This shows a segment of the edge-inscription device used to impart the incuse inscription on a strike coin. A complain edge struck coin would be fed into the border die and propelled along the channel by a revolve wheel, with the edge forced into the lift elements of the die. The first base four presidential dollars celebrate George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. The Statue of Liberty plan is the park reverse used throughout the series. batch officials primitively provided sketches of presidential portraits derived from historical Presidential medals to the two union follow-up panels ( different borders were offered ). The Mint said using the older designs is what the presidents would have wanted. The concept was bluffly rejected and new designs were solicited. The member of Congress behind the presidential dollar program had high hopes that the coins would circulate widely. They didn ’ metric ton. But they do offer much to collectors. If success of the 2007 to 2016 presidential dollar platform were to be measured by how well it met the chief finish of the authorizing legislation — to increase the consumption of dollar coins in circulation — then it can justly be said that the goal was not met .
From 2007 to 2016, the United States Mint issued 39 unlike presidential dollars to celebrate 38 unlike men. The inaugural 20 coins were issued for circulation, at least technically if not in actuality, with the remainder of the series produced alone for collector sales because the coins of 2007 to 2011 had gone straight to Federal Reserve vaults to sit, unneeded in department of commerce .
Connect with Coin World:
Sign up for our free eNewsletter
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
For collectors, this result was no surprise. The Eisenhower dollar, the Anthony dollar, and the Sacagawea dollar — they all failed to replace $ 1 Federal Reserve notes in circulation. Americans persistently have avoided using bulky dollar coins — even the smaller ones like the Anthony and Sacagawea coins — since they much prefer foldable $ 1 notes that can be tucked away in wallets and pockets. even as far back as the Morgan argent dollar, the public largely preferred the note to the coin .
so why were presidential dollars issued in the first base place ?
A few years before the end of the State quarter dollars program in 2008, its legislative godhead, Rep. Michael Castle, R-Del., began looking for a exchangeable mint program — one that would pump multiple new mint designs into circulation every year, and both promote coin collect and continue a concept that the State quarter dollars represent : neologism as history lessons .
however, quite than plainly repeating the State quarters series, Castle conceived of depicting every U.S. president of the united states on a circulating dollar mint, struck on the lapp manganese-brass clothed planchets being used for the Sacagawea dollars. He predicted that not merely would the broadcast be embraced by collectors, it would encourage wider circulation of a dollar mint .
He was incorrectly, intelligibly. When was the last prison term any of you reading this article received a presidential dollar back in change from anyone ringing you up at a cash register ?
few in the collector residential district expected the Presidential dollars to circulate any more widely than any early dollar coin for the past hundred years. And yet, Castle ’ randomness legislation did create a series that some collectors have embraced. During the program ’ south run, coins were released into circulation without their edge inscriptions, rumors circulated that the government had voted to remove the motto “ In God We Trust ” as yet another assault on religion, coins were released with a range of different finishes, and even a few extremely limited-mintage versions sold out. And it all began with legislation that failed the first base time it was placed before Congress .
At the beginning
On March 9, 2004, Castle introduced the Presidential $ 1 Coin Act of 2004. The measure called for temporarily abandoning the portrayal of Sacagawea on the obverse of the dollar coin and replacing it with portraits of american presidents, with a Statue of Liberty purpose on the reverse. Castle ’ sulfur placard called for several design innovations — for the presidential portraits and Statue of Liberty to be rendered rim-to-rim, for dropping LIBERTY as one of the inscriptions ( the Statue of Liberty design would stand in for the inscription ), and for moving certain mottoes, emblems, year date and Mint target to the boundary of each coin. Castle ’ s goal was to have clean and clutter-free designs by moving the bulge of the text to the edge .
Coin World editor program Beth Deisher praised the proposal in an editorial in the March 22, 2004, write out, calling it “ an mind whose fourth dimension has come. ” She added, “ Defying the conventional wisdom of solomon that no dollar coin will successfully circulate arsenic long as the composition equivalent is available, Castle is betting that once most Americans see and use the coins, they will want to continue to use them. ”
In proposing the theme of a presidential dollar coin program, Castle had cited a 2002 study conducted by the General Accounting Office that reports more Americans would use the dollar mint if there were a rotating blueprint like to that of the 50 State quarters, Deisher noted in her comments. According to the report, “ many Americans who do not seek, or who reject, the newly $ 1 coin for use in commerce would actively seek the mint if an attractive, educational rotating design were to be struck on the coin. ”
In an interview with Coin World’s Michele Orzano, Castle stressed the results of that reputation, saying that he hoped that people would start asking banks for each fresh Presidential dollar, precisely as they had for the State stern dollars. The State quarters platform was a wild success, with some 120 million Americans collecting them at the extremum .
