortable having access to that artifact. Otherwise, I need to trust you, that you actually had contact with the primary source. I don't mean that as a personal criticism, but we live in a world where Jayson Blair can get away with what he did for so long, and he worked for a reputable news source with professional fact checkers. Wikipedia obviously has no such safeguards. Unless there is evidence of the interaction with a primary source, how can I be expected to have 100% confidence that your source material exists? Psu256 15:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Spouse

Will they be put into circulation as the Presidential coins are, or they only going to be collectors' proofs? Since the article doesn't make this clear, it should be addressed. YankeeDoodle14 23:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find an answer on the Mint web site, but since they are 24-karat gold, I would imagine that they will be handled like other bullion coins. If that's the case, then neither of your suggested options would apply. They would be sold to wholesalers based on their precious metal content. [5] Jwolfe 07:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just got one

I just got a few of these in change. It's hard to resist the temptation to add a "see also" to Chuck E Cheese! --Reuben 00:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working?

Is there any indication yet that circulation of $1 coins has gone up since this program has started, as the treasury intended? YankeeDoodle14 22:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In my neck of the woods, no. My local Books-A-Million keeps them in the drawer. I asked an employee and he told me their register was full of the Prexibux (a nickname for the series) that no one used. He couldn't understand it. In any case, this is just one experence; i'm pretty sure the Mint would spin it differently. - Thanks, Hoshie 10:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I travel to NYC I do see them being used quite often. The ticket machines get them to the people and the people use them. If more cashiers handed them out, people would use them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.40.36 (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images don't have proper taglines

The US Mint Policy allows image downloads from the Pressroom, so long as the tagline 2007 Presidential $1 Coin image from the United States Mint is included on all image pages. So why do File:George Washigton Presidential $1 Coin obverse.png, File:John Adams Presidential $1 Coin obverse.png, File:Thomas Jefferson Presidential $1 Coin obverse.png, and File:James Madison Presidential $1 Coin obverse.png don't have this tagline, seeing the source is, the United States Mint Pressroom? --293.xx.xxx.xx 12:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bush to mother: Don't sell on eBay

This article relates that "Several mothers who have lost children at war in Iraq... One of them, Elaine Johnson, recounted a meeting that she had with President Bush in which he gave her a presidential coin and told her and five other families: 'Don’t go sell it on eBay.'" What presidential coin would this have been? Ewlyahoocom 05:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible one of these? https://catalog.usmint.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&productId=10752&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=10132 Psu256 13:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acquiring first spouse coins

With a legal value of $10 but made of 1/2 ounce of gold (~$650/ounce) I imagine these are not intended for daily use and probably not purchasable at banks. Can anyone confirm a purchase price (it would seem to be a blunder to sell them for $10) or confirm these are collector's items? Cburnett 16:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Mint's website and it seems that the first spouse coins will sell like any other bullion. That is sold at or near the current rate of gold. The face value is meanleless when it comes to bullion. See the Mint's site here. - Thanks, Hoshie 10:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much but needed something solid to confirm it. A list price in the $400s indeed confirms it. Thanks. Cburnett 00:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It took me 35 minutes to get through on the mint's website when they went on sale today. Ugh. Worse than Ticketmaster before the Internet. Psu256 19:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing anything about coin collecting, I need to ask - how can the First Spouse coins be called "$10 coins", when their purchase price is far greater? Also, my understanding is that these coins are not legal tender, they can't be used as money to make purchases. So isn't calling them "$10 coins" a bit of nonsense? Elsquared (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production figures for the Sacagawea dollar are far below one fourth

According to the article, the act requires that at least one fourth of the dollar coins produced each year be Sacagawea dollars. However, the production figures from the US Mint [6] show that the Sacagawea dollars have been only 0.8% of the total dollar coins in 2007 (until November), far below one fourth. Did Congress later remove this requirement from the law? Or did the US Mint simply disregard it? Dave (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my knowledge. See reference 3 in the article: here for your convenience.

