The "penny" is gone ─ next the "nickel"?

19 posts

» Quick access to the last post

There are more and more high level discussions about whether the 5¢ coin, or "nickel", should be terminated here in Canada. Here is a link to a CBC piece:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/nickel-penny-canadian-mint-1.3821804



What do you think?
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
Here in New Zealand we got rid of our 5 cent coins in 2006 and nobody really complained about it. Shops just round up/down to the nearest 10c, or you pay the full amount if you pay with a card.
Seriously? Absolutely illogical. As the beginning of the article said, they still make money minting it unlike the terminated copper clad "penny". If the coin would turn unrentable, then there would have a good reason.
Administrateur du catalogue, référent de nombreuses nations antiques et de la Lorraine.
Catalogue administrator, numerous Antique nations and Lorraine referee.
I think they're probably looking at usage rather than minting costs. I mean, what can you really buy with 5 cents these days?
Well I don't like Desjardins because they botched my credit check years ago. So I'm going to rubbish their opinion out of spite lol.
But seriously, I think the nickle is safe until it no longer turns a profit for the mint. I think 5 years is too close of a time line for that to happen. And even if it does, it'll take another few years before a political decision is made to scrap the denomination.

I already find the nickle useless, however every now and then, I'll dump enough of them on an unsuspecting starbucks barista for my tall pike
Outings administrator
Quote: "chomp-master"​Seriously? Absolutely illogical. As the beginning of the article said, they still make money minting it unlike the terminated copper clad "penny". If the coin would turn unrentable, then there would have a good reason.
​I suppose the answer is that it is not enough for a coin to be profitable for it to be struck for general circulation. It looks like the more important point is whether the coin serves any useful purpose. If not, i.e. if it is rarely used to pay for something and is only received in change, then it should be dropped.

It's almost amusing that the article says that "the nickel entered circulation in 1858, when the Royal Mint in Britain produced them for the province of Canada". At that time, of course, they were silver 5¢ pieces. It's only in 1922 that we switched to nickel.

EDIT: So, I understand neilithic and ashlobo's points about this.

EDIT 2: There was a segment on a CBC radio show tonight about the whole thing. Follow the link and go to part 3:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/popup/audio/listen.html?autoPlay=true&clipIds=,,&mediaIds=2696830390,2696830622,2696830624&contentarea=radio&subsection1=radio1&subsection2=currentaffairs&subsection3=as_it_happens&contenttype=audio&title=2016/10/26/1.3822440-as-it-happens-wednesday-edition&contentid=1.3822440

It starts at 20:40.

Interestingly, if we get rid of the nickel, we will have to replace the 25¢ with a 20¢ and may be start using 50¢ coins again. :|
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
I recognise the point that the Nickel is pretty much useless and as you mentioned, we'd need to introduce perhaps a 20c or make the 50c widespread. However, I still think there has to be a catalyst to get rid of the nickel. To me, that would be some annual report from the mint which states the nickel costs more to produce than its worth.

Its funny the US still doesn't let go of it's penny when even people regard it with such disdain that no one would bat an eyelid it they saw several on the floor. Call it govt/fed ego?
Outings administrator
Quote: "ashlobo"​I recognise the point that the Nickel is pretty much useless and as you mentioned, we'd need to introduce perhaps a 20c or make the 50c widespread. However, I still think there has to be a catalyst to get rid of the nickel. To me, that would be some annual report from the mint which states the nickel costs more to produce than its worth.

​Its funny the US still doesn't let go of it's penny when even people regard it with such disdain that no one would bat an eyelid it they saw several on the floor. Call it govt/fed ego?

​The person interviewed on the radio pointed out that there is much more to it than just the Mint making a profit since those coins have to be transported all over the country, rolled up, stored, etc. etc.

As for the US situation, I'm not sure what's the collective psychology behind their extreme conservatism. They have not been able to replace the dollar bill with a coin, and as you say they're still encumbered with the worthless penny. Given the recent turmoil caused by the redesigning of the $20 bill, I suspect one of the issues is that Lincoln's face would disappear from the coinage.
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
Going back a few posts. The Canadian silver 5 cents coin is very small and thin. I think I have been able to get 5 or 6 of them.

I can see how they got the name fish scales . Here is one on a Canadian 10 cent coin.
It is, what it is, or is it.
Some prices from the 1913 Spring-Summer Eaton's catalogue:



There are a few items at 5¢ here in there, especially in the grocery section.
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
That's a very cool find! I love seeing old catalogs like that - it really gives you a concrete feel for what kind of value the coins we collect once held. Gives you a new outlook on things to realize that a single 50 cent piece would buy a whole can of varnish, for example.
Those were the days of the "fish scales", as ALLRED pointed out. If you type Eaton's catalogue in there (i.e. archive.org), you'll find many more, including some from the late 1800s. It's fascinating to see how fashion evolved through those years. Also: tools, carriages, tires, etc.

One enigmatic thing is that some tin cans go for 12½ cents. How does that work? Canada never had a ½¢ coin. Are you supposed to buy them only in pairs? Or will you get some tea bags or candy to round it up to 13¢? :~

If anyone knows how that works, I'd be interested to know...
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
I simply can't grasp the concept of "profit" when applied to a department of government. I was under the apparently mistaken impression that the only role of government was to serve the public, not make money off them. It's a very greasy slope, especially for departments with a fiscal role. Can you imagine how much misery we would see if the IRS decided it was time to join in the fun and start making profits? National Mints are a part of the Exchequer or Treasury and they should start acting like it. Am I the only person who finds this trend of Government departments pumping out cheap meaningless "commemorative" gimcracks, and marketing them with all the class of a ShamWow commercial, to be abhorrent?