Collector reaction, however, was blend. A young collector, 17-year-old Jeremy Katz, precisely the kind of collector that Castle hoped would embrace the plan, expressed opposition in a Guest Commentary in the April 12, 2004, Coin World. Katz wrote, “ Supposedly, the legislation for the two series proposes to ‘ revitalize the design of United States neologism ’ and rejoinder to these circulating coins ‘ aesthetic beauty. ’ Are presidents beautiful ? I personally have never picked through my pouch and exclaimed, ‘ Wow ! This portrayal of George Washington is exquisite. I bet I could look at this all day ! ’ ”
In Letters to the Editors columns in Coin World in the weeks that followed, collectors debated the merits of the plan, with some in prefer of the idea and others skeptical that the dollars would circulate any more widely than the Anthony and Sacagawea dollars .
Both of those programs were widely promoted by the government before their insertion and officials had gamey hopes that the use of dollar coins would result in lower use of dollar bills. That never happened. The 1979 Anthony dollars were struck to the tune of 757.8 million pieces — that cipher wanted to use in commerce outside of the department of transportation diligence. Mintages declined precipitously in 1980 and 1981 as the coins were struck strictly for collector sales those two years. More were struck for circulation in 1999 after the hundreds of millions of coins languishing in vaults were finally used up. When the Sacagawea dollar was introduced in 2000, the result was the like — a massive coinage of 1.28 billion coins in the first year, rejection by the public, vastly smaller mintages in subsequent years, and, starting in 2002, production directed only to collector sales .
No wonder therefore many collectors were doubting about the presidential dollars succeeding where the two previous hadn ’ t .
One protest to one provision of Castle ’ randomness placard arose in the Senate — to the removal of Sacagawea, the alone woman and only native American depicted on an existing coin. Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., said that stopping production of the Sacagawea dollar as the area was celebrating the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition was peculiarly ill-timed .
The objections in the Senate were hard enough that, despite passage in the House, the 108th Congress closed without approval of the legislation. Castle, undeterred, reintroduce legislation in February 2005, in the 109th Congress .
In reintroducing the legislation, Castle said, “ Just like the State quarter program that has been then successful, the Presidential dollar coins bill is a win-win suggestion. The presidential coins will teach history while generating tax income for the U.S. Treasury. … ”
The House passed the placard in April 2005, though not before being amended with a provision seeking the four unlike turn back designs for the Lincoln penny in 2009, the bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln ’ s birth. The beak besides permitted continuing some product of the Sacagawea dollar, though no totals were required .
late in 2005 the Senate published its own adaptation of the poster and on Dec. 13, the House approved the Senate interpretation. The measure as approved not alone authorized the Presidential dollars, it approved companion First Spouse aureate coins and bronze medals ( besides part of the House charge ), continued production of the Sacagawea dollar, the four 2009 Lincoln penny commemoratives, and the american Buffalo gold bullion coins .
With passage of the presidential dollar plan, it was now fourth dimension for the United States Mint to get interfering creating the designs for the first four coins. The Mint ’ s initial efforts pleased no one outside of the Mint ’ s top echelon and, quite honestly, were considered diss by many in the collector community .
The wrong approach
All U.S. neologism and decoration designs must be reviewed by two federal panels — the Commission of Fine Arts and the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee. The panels look at the designs submitted to them, make their recommendations ( sometimes asking for modifications to certain designs or rejecting an entire series of designs ). The CCAC, in finical, affords the public a means to provide lead input signal to the Mint on neologism designs .
Some CCAC members were leery of the Mint ’ s ability to produce timbre artwork for the presidential dollars. In 2004, sculptor Daniel Altshuler, who at the time was one of the CCAC ’ s most blunt members, said that the “ bigger issue ” would be the Mint ’ s lack of good portrayal artists. “ It ’ s a error to do it right field now, ” he said .