“

The Presidential $1 Coin Act requires the Treasury Secretary annually to mint and issue Sacagawea dollar coins in quantities equal to no less than one-third of the total Presidential $1 coins issued.5 As I noted earlier, it is far from certain that the Presidential $1 Coin Program will stimulate increased demand for Sacagawea dollar coins in particular or dollar coins more generally as a broad-based medium of exchange. Given that we have an ample supply of dollar coins to meet current market demand and that the Presidential $1 Coin Program may increase supplies further, the Reserve Banks may not need to order more Sacagawea dollars from the Mint for a number of years. If the Presidential $1 Coin Program does not stimulate substantial transactional demand for dollar coins, the requirement that the Mint nonetheless produce Sacagawea dollars would result in costs to the taxpayer without any offsetting benefits. In those circumstances, we would strongly recommend that Congress reassess the one-third requirement.

”

(Bold is mine) Cburnett (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for citing the reference. I understand the Reserve's point of view, the Mint should not produce more coins if there is no demand for it. But as I see it, this would determine the total amount of dollar coins that the Mint will produce, not the proportion of coins for each design. As I noted above, the Sacagawea dollars were just 0.8% of the total. Could there be so much more demand specifically for presidential dollars, rather than dollar coins in general? Maybe, but as the director herself suggested, Congress is the one with the authority to change the one-third requirement. According to [7] this requirement is still in the law, so it seems that the Mint really disregarded it. Do you think this issue should be included in the article? Dave (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can cite it then go right ahead! :) Cburnett (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could there be so much more demand specifically for presidential dollars, rather than dollar coins in general? Definitely. Most of the dollar coins are being acquired by coin collectors rather than used in circulation. These collectors are generally not interested in teh Sacagawea dollars. It does seem that the Mint is violating the law, though, by disregarding that requirement Nik42 (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to get new Sacagawea Dollars from my local bank, I was later told that the Mint charges them a premium for the coins, as the Mint views them as coins that won't go into general circulation. David Unit (talk) 12:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only place I could find these coins was as change from a vending machine in an airport. But I find it hard to believe that the Mint does not intend these coins to go into general circulation. From section 4 of [8]: "In order to remove barriers to circulation, the Secretary of the Treasury shall carry out an aggressive, cost-effective, continuing campaign to encourage commercial enterprises to accept and dispense $1 coins that have as designs on the obverse the so-called 'Sacagawea design.' " Dave (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found where the law was in fact changed to eliminate the 1/3 requirement, and I have updated the article appropriately. Jwolfe (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the new law. However, section 2(1) of it [9] states that the law is effective starting in 2009, and section 2(5) requires that Sacagawea dollars "shall be not less than 20 percent of the total number of $1 coins minted and issued in such year." The US Mint's page on the new program [10] confirms this. So, it seems that the requirement was lowered from one fourth to one fifth, not totally removed, and that this change did not apply in 2007. Your update is correct, but it still does not explain the very low Sacagawea dollar production in 2007. Dave (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer. But the way I read the reference, the law has been changed, effective immediately. What is not effective immediately is the requirement that the mint produce the new Native American dollars with the Sacagawea obverse. That is effective in 2009, along with a requirement that the new Sacagawea coins make up 20% of the dollar coins produced in the years they are produced. It's not entirely clear, I suppose, but since the new design and the 20% requirement are both under subsection (r), I'm sure it's the intent (and the Mint's interpretation) that the requirement only applies to the new Sacagawea and not the old Sacagawea. Without a legal requirement, it's up to the Mint's (and the Secretary of Treasurer's) discretion. Clearly, they felt there were enough dollar coins in circulation of the other designs to meet demand. Thus, low production of the old Sacagawea designs in 2007. Jwolfe (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I should have read the law more carefully (I am not a lawyer either, by the way). As you noted, what starts in 2009 is the new Sacagawea design with the 20% requirement, contained in section 2, and the rest is effective immediately. I found that section 3 is the one that really removed the 1/3 requirement from the law, specifically "(2) by striking subparagraph (B)." This subparagraph (no longer valid) required the continuity of the old Sacagawea dollars (look for (n)(1)(B) here). The production was low in 2007 because the requirement did not apply during the entire year. The US Mint did not disregard the law. Dave (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Designs

