coins&politics

The Guest Commentary by Mark A. Vezzola (May 9 Coin World) criticizing the commemorative coin program reraises some longstanding numismatic issues. The question of whether it is appropriate to honor a specific individual like Benjamin Franklin on American commemorative coinage begs the greater question of the role of politics in numismatics.

Mr. Vezzola should be commended for recognizing that when proposed coin designs include specific individuals, or even specific historical developments, there is a clash with some very American traditions and values.

One original principle was that honoring individuals on coins in an era when only monarchs appeared on them contradicted the kingless nature of the "Constitutional Republic" known as the United States of America.

However Mr. Vezzola did not acknowledge an essential basic; it is simply impossible to keep politics out of numismatics. Numismatists live in the real world too.

Politics is how Abraham Lincoln got on the penny in 1909, George Washington on the quarter in 1932, Thomas Jefferson on the nickel in 1938, FDR on the dime in 1946, and yes even Benjamin Franklin and John F. Kennedy on the half dollar in 1948 and 1964 respectively.

All of these men were in one way or another politicians, and all received their numismatic recognition primarily because of their political accomplishments.

Clearly, then, we have long since conceded that despite the misgivings of earlier generations of Americans to elevating any individual American to monarch-like status, it's ok to put some on the coins and currency.

On a related point, Mr. Vezzola objects to the proposed Benjamin Franklin commemorative dollar because Franklin has already appeared on a circulating American coin type, and still appears on a bill.

How do we put a limit on the number of times a particular individual is rendered on American money? Washington has appeared on at least four different bills and five coins. Has that been too many?

And then there is Miss Liberty. She is a personification of a political principle. Yet the last time she was considered for an appearance on American money, in 1979, she was passed over. One wonders if Miss Liberty has become obsolete (I heard that gasp).

Before you write in to Coin World protesting that statement, consider how long it has been since she appeared on regular-issue money. Fifty-eight years. Almost three generations. And a quick review of commemorative designs suggests it has been almost one generation since she appeared, in statue form, on a commemorative.

If politics and numismatics are inevitably entwined, perhaps we could try to reduce the potential contentiousness of that mix by attempting to minimize the connection.

To do that, we'd need some new old rules. No designs including individual people. No designs that reference events or developments which might be politically controversial. And since personifications no longer seem to be in vogue, maybe (gulp) not even any designs including Miss Liberty.

So what is left? Should the money just be graphics-free? We tried that once, with what were known as the Perkins-plate notes in the pre-Civil War obsolete currency era. It was very boring.

Well we have plenty of other relatively non-political symbols in America. There are the natural wonders of the land. These have in fact become much more popular lately.

Just compare the 1999 state quarters, which all had historical themes, with the 2005 issues. Check your new proof or mint set. Four of the five 2005 quarters show some natural wonder, also known as a tourist attraction.

All except Kansas. Kansas has the big rat - er a Buffalo. You've got to give the Kansans credit for avoiding the easy way out and not just drawing a straight line across the coin representing a dead-flat horizon. (My apologies to the Great People of Kansas).

Perhaps a bit short on artistically-renderable natural wonders, Kansans resorted to depicting fauna, as in flora and. So here is another alternative to politically-charged designs.

Considering the regional nature of some species, politics would no doubt still rear its ugly head in debate over which to use. To minimize this, why not have each denomination show something from a different region?

There could be a lobsta on the penny. New Englanders would beam with pride every time they paid sales tax on a bowl of chowda.

The efforts to repopulate the North Country with grizzlies could empower us to pass the Bear Buck.

The armadillo is ubiquitous in the southwest, so much so that people down there are killing the little critters with their cars on a daily basis. Well then let's honor their martyrdom with the Armadillo Nickel, which could become more commonly known as the Roadkill Nickel. Wouldn't that be fun?

The above fanciful examples suggest that without politics, numismatics might be momentarily more amusing but in the long run less interesting and relatively uninspiring. I mean, after a while, wouldn't carrying around change with pictures of expensive dinner entrees and big ferocious furry animals get kind of tedious? OK so maybe not if you're eight.

In any case, with political institutions responsible for most coin designs, it's highly unlikely that the impact of politics on numismatics will be reduced much anytime soon.

And that's probably just as well. For after all, each time someone like Ben Franklin appears on a coin or a bill, it reminds Americans of their country's roots and its cultural heritage. It reminds us that we have a history, and that much of it is worth remembering, even if it takes illustrations on our money to get us thinking about it.

PS: Mr. Vezzola was excited by the Leif Erikson coin program, even though the Leifster's "discovery" of the New World turned out to be pretty much of a developmental dead end. Yet the Thomas Edison coin left him in the dark. Which of course is where we'd all be a lot of the time without the light bulb! Mark, could you please pass me another candle so I can finish reading my Coin World?