The worst fears of the CCAC and CFA were realized during their respective January 2006 meetings. The Mint presented the panels portraits copied from the tan Presidential medals that the U.S. Mint had been offering to collectors for years. As Coin World reported in its Feb. 6, 2006, issue, “ The only differences are the ornamentation and inscriptions surrounding the portraits of Presidents George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. ”
This was an astonishing decision and about everyone thought it a bad approach .
The Mint explained its choices in a statement released Jan. 20, 2006 :
“ The United States Mint has produced presidential medals from the earliest days of the democracy, ” it began .
“ Most of these medals were designed during the terms of the presidents with stimulation from the administration and sometimes family of the president. The design procedure approvals in the first place came from the repository of war .
“ We ’ d like to think that this is how the presidents, themselves, would like to be portrayed. In most cases, these designs are classic when viewed nowadays. But they are contemporaneous to the president of the united states ’ s own life and offer a historic window through which the populace can view the timeline of our nation. These are classic, beautiful designs, frequently from periods when sculpt and medallic design were regularly employed for the production of official United States Mint coins and medals .
“ From the terms of Thomas Jefferson through Benjamin Harrison, a period of closely 100 years, the presidential medals were used by the United States government in conjunction with official treaty negotiations .
“ These images are in the public domain, ” the Mint added, as a perplex reconsideration .
At its Jan. 24 meet, the CCAC unanimously urged the U.S. Mint to abandon its plans to use the images from its Presidential decoration series for the new Presidential dollar coins. As Coin World reported in its news coverage, “ If we go forth with this, there will be fantastic criticism, ” predicted committee member Donald Scarinci of New Jersey, a coin collector and a decoration specialist. He led the charge against the aim designs, labeling them “ an insult ” to Congress, the american people and to coin collectors. He pleaded with Mint officials not to press forward with their plans, despite their statements that they need to promptly get the new coins into production .
Coin World’s Deisher blasted the Mint editorially for its approach as well .
Facing such criticism, Mint officials got the message and fast. Three days after CCAC rejected the design concepts, Mint officials announced a decision to seek extra designs from their team of designers .
When the CCAC adjacent meet, Feb. 28, the Mint had 41 newfangled portraits cook for revue. This time, the CCAC praised the Mint ’ randomness efforts and promptly voted on their preferences. In doing indeed, the CCAC favored frontal or three-quarter views of the four presidents and rejected profiles like those rejected in the January merging. The panel ’ second approach would govern the style of portrayal to appear on the huge majority of the coins issued in the years that followed, and ensured that modern portraits, not portraits resurrected from the past, would be used .
The coins circulate, or not
The program was dim-witted. Beginning with the release of the George Washington Presidential dollar Feb. 19, 2007, four presidential dollars were to be issued every year through 2016 at least, and possibly beyond. Sitting presidents and living former presidents were ineligible to be depicted. Any former president had to be deceased at least two years before being eligible for depicting on one of the coins .
In the days leading up to the official launch ceremony for the first Presidential dollar, scheduled for Feb. 15, banks in a twelve states began releasing the coins a workweek early. But finally, the first coins were in circulation, or were they ?
No groundswell of public concern get up to use the fresh Presidential dollar coins in stead of the Federal Reserve bill of the lapp denomination. Mintages for the Washington coin would be the acme of presidential dollar production, with the John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison coins that followed in 2007 all struck in smaller numbers. basically, the only members of the public interest in the coins were collectors, and not tied all of them wanted the coins in their collections .
By mid-2008, it was clear up that the presidential dollar program had not resulted in widening circulation of the coins in commerce. failure of the coins to circulate had the lapp effect on mintages as it had for the earlier Anthony and Sacagawea programs : Mintages for the presidential dollars ( like the Anthony and Sacagawea coins ) fell steadily through and after 2007, and most of the coins went into Federal Reserve vaults rather of active circulation .
By the in-between of 2011, the number of presidential dollars in memory at Federal Reserve facilities had reached more than 1.25 billion coins. The trouble of insufficient memory space was so acute accent that, as Coin World reported in its July 25, 2011, issue, plans for building a new storage facility were afoot at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas to handle the excess armory, according to the 2011 Annual Report to the Congress on the Presidential $ 1 Coin Program submitted in June by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System .
clearly, something needed to be done to avoid making coins that no one other than a belittled number of collectors wanted .
On Dec. 13, 2011, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner suspended production of Presidential dollars for circulation, while ensuring that the Mint retained authority to strike circulation-quality Presidential dollars for numismatic sales .
Stopping the flow of dollar coins to the Federal Reserve had an immediate effect on collectors : they no longer could acquire newly releases from local anesthetic banks at face respect. That had been a problem for some time already in some regions of the state, as local banks were reluctant to order the new issues when released for theoretical circulation. But for collectors who had been successfully acquiring the coins at confront value from their banks, the Geithner decisiveness was unpopular : now they would have to pay a premium for the coins .
then, as many in the avocation had predicted before the Presidential dollar series was authorized, the coins failed in commerce. But did anything catch the collector ’ sulfur attention, beyond the four fresh portraits each class ?
Yes, and it involved the coins ’ classifiable border inscriptions .
Problems with the edge
As noted earlier, Castle wanted many of the statutory inscriptions moved to the boundary of the Presidential dollars to free up quad for larger design elements and the add inscriptions identifying the picture president, his years in office, and his order in the argumentation of those who served in the function.
The date, Mint tag and mottoes IN GOD WE TRUST and E PLURIBUS UNUM were required to appear on the edges of the earliest presidential dollars .
border inscriptions are nothing new for U.S. neologism. Some of the earliest U.S. coins bore edge inscriptions identifying their denominations. Edge inscriptions disappeared in the 1830s but were resurrected in 1907 on the Saint-Gaudens gold double eagle and used a former as 1933 .
When the presidential dollar program became a reality, Mint officials began exploring techniques for applying the edge inscriptions and, for circulation strikes, settled upon a technique very like to that used in the 18th and 19th centuries : the edge inscriptions would be added in a dance step separate from and following the fall upon of the obverse and reverse sides. ( A different system, involving a three-piece edge collar bearing the inscriptions, was used for Proof coins. )
In exercise, the coins were struck with complain edges, fell in random positions from the press and were transported, by grounder, to a separate station where they were passed through a quickly rotating round die that impressed the incused letters and numbers into the edge .
Since the coins were randomly, the border devices could read right-side-up in relation to either the obverse or rearward. As well, the location of the border elements, the date for model, was besides unpredictable proportional to the position of obverse and reverse design elements This randomness resulted in many questions from collectors. many, noting that the inscriptions on some coins read correctly when the obverse was facing up and others when the revoke was facing up, wondered if they had error coins. They didn ’ t .
But lots of real errors were generated .
One character involves multiplied boundary inscriptions, with either partially or completely duplicated border inscriptions found, and some coins having the duplicate inscriptions in the antonym up and down orientation course to each other. Another edge error involves improper spacing between individual elements of the inscription. Faint edge inscriptions are encountered, and on some coins, dropped letters from either the obverse or reverse are found shanghai into the boundary .
The most celebrated edge error, however, involved coins with no boundary elements at all .
During the first year of production, the equipment that imparted the edge inscriptions was break from the otherwise amply integrate production agate line at the Mint ’ s facilities. Most other steps in production were directly linked ; blanks, planchets and coins moved from one degree in the production process to the following along conveyer belts, including for transport to the bag stations, where finished coins were prepared for cargo to the Federal Reserve Banks .
not so for the edge post in 2007 .
early in the production of the Washington coin at the Philadelphia Mint, a massive quantity of coins were moved from the coining presses directly to the bag place, bypassing the equipment that would have added the edge inscriptions. The solution was the release of tens of thousands of Washington Presidential dollars with plain edges in belated February. Coin World noted that most find reports for the coins were concentrated in cities across Florida, chiefly Jacksonville. Finds were besides made in the Chicago area. initial reports indicated that one or two hoppers of the coin, each grasshopper containing 350,000 coins, could have been involved .
government officials launched an probe and, in March, reported their initial findings, confirming that one or more hoppers of the coins had not been transported to the edge-inscription stations .
While officials took steps to prevent any more 2007 dollars from being released without edge devices, smaller quantities of the Adams and Jefferson dollars were released with plain edges, presumably the leave of a similar mishap .