The 2008 designs are up on the U.S. Mint web site, if anyone has time and inclination to add them to the page. Jwolfe (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Program termination

The theoretical timeline does not take into account that Grover Cleveland will be honored twice, having served two non-consecutive terms (according to the plain language of the House bill). Also, although the current custom is to not issue coins featuring living persons, the law would require the Mint to issue coins featuring living former presidents at the time their place in the sequence was reached, notwithstanding the custom. These two things should be updated when the entry is moved. Jwolfe 12:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it would actually stop with George W Bush, or if it would be extended to include whichever Presidents follow him ... Nik42 04:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the law is written, all the Presidents who are now dead will have their quarters issued in the order in which they served (with Grover Cleveland twice, both before and after Benjamin Harrison). This takes care of every one through Ford, plus Reagan. If Carter doesn't die before 2014, "his" dollar will be issued after Ford's in 2016; if not, Reagan's gets issued. If Carter and all Presidents after Reagan are still alive when the Reagan dollar is issued, the program stops with Reagan in 2016. If any other President dies in 2014, the series continues with that President as the last dollar design of 2016, followed by any President who dies in 2015. So if Carter dies in 2015, the Carter dollar would be issued after Reagan's and any other President who dies before 2015... including anybody who serves after George W. Bush. B.Wind 22:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The law is also vague as to what would happen if, for example, Carter is "skipped" (but becomes "eligible" for his dollar as the Reagan coins are circulated) and a post-Reagan President is immediately "eligible." It is unclear, for example, if a Bush (take your pick) dollar would be issued before a Carter dollar under those circumstances. Another law will most likely have to be passed to resolve this situation should it arise. B.Wind 22:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not vague at all. 31 USC 5112 (n)(3)(A) clearly says they are issued in order of service. Once Carter is skipped...that's it. Issuing Carter after Reagan means issuing them out of order of service. By virtue of not being eligible at issuance time he is permanently ineligible under this act. Cburnett (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding (and it seems to be the Mint's interpretation, according to their website) that the presidents have to be honored in order, or not at all; thus if Carter is still alive in 2014 and not eligible to be honored in the series, Reagan will not be honored despite the fact he otherwise qualifies. Further legislation may clarify this in the future by that seems to be the prevailing interpretation of the legislation currently. Changing the article to reflect this. See http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/%241coin/index.cfm?action=schedule for one of many sources from the Mint that reflects this (Reagan is not lsted on any of the coin schedules.) 75.70.123.215 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reading the law I cannot come to this conclusion. It plainly says

The issuance of coins under this subsection shall terminate when each President has been so honored and may not be resumed except by an Act of Congress.

With the caveat that a president must be dead for 2 years to be honored. It says it is terminated when EACH president is honored. It does not say it is terminated when the first non-eligible president is reached.

The US mint page you linked is missing Reagan. Proof by omission isn't a good proof. How about something that explicitly says "Reagan will not be honored"? Cburnett (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be the first time that a government agency interpreted a law contrary to what appeared to be the plain language of the law. I would think under WP:NPOV that we should just lay out both: "The law appears to say that Carter would be skipped and Reagan honored, but the Mint has consistently left Reagan off their lists. It is unclear how that will be resolved, if it becomes an issue at the end of the program." Or some such. Jwolfe (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the reason the mint hasn't published a release date for the Reagan dollar is simply because they don't know when it will be yet, and won't know until the year 2014 or until Carter passes away (although it would seem that the Reagan coin would appear in 2016 regardless). Nibios (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In God We Trust location

Someone just added that in 12/2007 the "In God We Trust" was moved from the edge to the obverse or reverse. I added {{fact}} as I find it dubious but can't assert either way. Cburnett (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was signed into law on December 26th, 2007 as part of the appropriations bill. I have a print article that appeared in Coin World that confirms it but it doesn't seem available online. I linked to About.com's coverage, but if I encounter another online reference, I will substitute it. Psu256 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't get more authoritative than this - section 623 of P.L.110-161 Psu256 (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't link a THOMAS search result as it expires. I haven't found a static URL yet but it's HR 2764. I quoted it in the reference anyway. Cburnett (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know that. Thanks for the info. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app08.html has the link to P.L.110-161 - that's how I found it. Psu256 (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found {{USBill}} and {{USPL}}. Cburnett (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Same bill that added another year to the 50 State Quarters. Cburnett (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mints & Mint Marks

Which mint(s) are producing the Presidential $1 Coins? Philadelphia and/or Denver? Other? Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D for sure. Cburnett (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The US Mint's store is selling P & D rolls. Cburnett (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, *curses* JPG-GR (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the mint's production figures show Denver and Philadelphia. Jwolfe (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proofs are out of San Fransisco. Psu256 (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia (P) and Denver (D) mint the business strikes, San Francisco (S) mints the proofs. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a ruling on Reagan here?

I keep seeing this article flip-flopping on whether Reagan is slated to get a coin or not. The two schools of thought on this seem to be:

1. If the series gets to Carter, and he is not eligible to be honored (is still alive or has been dead for less than 2 years), the series will end with Ford.
2. If the series fets to Carter, and he is not eligible to be honored, the series will skip to Reagan, and the series will end with Reagan.

I've seen arguments on both sides, who both cite the same law as justification for one argument over the other, so the problem seems to be that people are interpreting the law differently. However according the the US Mint's website, it seems to be that the Mint accepts argument #1 (on their schedule, they have no coin listed for Reagan). Shouldn't the US Mint, which is after all the organization that actually makes these (and thus should be considered the authority on what will be made!), be the tiebreaker? Can we get a consensus on this? Is there a reliable, authoritative source that disagrees with the Mint? If both positions can be sourced reliably, shouldn't the article mention that there is a disagreement about the interpretation? This should be adressed somehow. (Of course if Carter dies between now and 2014, it becomes a moot point, but in the meantime this should be adressed conclusively.) 75.70.123.215 (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer is probably "No." We can't get a definitive answer, because the Mint hasn't really given one. Yes, they've left Reagan off their lists, but maybe that's just so they don't have obsolete lists if Carter becomes eligible. It seems likely that somebody will die before 2014. Carter would have to live past age 90 to be ineligible; only four of his predecessors have made it to 90. The elder Bush is slightly older than Carter. And presidents (and former presidents) have Secret Service protection for a reason. Absent a definitive statement from the Mint, we just don't know. Jwolfe (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think even the Mint knows the answer, they answer to politicians and politicians have a bad habit of swaying in the wind of public opinion. It would be in the Mint's best interest to have a Ronald W. Reagan Dollar Coin, as he became the "JFK" to my generation.David Unit (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A US Mint web page is not authoritative. The USC is authoritative. (Actually, the exact legislation passed is authoritative not the USC but I'm nitpicking.) The USC says "The issuance of coins under this subsection shall terminate when each President has been so honored...". Each president. There are no clauses stating anything resembling termination of the program at the first president who is ineligible. It specifically says each president.

The mint can choose to disregard the law (they certainly have on production numbers of pres. coins vs. sacagawea coins) but we won't know that until 2016 when they actually take a choice and ride the path they chose. Until then, the only reliable authoritative source is the USC and it clearly says each qualified president gets a coin.