	Numismatics Without Politics? The following appeared as the Guest Commentary in the June 13, 2005 issue of Coin World . By Robert G. Duncan The Guest Commentary by Mark A. Vezzola (May 9 Coin World) criticizing the commemorative coin program reraises some longstanding numismatic issues. The question of whether it is appropriate to honor a specific individual like Benjamin Franklin on American commemorative coinage begs the greater question of the role of politics in numismatics. Mr. Vezzola should be commended for recognizing that when proposed coin designs include specific individuals, or even specific historical developments, there is a clash with some very American traditions and values. One original principle was that honoring individuals on coins in an era when only monarchs appeared on them contradicted the kingless nature of the "Constitutional Republic" known as the United States of America. However Mr. Vezzola did not acknowledge an essential basic; it is simply impossible to keep politics out of numismatics. Numismatists live in the real world too. Politics is how Abraham Lincoln got on the penny in 1909, George Washington on the quarter in 1932, Thomas Jefferson on the nickel in 1938, FDR on the dime in 1946, and yes even Benjamin Franklin and John F. Kennedy on the half dollar in 1948 and 1964 respectively. All of these men were in one way or another politicians, and all received their numismatic recognition primarily because of their political accomplishments. Clearly, then, we have long since conceded that despite the misgivings of earlier generations of Americans to elevating any individual American to monarch-like status, it's ok to put some on the coins and currency. On a related point, Mr. Vezzola objects to the proposed Benjamin Franklin commemorative dollar because Franklin has already appeared on a circulating American coin type, and still appears on a bill. How do we put a limit on the number of times a particular individual is rendered on American money? Washington has appeared on at least four different bills and five coins. Has that been too many? And then there is Miss Liberty. She is a personification of a political principle. Yet the last time she was considered for an appearance on American money, in 1979, she was passed over. One wonders if Miss Liberty has become obsolete (I heard that gasp). Before you write in to Coin World protesting that statement, consider how long it has been since she appeared on regular-issue money. Fifty-eight years. Almost three generations. And a quick review of commemorative designs suggests it has been almost one generation since she appeared, in statue form, on a commemorative. If politics and numismatics are inevitably entwined, perhaps we could try to reduce the potential contentiousness of that mix by attempting to minimize the connection. To do that, we'd need some new old rules. No designs including individual people. No designs that reference events or developments which might be politically controversial. And since personifications no longer seem to be in vogue, maybe (gulp) not even any designs including Miss Liberty. So what is left? Should the money just be graphics-free? We tried that once, with what were known as the Perkins-plate notes in the pre-Civil War obsolete currency era. It was very boring. Well we have plenty of other relatively non-political symbols in America. There are the natural wonders of the land. These have in fact become much more popular lately. Just compare the 1999 state quarters, which all had historical themes, with the 2005 issues. Check your new proof or mint set. Four of the five 2005 quarters show some natural wonder, also known as a tourist attraction. All except Kansas. Kansas has the big rat - er a Buffalo. You've got to give the Kansans credit for avoiding the easy way out and not just drawing a straight line across the coin representing a dead-flat horizon. (My apologies to the Great People of Kansas). Perhaps a bit short on artistically-renderable natural wonders, Kansans resorted to depicting fauna, as in flora and. So here is another alternative to politically-charged designs. Considering the regional nature of some species, politics would no doubt still rear its ugly head in debate over which to use. To minimize this, why not have each denomination show something from a different region? There could be a lobsta on the penny. New Englanders would beam with pride every time they paid sales tax on a bowl of chowda. The efforts to repopulate the North Country with grizzlies could empower us to pass the Bear Buck. The armadillo is ubiquitous in the southwest, so much so that people down there are killing the little critters with their cars on a daily basis. Well then let's honor their martyrdom with the Armadillo Nickel, which could become more commonly known as the Roadkill Nickel. Wouldn't that be fun? The above fanciful examples suggest that without politics, numismatics might be momentarily more amusing but in the long run less interesting and relatively uninspiring. I mean, after a while, wouldn't carrying around change with pictures of expensive dinner entrees and big ferocious furry animals get kind of tedious? OK so maybe not if you're eight. In any case, with political institutions responsible for most coin designs, it's highly unlikely that the impact of politics on numismatics will be reduced much anytime soon. And that's probably just as well. For after all, each time someone like Ben Franklin appears on a coin or a bill, it reminds Americans of their country's roots and its cultural heritage. It reminds us that we have a history, and that much of it is worth remembering, even if it takes illustrations on our money to get us thinking about it. PS: Mr. Vezzola was excited by the Leif Erikson coin program, even though the Leifster's "discovery" of the New World turned out to be pretty much of a developmental dead end. Yet the Thomas Edison coin left him in the dark. Which of course is where we'd all be a lot of the time without the light bulb! Mark, could you please pass me another candle so I can finish reading my Coin World?