In 2008, the edge-inscription place was physically connected to the production line, which resulted in many fewer such errors in the future .
The plain border coins are among the most valuable of presidential dollars, with Mint State 65 examples of the Washington mint sell for about $ 75 today, and the Adams and Jefferson coins selling for $ 350 to $ 400 in the same grad .
Two relate, quite dramatic edge errors exist. At least one exemplar is known of a 2007-D Sacagawea dollar with a 2007-D presidential dollar edge inscription, making it a design border mule. A sacagawea dollar of that year should have had a knit boundary, not an edge inscription. The coin was found in pouch change in 2007 and sold in a July 2012 auction for $ 17,161.10. Another apparently unique error, besides a design edge mule, was reported in January 2010. A collector found a Zachary Taylor Presidential dollar of 2009 with a 2010-D edge inscription in a paradiddle of 2010-D native american dollars acquired directly from the U.S. Mint. The Taylor dollar was the survive of the 2009 Presidential dollars. These two errors apparently occurred when ( 1 ) the strike 2007 mint was unintentionally fed into boundary dedication equipment and ( 2 ) the 2009 dollar was fed into an border machine fitted with a 2010 boundary die .
Another category of concern errors involving the edge occurred when a number of unstruck planchets were edge lettered but not struck between obverse and reverse dies. These pieces are blank on their faces but give birth knowing edges ; they were found in rolls of Washington dollars .
Some Proof 2007-S Thomas Jefferson Presidential dollars were found with elements of the edge inscriptions out of sequence. Proof coins are struck with three-piece segment collars that form the edge inscriptions at the time of striking. Mint workers created the Jefferson dollars with out-of-sequence inscriptions by installing the individual collar segments in the faulty orderliness. On the mistake coins, the motto IN GOD WE TRUST on the edge is followed by the motto E PLURIBUS UNUM .
The Presidential dollars errors were not the only causal agent for excitation to arise from the use of edge inscriptions, however .
Ugly (and false) rumors
The initiation of the Washington mint in January 2007 spurred an electronic mail campaign that apparently arose early, according to a post at Snopes.com, the popular rumor-busting web site. The web site in 2013 posted the text from the following e-mail collected in February 2007 :
“ U.S. government to Release New Dollar Coins
“ You guessed it
“ ‘ IN GOD WE TRUST ’ IS GONE ! ! !
“ Who primitively put ‘ In God We Trust ’ onto our currentness ?
“ My bet is that it was one of the Presidents on these coins .
“ All our U.S. Government has done is Dishonor them, and disgust me ! ! !
“ If ever there was a reason to boycott something, THIS IS IT ! ! ! !
“ DO NOT ACCEPT THE NEW DOLLAR COINS AS CHANGE
“ together we can force them out of circulation. ”
The writer of the electronic mail could not be bothered to research the history of the motto ’ sulfur use ( it was authorized under authority of the Treasury Department during the Civil War, first gear appearing in 1864 on the new 2-cent coin, and not put on a coin by “ one of the Presidents ” ) .
The web site, of path, labeled the rumor as “ False ” and explained the circumstances behind the mint. however, the story appears to have circulated pretty widely in certain religious circles .
Deisher, in an editorial in the Oct. 1, 2007, write out of Coin World, related a neighbor ’ sulfur inquiry. She wrote that the neighbor, after discussing some rebuilding plans with her, said, “ I ’ ve got a wholly nonrelated wonder, and I ’ meter surely you know about this. ”
After Deisher prompted him, the man asked, “ Well, I want to know why our government wants to remove ‘ In God We Trust ’ from our coins ? ”
She assured him that there was no such plan and asked where he had heard the rumor. She shared his response : “ He explained that he had attended a retirement recently sponsored by his church and that the removal of the motto from the raw Presidential dollars had been discussed there. The tenor of the discussion had been the necessitate to ‘ restore ’ the motto to the new dollar coin. ”
The criticism reached such a level that Congress passed legislation ordering that the motto IN GOD WE TRUST — which by congressional ordain had been placed on the border — be moved to either the obverse or revoke, at the Mint ’ s discretion. Starting in 2009, the religious motto began appearing on the obverse of each Presidential dollar .
The Mint ’ s many products
Over the years, the United States Mint has offered the Presidential dollars in respective products, including :
? ? Bags, boxes, and rolls of circulation-quality coins .
