This week, the US Mint announced it was issuing a new dollar coin. This is the third time in thirty-six years the Mint has tried to produce a coin that the public would adopt, with the long-term goal of weaning us off our green back dollar bill dependency.

According to the US Bureau of Engraving and Printing, of all the notes printed by the Bureau, $1 notes make up about 45% of currency production (1). The life span of a $1 Federal Reserve Note is just 21 months. 95% of the notes printed each year are used to replace notes already in circulation. Since it cost 5.7 pennies to make a single dollar bill, printed bank notes are relatively expensive to produce (2).

Coins, on the other hand, may cost more, but they last a lot longer. The average coin lasts 35 years, in fact. Even though coins cost twice as much to make as a dollar bill, that 23½ times multiple in lifespan means that after just 3 years in circulation, they have made up for their higher cost.

The US Mint, like most mints around the world, produces coins whose designs have not change much over time. It's all about confidence in the money supply. When the coins look the same, feel the same, weigh the same, we are confident that they are worth the same (at least at face value) year in year out. It is strange because for decades our coinage has had little actual intrinsic value. Truth be known, they are really tokens. The precious metals bronze, silver and gold have long been replaced by baser copper, nickel and brass alloys, but because of that confidence we trust that a shopkeeper will honour the dime and allow us to buy us 10 cents worth of goods.

There have been serious attempts to raise interest in our coinage. The most spectacularly successful of these programmes is the 50 State Quarter (3). Since 1999, the US Mint has been issuing quarters with reverses showing a symbolic image to represent each state of the Union. I confess to being a collector myself (if anyone has the North and South Dakota and Montana issues from the Denver mint please get in touch). The reverses are often of winning designs from local state competitions, so the series makes a fascinating panorama of how the people of the country see themselves in a patchwork quilt of cupric-nickel. 28 billion state quarters have been minted to date and we still have until 2008 before the last state is issued.

In contrast, since 1971, the US Mint is still trying to produce the definitive $1 coin (4). The Susan B. Anthony dollar first was issued in 1979 and quickly became known as the 'Carter Dollar'. Being silver in colour, it was often mistaken for a quarter. The coins rolled off the production line for the last time in 1999. A year later came the Sacagawea a.k.a. 'The Golden Dollar'. There are approximately 1 billion Sacagawea coins in circulation today and about 250 million more in reserve. Response has been mixed and the US Mint greatly reduced production of Sacagawea dollars after the 2001 minting, citing sufficient inventory. If you ever have to use a Post Office vending machine to buy stamps, you'll probably get one of these in your change. The dollar is still being minted for collectors, and is available in Uncirculated Rolls, Mint Sets, and Proof Sets, but has not been released for general circulation since 2001. In other words, it was a failure. It didn't help that the Mint chose a metal that lost its shiny golden lustre after the coin was in circulation for a few months. But in a curious footnote, the Sacagawea dollar has achieved popularity in Ecuador where the US dollar is also the official currency.

Most other countries have replaced their low denomination banknotes with coins. The British £1 Note went our of circulation in 1984 to be replaced by a chunky brass coloured coin that quickly assumed the nickname of 'The Maggie', a play on the old English coin called the Groat and the name of Margaret Thatcher, then Prime Minster (5). Weighing 9.5 grammes, it's never been popular, but the coin's popularity counted for nought because the Bank of England withdrew the banknote from circulation (US Mint take note). Since then the Royal Mint has tried to create interest in the coin by changing the reverse (tales side) of the coin with emblems and symbolic designs.

The Royal Mint at Llantrisant, Wales has also been manufacturing special commemorative £2 coins since 1998 (6). I particularly like these coins. On the obverse (the heads or portrait side), is the reigning Queen Elizabeth II's profile. On the reverse different themes have been celebrated. These have included the 50^th Anniversary of VE and VJ Days and the life of I.K. Brunel. This year celebrates the Act of Union between England and Scotland and the Abolition of Slavery. They are also distinct because of their two colours - a brass alloy on the outer rim and nickel alloy at the centre. Inscriptions in Times Roman capitals and a finely milled edge complete the grandiose design. Some 268 million pieces are in circulation. There are a couple of drawbacks. The coins are big, 28.4mm in diameter, and bulky, weighing 12 grammes, which makes them a pain if you keep change in your trouser pocket.

So will the new dollar coin win the public's hearts and minds, and find an honoured place among the small change in our sweaty palms? The Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005 established a programme under which the Treasury will issue four new Presidential $1 coin designs per year (7)

To be fair, the coins look very fine indeed. The pictures on the US Mint website show the coin has a bright, golden lustre. The Statute of Liberty on the reverse is magnificently carved and should stir feelings of patriotism in the beholder. My one concern is the way presidents look out from the polished surface on the obverse. Choosing a three-quarter profile was a bold decision, and while George Washington's portrait is suitably statuesque, the absence of pupils in his eyes (unlike in the Adams, Jefferson and Madison) unfortunately makes him look blind.

This same week, a story about a coin showing Queen Cleopatra also appeared in the news. In the UK, The Guardian and Daily Mirror carried the story, while the BBC News did a three-minute TV spot (9), citing William Shakespeare and comedians Eric Morecambe and Ernie Wise and guest Glenda Jackson in a classic sketch. Yahoo! gave the story international coverage (10), but the origin of the story was a press release from Newcastle University (11) in Geordie-land. This announced that:

What grabbed the news editors' attentions was the portrait of the queen. Is this how Cleopatra VII, the last ruler of Egypt, and for that matter, Mark Antony, her paramour, really looked? With understated sensationalism, the press release reported:

OMG!. Not like Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton then? Clare Pickersgill, Assistant Director of Archaeological Museums at Newcastle University, was reported as saying:

(Note that the ancients never actually said she was a beauty). Read any biography of Cleopatra and the coin is likely to be reproduced along with a long discussion of her looks. So not really news then? The Newcastle press release did admit

What the commentators all failed to pick up was that the coin was minted in Alexandria, where a local engraver carved the obverse and reverse coin die. He may not have been particularly talented. The portraits almost look cartoon-like characatures in their thick detailing (12). Surviving 3D representations in sculpture of both Antony in the Vatican Museum and Cleopatra in the Altes Museum, Berlin show them to have been plain, but not unattractive (13). In general, the quality of portraits on coins in the Roman world was not particularly fine in the First Century BCE. The quality of portraits on Alexandrian coins throughout the Roman period was never particularly accomplished. The era of the most naturalistic portraits to be achieved in 2D high relief was still a half century in the future and they would be minted in Rome. So to deduce that these portraits of truly show how these two notables of history actually looked is unrealistic. Artistic convention, as much as die engraver's technical ability, plays a role in how regents present themselves. For example. compare the portraits on coins of King Cnut in the 10^th Century CE or William the Conqueror in the 11^th Century CE with those of James I in the 17^th Century or the current Queen.

The fact that a not very good portrait on a 2,000 coin should be considered news, tells us a lot about ourselves. We seem to have an idealised view of what the figures of history are supposed to have looked like and anything that differs from that image surprises us. That is the news! Not surprisingly, we all think we know what Washington, Jefferson and the Founding Fathers are supposed to look like and that's what the US Mint obligingly makes appear on the new $1 coin. Pupil-less eyes and all.

The real surprise is that we care about whose faces appear on our coins at all.

Happy President's Day (February 19)!

References: