Talk:Presidential $1 Coin Program

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the WikiProject Numismatics, which is an attempt to facilitate the categorization and creation of accurate and formal Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] What color?

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

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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

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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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

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

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] It seems the US mint will never learn...

No one is going to use dollar coins unless they stop printing dollar bills. Strad 16:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The United States Mint does not make those decisions, the United States Congress does. Jwolfe 18:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Congress, then. Whoever's in charge of this doesn't seem to learn from history. Strad 21:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's all driven by the irrational public who wants to keep the dollar bill. Additional millions of tax money is spent because of this. I've been a long proponent of replacing the dollar bill to dollar coin (USD). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC

Stopping the penny would probably help the $1 coin the most - there will be a free slot for it in the change draw. Sad mouse 22:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There already is. Every cash register I've ever seen has five coin slots, but only four of them are used. Nik42 06:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The irrational public? Where in your wallet do you have space for 4+ One dollar coins? Does the soda machine at your workplace accept $1 coins? Do you realize how easy it is to lose a coin? What are we supposed to do, carry around a pouch full of coins on our belt? JudgeX 16:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I keep dollar coins in the same place I keep my pennies, nickles, dimes and quarters (and why would I have "4+"? Five dollar coins would be the same as a $5 bill). Every vending machine takes $1 coins. Next time you get a dollar coin, try it, you'll see! It's so much more convenient to put a $1 coin in instead of a dollar bill, bill acceptors being notoriously finicky, or having to break a bill into quarters. Now, if only they'd update those machines to take $5's, and dispense dollar coins in change, we'd be set. Most countries have no problem with coins of similar value. Canada even has $2 coins, the EU likewise has one and two-euro coins, and Japan has a 500 yen coin, worth a bit over US$4. For that matter, with the exception of the short-lived fractional notes of the Civil War era, the US has always $1 as its smallest bill, despite the fact that $1 today is worth about 5 cents in 1900 money. Think about that! People in 1900 had no trouble with using quarters and half-dollars equal to about $5 and $10 in today's money! You're complaining about getting rid of the 1900-equivalent of a 5-cent bill. Nik42 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No, really, I prefer not to have change on me at all. It is jingly, loud, easy to drop and lose, and harder to sort when trying to pay for something. I take all my change and store it in a jar that sits on my desk until I can get it converted to bills, or end up using it all for parking meters and < $1 cola machines. Coins are alright, but since I have to have a wallet anyway to hold my 6,255 ID cards for various places as well as insurance info and all the other CRAP we have to haul around to be able to function in society, that's where I'd like to go ahead and keep my money. Coins don't go in there. When I get home I can whip my wallet out and throw it down and I am "disarmed", the change from my pocket (if any, since I usually use a debit card), jingles into the jar and I am done. I don't want an extra step in there of "oh now i have to sort my extra, non-disposable coinage"... which would mean i'd actually have to look at each grouping of coins and pick out the valuable ones and such... no way. You may enjoy coins and like looking at them and sorting them, but I think you're the one that's backwards. Coins = the past. Paper = the present. Plastic = the present and some future, and who knows what the future will hold?

Here's another one for you, Nik42, when I get back a 10, a 5, and 3 ones, I can actually sort those into my wallet with ease. 10's go in the back with the big bills, 5's in the middle, and 1's up front. This gives me quick access to the right amount of money. How, pray tell, do you quickly pay at a convenience store a sum of say, 7 dollars and 47 cents? Do you fish out your wallet and dig into a pocket for coins simultaneously? Do you sift through your magical 1 and 5 dollar coins and choose the right ones and then go for correct change as well? As for me, I grab a bill from the middle and 3 from the front, or 2 from the middle if I'm lazy, slap it down, slam the $1's (if any) that I get back into my wallet, dump the mixed change into a pocket and I'm out. I'm not down with the magical coins man. You're free to use them... it's a free country and I'll put my life on the line for ya to be able to use your damn favorite coins, man, but, count me out. JudgeX 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

When did I say anything about $5 coins? Yes, I do use both coins and bills when I pay for things. All I'm saying is that other countries have no problem using coins that actually have some value. Canadians have no problem with $5 being their smallest bill. Same with Brits and £5 or the Japanese with 1000 yen. If the government dropped the dollar bill, you'd get used to dollar coins pretty quickly. My wallet has a pocket for coins. So, to pay, say, $7.47, I open up the coin part, get out a few coins, and then get out some bills. It's quite easy. You've simply gotten so used to coins being pretty much worthless that having coins with a little bit of value takes some getting used to. Nik42 09:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What kind of parking meter accepts $1 bill? Instead of 4 coins, now you only need 1. Using coin saves the manufacturing cost in the long run. It's your tax money! --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My parking meters here only accept quarters and that's all. I highly doubt my city is going to replace the digital parking meters that they just finished installing last year with ones that now magically take $1 coins. JudgeX 22:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In 2000, Bernard Unger of the Government Accounting Office reported to Congress that switching from a dollar bill to a dollar coin would save the federal government $522 million a year. (reference: http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/gg00111r.pdf) Thus we can consider that amount to be the cost to keep the dollar bill around.