That entire argument aside: a negative can't prove a positive. IOW, the absence of Reagen from a list is not the same as explicitly saying Reagen won't get one. Cburnett (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that we're speculating on the future, which gets into the realm of WP:OR. We know what the USC says. We know what the lists published by the Mint have said. Beyond that, we don't know. Jwolfe (talk) 09:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two questions: "what is supposed to happen?" and "what will happen?". The latter is obviously speculation and it would be foolish to try to answer it. The former, however, is not speculation. The USC says each president gets a coin (provided they're dead 2+ years prior). Bam! That's your answer for the former. Anyone coming here hoping to have an answer to the latter is similarly a foolish person. Cburnett (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our job to decide what is supposed to happen. That requires making a judgment or forming an opinion. See WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. All we can do is document what has happened. Congress passed a law, the Mint published a list of presidents to be honored. That the latter does not conform to what the former appears to say is irrelevant. Just put it out there and let the facts speak for themselves. Jwolfe (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The USC has specifically and explicitly said that each eligible president gets a coin. Period. No judgment nor opinion is required. Neither you nor me is deciding what is supposed to happen because congress and the president have dictated that by voting/signing the act into law. And what is supposed to happen is that each president gets a coin if they are eligible.

Since this is getting us absolutely nowhere, please lay out what you propose. Cburnett (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem still remains, and discussion hasn't solved this, is that you can look at the law as written and come up with two different interpretations, equally supported by the law, if a certain interpretation is argued. No argument about what the law says... but a disagreement with what the law means still exists. The law says that each president who's been dead at least 2 years gets a coin, but the law also says that they must be honored in order. So you get to Carter, he's still alive, no coin... Reagan's been dead long enough, but to honor him before Carter... would that violate the "they must be honored in order" part? Or does the "each president who's been dead at least two years" allow you to skip any presidents that don't qualify to move onto the ones that do? So far no authrotiative and reliable source has the answer... Every source I've seen cited is either the law itself (open to interpretation) or a second hand interpretation by someone other than someone with the authority to make the final determination (not authoritative).

So my thinking is this, since we can't get a clear consensus as to whether the series ends at Ford or Reagan, shall we just remove speculation of the series' end entirely? It's open to interpretation of the law and no reliable source seems to have a final answer. What is known, is that the series will continue up to and including Ford, at least, and maybe further (based on interpretation of the law and lifespans of current and future former presidents). Remove any position on whether Carter gets skipped or not for now, until an authoritative and reliable source can be found that shows the argument is settled by people in authority to make such a declaration. So how about we just stick to that until an authoritative and relaible source can be found that says otherwise? That would be what I'd propose. Any agree/disagree? Please share your thoughts... if enough agree with this proposal I'd say that's the way we should go.

A reasonable alternative, if relaible sources seem to disagree, is to mention that both interpretations exist, cite the relaible sources that support the two interpretations, and mention that a final determination hasn't been made yet. That might be sloppy though and would seem to be to specilative... but if enough people want to go that route, I'd support that too. Or if someone has a proposal other than these two, state it here.

Of course, if Carter dies between now and about August 2014, this would all be a moot point I guess, but until then we need to decide what to do with this article. (Please note I am in no way advocating killing Carter no expressing any desire for him to die before he is otherwise fated to.)