? ? Proof sets of diverse kinds, including sets that contained lone a given class ’ s four presidential dollars .
? ? Uncirculated sets of diverse kinds, including an annual set containing only that year ’ south Presidential dollars in Uncirculated plant timbre .
? ? An annual Uncirculated Dollar Coin stage set, which contains the year ’ s Presidential dollar, native american dollar, and American Eagle silver dollar .
? ? Sets of circulation examples of the coins .
? ? presidential dollar and First Spouse bronze decoration sets, one for each pair .
? ? presidential dollar mint covers, containing Philadelphia Mint and Denver Mint examples of a particular coin housed within an illustrate philatelic shroud .
? ? And several Presidential Coin & Chronicles sets containing, among other memorabilia, presidential dollars with special finishes and a relate decoration honoring the lapp president .
The latter product was offered for precisely a handful of presidents, the beginning issued in 2013 to celebrate the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt .
The located contained a standard Proof 2013-S Theodore Roosevelt dollar, a .999 fine silver Presidential decoration from his second terminus ( the first time for the decoration to be struck in silver medal ), a bronze 1.5-inch Bald Eagle National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial decoration, and a 4-inch by 6-inch print honoring President Roosevelt ’ s military avail .
The adjust was sold for $ 57.95 with no merchandise or family limits. Today the dress sells in the secondary market in a fairly wide price rate, with recent eBay transactions at prices from $ 122 to $ 212 .
The following Coin and Chronicles set offered honored Theodore ’ south aloof cousin, Franklin Roosevelt. That set contains Proof 2014-S examples of the Roosevelt dollar and Roosevelt dime, a silver Roosevelt Presidential decoration, a bronze Roosevelt Presidential decoration, and four stamps with Roosevelt themes ( he was a notice collector of stamps ). It was offered at the like price as the first Roosevelt fructify, with the product limited to an edition of 20,000 pieces .
All four presidents honored in 2015 — Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson — were the subject of separate Presidential Coin & Chronicles sets, each with a mixture of coins, medals and early items. however, one initiation resulted in heighten collector requirement for the sets. Each presidential dollar in the four sets was a reverse Proof 2015-P adaptation, making each mint a distinct issue ( the earlier sets had regular Proof versions, which are identical from the Proof versions offered in early sets ) .
As with the Franklin Roosevelt set, the 2015 sets were offered in limited numbers, with Reverse Proof dollar helping the 17,000 Truman sets and 17,000 Eisenhower sets to sell out in about 15 minutes each. anticipate requirement for the Kennedy set with its Reverse Proof dollar led Mint officials to boost the mintage of that dress first to 25,000 and then to 50,000 ; the higher merchandise restrict resulted in the adjust being available for a longer period of meter ( though it, besides, finally sold out, after 80 percentage sold in the first day ). The Johnson set, with a product limit of 25,000, sold out in about four hours .
The Mint changed course in 2016, the completion year of the course of study, by offering a Coin & Chronicles set lone for Ronald Reagan. No sets were offered for Richard Nixon, the merely president to resign from office, and Gerald Ford, the only president of the united states not elected to either that place or the vice presidency. No Jimmy Carter dollar was issued since the early president is even living .
What have we learned?
The presidential dollar proved, again, that Americans do not like to use dollar coins. The dollar note is seen as more commodious, and designs on the dollar coins seem to play little function in whether the coin is accepted ( the design of the Anthony dollar was wide disliked, at least among many coin collectors, while the design of the Sacagawea dollar is widely praised ; no matter, neither mint circulated widely ).
The program besides seemed to indicate that the State quarter dollars program was a fluke in gaining wide popularity outside of traditional collector circles. The public did not embrace collecting the series from circulation ( just as it has not embraced the America the Beautiful quarter dollar series to the same degree as the State quarter dollars program ) .
Will Congress learn any lessons from the presidential dollar program ? In the last Congress, legislation authorizing a 56-coin commemorative small dollar program honor american invention was introduced Sept. 14, 2016, in the House by Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn. The program, had it passed, would have limited product to numismatic issues with none intended for circulation. however, the measure gained no real support in Congress and did not exceed .
It seems net that dollar coins are a bad estimate, surely for circulation. Let ’ s see whether Congress has learned anything .