It ain't worth it!

If the dollar coin would liberate $522 million of our tax dollars a year, hopefully returned to us or at least spent on more worthy causes like medical research, then I'm all for it!

Some folks holler about wanting the choice of a dollar bill or coin, or about the government forcing us to use one or the other. I ask you... is it worth $522 million a year to keep the dollar bill around? - Deeplogic 19:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the Federal Reserve will get rid of the one dollar bill regardless of how many coins are minted, despite their theory the bills have a lifespan of 22 months. It would be nice to get rid of the single and maybe revise the two dollar bill with Washington (or leave it alone). Even the U.S. Mint is afraid to get rid of the one cent, because there is still a profit with the smallest denomination. Jjmillerhistorian 14:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're interested in this topic, you might be interested in the report I wrote on what should be done to the U.S. currency. Some of those are direct copy from Wikipedia, I admit. But the comparative study and some other stuff are original. I wish I could put it in my user page so that everyone can review and edit. But unfortunately, it is against Wikipedia:User page. Nevertheless, I welcome any suggestion, from grammatical mistake to overall content. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting report ChoChoPK – you have some very similar ideas to me. I’m a Brit, married to an American, so I use both currencies often and am now very familiar with both. However I remember very well being quite disoriented when I first had to use US currency. Having grown up in a country where 8 coins (up to a value of about $4) are in regular, everyday circulation, and where bills of different value are different in colour and size, I found having only 4, very low value coins and a wallet full of bills all the same size and colour to be very confusing. Whereas for small value purchases (e.g. a candy bar or a newspaper) back home I would dip my hand into my pocket and pull out one or maybe two coins and get no more than two or three coins back in change, I found in the States I would have to fish through my wallet for the right bill (European wallets tend to have only one compartment, because we can readily distinguish our bills by size and colour). I would then have to carefully “file” any bills received in change in the right order in my wallet so they would not be mistaken for another, and also dump a handful of coins in my pocket. The low value of the coins meant they never really got spent (would you really want to count out $4.99 in quarters and dimes at a register, let alone pennies and nickels?), so my pocket would fill up with “shrapnel” during the day that just got dumped out into a jar in the evening – it seemed a crazy way of doing things. Using singles and fivers from an over-stuffed wallet to pay for everything always reminded me of my trips to Eastern Europe where, because inflation had rendered the coins obsolete, everything had to be paid for with notes, and I found it quite bizarre that the same situation effectively also existed in the worlds #1 economy!

I’m used to the American coins and bills now, but I still think the British & European systems are a little more user friendly. I often wonder how, for example, visually impaired people get on with the US bills? Take someone shopping with them? Pay for everything by card? Or maybe just hope the store clerk is honest and trustworthy? The lack of coins that are actually worth anything and spendable is infuriating, but what can you do? I’d never really noticed the lack of Arabic numerals on the coins, as I speak English it’s not a problem, but now I do wonder how the foreign language tourists get on?

If it was a question of just tweaking the existing system, I would say as a minimum, the penny needs to go for sure – it is worth NOTHING (its only use is as change for products priced at $x.99). The 50c coin needs to actually circulate to cut the weight of quarters in your pocket (I’ve never had a single one in my change in over 9 years), as does the $1 coin (which won’t happen unless they pull the bill…). Realistically, there needs to be a $2 coin also.

If I was given free reign to redesign the currency completely, I could have a field day. The penny and the nickel would go, leaving the dime as the lowest denomination coin (name 10 different everyday things you buy regularly for 9c or less, and explain why shopkeepers can’t ‘psychologically’ price goods at 90c instead of 99c, and I’ll change my mind). The dime would be a little larger and I’d be tempted to change it to a copper coin (New Zealand did exactly this very recently with their 10c coin). Ideally, I’d rather see a 20c than a 25c coin (it actually reduces the amount of coins needed for change – work it out for yourself and see!), but I don’t think given the long history of the quarter that that could ever happen. There would be a 50c coin in everyday use, which needs to be smaller than the existing 50c coin, but could be a different shape to help differentiate it (maybe heptagonal, dodecagonal or “Spanish flower”). The dollar coin could stay as it is. The $2 coin would be bimetallic (e.g. gold round silver), and there would also be a bimetallic $5 coin (with reversed colours compared to the $2, e.g. silver round gold). As happens anywhere where commonsense prevails, where there was a new coin issued, the old version of the coin (or the corresponding bill) would be withdrawn from circulation. The bills ($10, $20, $50, $100) would be different sizes. The ten a little smaller than now, twenty about the same, fifty a little larger and 100 a little larger still (I’m only talking may ¼” difference between each bill here). The different background colours they use now is good, but that needs to be extended to the actual designs.

Petecollier 13:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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

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

[edit] 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

[edit] Merge with Godless dollar

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

[edit] 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)
• 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)
• Support Yes, please merge. 66.114.93.6 03:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Against

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Image:George Washigton Presidential $1 Coin obverse.png, Image:John Adams Presidential $1 Coin obverse.png, Image:Thomas Jefferson Presidential $1 Coin obverse.png, and Image: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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

[edit] 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)