75.70.123.215 (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you will get an authoritative interpretation until the situation actually arises. In my experience, the Mint tends to take any interpretation that is convienent to it at the time - I cite as a recent example their failure to strike the required number of Sacagawea Dollars because they said a later bill obviated the previous one, despite no actual text doing so. My guess is that they are hoping the Carter situation figures itself out before it becomes an issue. Psu256 (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case, should we just remove any specualtion as to when the series will end, whehter or not Reagan will get one, etc. and stick to the known, verfiable facts (which is the series will continue up to and including at least Ford, possibly longer)? Don't really see any other solution as declaring otherwise, regardless of what legislation is cited, is purely speculation until the event actually happens. If that's the consensus here then I will edit the article to reflect that, or if people think otherwise will go with that too... what do you think all? That sound reasonable? 75.70.123.215 (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And frankly, I think your interpretation is wrong. It doesn't say "they must be honored in order" at all. It says "shall terminate when each President has been so honored" subject to being dead for 2 years. EACH president which means skipping Reagan would violate clause (n)(8). Clause (3)(A) says they must be issued in order of their service, not "must be honored in order". Cburnett (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is best that we don't speculate - it is clear that it will run until at least Ford. We should probably state it that way and leave it at that. It isn't like the article can never be updated if the known facts change.Psu256 (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW, I think it is probably time to archive some of the older discussions - this page is getting quite long.) Psu256 (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say that I understand the distinction between "they must be honored in order" and "they must be issued in order of their service" but I agree that the best solution seems to be to just not speculate on the ending of the series and who will and will not be honored until it happens, and thus knowable and verifiable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#CRYSTAL What can be known without speculating is that it can be safely assumed the series will continue to at least Ford. Whether or not it continues past that, and whether they'll skip Carter and give Reagan a coin then end, or just end at Ford, can easily be verified when the time comes and the article can be updated then. Fair enough all? 75.70.123.215 (talk) 05:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the confusion, it appears that third party products are confused as well; let me give an example with Whitman Books. I brought my album for the series in Dec 06, weeks before Ford died, meaning that Nixon was the last President listed; there was no hole in the album for Reagan (the album in question is here). After Ford died, Whitman updated and released other products with a hole for President Ford, as well as for Carter and Reagan. In other words, I don't think we will know for sure if Ford or Reagan will be the last President honored. As for my interpretation on this matter, I fully agree with Cburnett on it. Now for a tiny rant. Between this dispute over who is the last Pres. honored on the coins, the changing ratio of Sacagawea dollars to Prexibux, and the useless and stupid First spouse program shows the reason I opposed all of this. It does too much while leaving important details like this one unsettled. - Thanks, Hoshie 04:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm enjoying collecting the useless and stupid First Spouse coins (maybe because I'm one of those weird female coin collectors...) :) But we'll never see $1 coins used regularly until they stop printing bills, anyways, as much as I like the collecting. Psu256 (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I was a bit too rough before. I have to admit that I'm liking some of the designs coming out of the First Spouse program. I've thought about collecting the bronze medals since the quarters are coming to an end. - Thanks, Hoshie 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sent some tweets to the US Mint about this in 2011. See their responses here: [11] and [12]. At that time, they seemed to lean towards the Reagans not getting coins in 2016. I don't consider tweets to fall under reliable sources. I have posted these as an insight into their thinking. It is worth noting that when the CFA and CCAC reviewed the designs for 2015 and 2016, no Reagan designs were offered to the panels. See: [13], [14], and [15] - Thanks, Hoshie 00:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

Hello folks,

Here are the edits I made to this article:

The article had a statement that saying:

This series of coins are the first ever coins of the United States to replace the written value (ie "one", "two") with an Arabic numeral stating the value of the coin.

This is incorrect. Here's a few examples of pre-Prexibux coins that have the value as a number (not counting the words 'cents' or 'dollars'): 2 cents, Bust half dime, Shield nickel, Bust dime, Bust half dollar, gold dollar, gold quarter eagle, gold three dollars, Bust half eagle

The article as had Bush's term ending in 2009. He has four months to go. I have also added a 2008 design date for the obverse. Hope this helps. - Thanks, Hoshie 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lock?

I think this article should be semi-protected due to the high levels of vandalism recently Juthani1 ^tcs 16:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what did he do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.90.7 (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are they made of??

I came to this article to find out what the Presidential dollar coins are made of. Nothing here! 140.147.236.195 (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

Oops! Silly me--I found it 30 seconds after I wrote this. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

Wear and tear

I have heard many people talk about this and I've seen many places on the internet where people have been discussing the the poor construction of these coins. I don't know why it hasn't been mentioned how easily it is for the gold color to wear off or at least the tarnished luster. The combination of metals and the desire to have the correct electrical properties probably has caused this weak construction. After just two years in circulation, I have some coins that have wear and tear and aren't very good looking at all. The edge lettering has almost completely faded, the high parts of the coin aren't golden anymore, and the scratches are noticeable. At least quarters and nickels look halfway decent after 20 years. Even pennies look better after the same amount of time. Euro coins, for example, don't seem to have as much trouble as this one. I think if you could find some decent sources, you should add this part in. It is at least criticism to the "lasting 30 years" desire by the mint. --75.183.75.227 (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the Mint figured that with the popularity of dollar coins being what it has been in the past, they didn't really want to put any quality into making them, for it was only for the seigniorage angle that the minting of them made it popular with the government...and God only knows that the less money you can stick into something, the more "profit" you make on it.

In other words, they weren't made for spending...just for looking at...David Unit (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do hold their shine better than the Sacagawea, but still not as well as the Canadian Dollar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.40.36 (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that. It's essentially the same coin. One expendable one I rubbed with my fingers and the golden color started to come off and leave little dark specs which didnt come off. They should make it like the euro golden coins out of Nordic gold. It seems to hold up much better and they should change to it even if they have to change all the coin machines to recognize its electric signature. --Triadian (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't hold my breath. These coins and the Sacagawea dollars have been designed to have the same signature as the Susan B. Anthony dollar. In other words, they were specifically designed so that 30+ years of vending machines would not have to be changed to accept the coins. As infrequently as they're used, nobody wants to spend the money to change either the coins or the machines. --Woden325 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grover Cleveland

So is Cleveland getting two separate coins, or just one... or one design, released twice? -155.42.196.63 (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he is getting two separate coins, just one. It wouldn't make much sense to release two commemorative coins for a president. That would be tantamount to releasing two state quarters for Confederate states because they were once a part of the Union, then they left, and then came back. --68.47.98.185 (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland will receive two separate coins, and both will have a different image of Cleveland to distinguish his two presidencies. Gage (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better Explanation for Some President's Spouses Being Called *'s Liberty

Is there an explanation for presidents such as Thomas Jefferson's spouses being called Thomas Jeffersons's Liberty? I found that confusing, even though this is probably accurate with the act, there probably needs to be an explanation. Thomas Jefferson did have a wife, but he also had relations with Sally Hemmings so maybe they just didn't want to leave anybody out? --Matthew Bauer (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson was a widower during his presidency, so there was no First Lady.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stockpile

The current situation cited. Nobody will say what the stockpile costs.Red Hurley (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be encyclopedic to include a discussion of the Direct Ship program, where these (and other dollar coins) were sold at cost and free shipping by the mint to consumers with rewards credit cards, only to have said coins immediately redeposited at a bank? This resulted in millions of pseudo-"sales", inflating perceived demand without in any way increasing circulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.41.164 (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think so, if you have a reliable source for it. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some news articles about how some people took advantage of being able to use credit cards to buy cash, earning vast amounts of credit card reward points in the process). It seems the US Mint finally closed the loophole when they figured out what was going on:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/us-mint-ends-the-dollar-coin-scam-for-airline-miles-2011-7

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/02/28/credit-card-reward-points-airline-miles-free/

Muzilon (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years later, has the $1.4 billion stockpile been substantially reduced through continued demand on a low level? I haven't found any information by a web search...Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan

The U.S. Mint Presidential 1$ coin site says the program terminates at Gerald Ford. I'm guessing that unless Jimmy Carter dies before 2014, Ronald Reagan won't get a coin because his predecessor is still alive. I am going to edit the page to reflect this. 71.114.103.161 (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, sorry. I didn't see the argument. 71.114.103.161 (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image doesn't display properly

For some reason the image of the obverse side of the Cleveland coin does not appear. I have tried to figure out why and given up. Can anyone who knows more about this stuff fix this please because the article looks shit. Thanks. Richard75 (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it's Harrison's turn now anyway. Richard75 (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too many images!

Do we really need images of EVERY coin, with images of Presidents not yet honored, and FOUR images of each First Spouse coin (front and back, for both coin and medal)? It makes the article unnecessarily long. Perhaps putting only the images on their own page? Maybe the First Spouses on their own page? Elsquared (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support removing the Spouse medal images (and the non-coin images of Presidents, as has already been done) - I don't think they're notable enough, they look almost the same as the corresponding coins, and have not been updated for 2 years. I wouldn't mind moving the Spouses to another article, though I don't think it's necessary. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I've removed the bronzes as I've lost interest in updating them plus the Mint no longer sells each one as a medal; I got the images from the catalog. - Thanks, Hoshie 18:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small update. I have switched the Presidents to transparent pngs and added this years issues. I have also added "Presidential" to the alt tags for Eisenhower and Kennedy so those with Lynx won't be confused. - Thanks, Hoshie 10:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mint has announced the Nixon and Ford designs; these have been added to the article. The Reagan design won't be announced until next February: [16]. This is the reason there is no Reagan image on the page. - Thanks, Hoshie 23:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan is not going to be honored currently

I spoke with someone from the mint and they clarified to me that the law makes it clear that the presidents must be honored by the term of service. Therefore Reagan is not currently going to be able to be honored in the current law as Carter is still living, and is slated to end after honoring Nixon and Ford in 2016. However, the mint always says "currently", thus when Carter and George H.W.Bush do pass away, ( Not trying to throw them in their grave over a coin), but I am sure that congress will enact the reissue when the eligibility is there, and Carter, Reagan, and Bush Sr. will be honored. Carter and Bush Sr. are both 90 years old so I mean we can't expect it to be that far in the future. I am sure republicans will make it a point that Reagan gets honored. I personally understand the law that the person needs to be deceased for two years, but at the same time I feel like the government and mint should just go ahead and honor Carter and Bush Sr. because of their current age, not to mention the coins are not being produced in large numbers as of 2012 but mostly for collectors. That however will not happen because the U.S government is highly opposed to a "kingship" sort of state where living people are honored. In my view however, just the fact that republicans love Reagan, and the fact that he has been deceased longer than Ford gives me a pretty positive stance that the program will be reinstated once Carter passes away and are eligible. However, you should change the program details, as Reagan is not currently scheduled to appear in 2016. If you go to the U.S. mint website and go to the Presidential Dollar page, on the schedule it ends with Ford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.199.28 (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[17]Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what you think or who you have talked with, the article cannot contain original research and must cite reliable, verifiable sources. This page is not a forum for general discussion of the topic. The article clearly cites a reliable source in which the US Mint states their intention to create the Reagan dollar coin. AHeneen (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Presidential $1 Coin Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will Nancy Reagan become the first living person on American currency.

The article—and linked sources—make perfectly clear that (the very much living) Nancy Reagan will appear on the final, presidential-spouse coin, later this year.

I wonder though, has any other person ever appeared on American currency while still alive? Either way, ought we not to mention this fact in the article? Pine (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She died 3 months before the release of her coin, unfortunately. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other people have actually, though only on commemorative coins: Calvin Coolidge on the 150th anniversary of independence commemorative in 1926, and Eunice Shreiver on the Special Olympics commemorative in 1995. 2601:283:4302:D1F0:9CA0:7F50:98EF:9A5B (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Presidential $1 Coin Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Mint Press Releases sunsetted

The U.S. Mint press releases presently push off their page (and into oblivion) after a certain amount of time. Accordingly, any citations to press releases (with the exception of Ronald Reagan, still recent enough to be on the webpage) in the tables are directing to 404 errors. The last two citations I entered for the First Spouse coin release dates were to industry news articles, but, hopefully, an archive site has preserved the original Mint press releases somewhere. HavelockWilltravel (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Presidential $1 Coin Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:America the Beautiful Quarters which may affect this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please update spouse list

Spouse list only goes through 41st First Lady. Please update. THANK YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.115.138 (talk) 06:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]