The Royal Mint still brings up images of Una and the Lion, Britannia, Saint George, Petition Crowns and the beauty of our pre decimal coinage but they are not too far behind the Canadians in the rush to become the new Liberia. Hundreds of years of tradition and a reputation for excellence are in grave danger from the marketing gurus and accountants. The most important person at the mint should be the engraver, not the advertising executive.

If the public has either the need or the desire to change the currency then the Mint should act accordingly, not on the basis of how much money they can make. If they make an operating loss..... well isn't that why we pay taxes? The USPS, for example, is required to be budget neutral in return for which they are granted a monopoly on carrying letters. The costs have skyrocketed during the past few years, causing a great deal of hardship to the small business owner and the very poorest in our society, the very same people who our politician scum claim to fight for and shed crocodile tears for every four years. How much worse would it be if they were deregulated and allowed to add a hefty profit margin on top? The price of a mail monopoly should be stringent efficiency standards, nothing more or less.

Governments worldwide are becoming too bloated and removed from the citizenry. They are supposed to serve us with our express consent, not rule us or exploit us.
Non illegitimis carborundum est.  Excellent advice for all coins.
Make Numismatics Great Again!  
Quote: "pnightingale"​I simply can't grasp the concept of "profit" when applied to a department of government. I was under the apparently mistaken impression that the only role of government was to serve the public, not make money off them. It's a very greasy slope, especially for departments with a fiscal role. Can you imagine how much misery we would see if the IRS decided it was time to join in the fun and start making profits? National Mints are a part of the Exchequer or Treasury and they should start acting like it. Am I the only person who finds this trend of Government departments pumping out cheap meaningless "commemorative" gimcracks, and marketing them with all the class of a ShamWow commercial, to be abhorrent?

​The Royal Mint still brings up images of Una and the Lion, Britannia, Saint George, Petition Crowns and the beauty of our pre decimal coinage but they are not too far behind the Canadians in the rush to become the new Liberia. Hundreds of years of tradition and a reputation for excellence are in grave danger from the marketing gurus and accountants. The most important person at the mint should be the engraver, not the advertising executive.

​If the public has either the need or the desire to change the currency then the Mint should act accordingly, not on the basis of how much money they can make. If they make an operating loss..... well isn't that why we pay taxes? The USPS, for example, is required to be budget neutral in return for which they are granted a monopoly on carrying letters. The costs have skyrocketed during the past few years, causing a great deal of hardship to the small business owner and the very poorest in our society, the very same people who our politician scum claim to fight for and shed crocodile tears for every four years. How much worse would it be if they were deregulated and allowed to add a hefty profit margin on top? The price of a mail monopoly should be stringent efficiency standards, nothing more or less.

​Governments worldwide are becoming too bloated and removed from the citizenry. They are supposed to serve us with our express consent, not rule us or exploit us.
​Atleast in the Royal Canada's mint case, being a Crown corporation, its is governed by the Royal Canadian Mint Act (amendment) which states
"On December 16, 2014, the Royal Canadian Mint Act was amended to specify that although the object of the Mint is to operate in the expectation of profit, the Mint shall not anticipate profit with respect to the provision of any goods or services to Her Majesty in right of Canada, including the minting of circulation coins"

According to its Annual Report 2015 (http://www.mint.ca/store/dyn/PDFs/2015-Royal-Canadian-Mint-Annual-Report-English-FINAL-May-4.pdf),
"For the 52 weeks of fiscal 2015, consolidated revenue increased 21.7% to $3.0 billion from $2.4 billion in fiscal 2014. The increase was driven primarily by a rebound in demand for bullion products during the last half of the year aided by a weak Canadian dollar that pushed Bullion revenue up 26.3% to $2.6 billion from $2.1 billion in 2014. Revenue from sales of numismatic coins increased 12.1% to $198.7 million from $177.3 million in 2014. These increases were offset by a 9.4% decline in Canadian Circulation revenue as a result of the change in the new MOU with the Government of Canada and a decline in revenue from the Circulation Products and Solutions business.
Pre-impairment operating expenses for the year increased 1.3% to $142.9 million from $141.6 million in the prior year. An increase in marketing and sales expenses was offset by a decline in administration expenses. Sales and marketing expenses were up due to restructuring charges incurred in the year and administration expenses decreased due to careful cost management. After a detailed impairment review, it was determined that the Mint’s Circulation Cash Generating Unit (which includes the Canadian Circulation Program and the Circulation Products and Solutions business) was not projected to generate sufficient cash flows to support its related asset base and consequently the Mint recorded a $65.5 million non-cash impairment charge in 2015."

I guess, I was mistaken to assume that once the production costs of 5c coins go over the value, that'd be a catalyst for a rethink. It seems to me this would be purely a political decision since the mint's services to govt. preclude any profits. However, on the other hand, it's precisely because of the collector coin programme diarrohea it churns out, that it's still in healthy state. As a canadian tax payer, i can live with that :-)
Outings administrator
Quote: "pnightingale"​I simply can't grasp the concept of "profit" when applied to a department of government. I was under the apparently mistaken impression that the only role of government was to serve the public, not make money off them. It's a very greasy slope, especially for departments with a fiscal role. [...] National Mints are a part of the Exchequer or Treasury and they should start acting like it. Am I the only person who finds this trend of Government departments pumping out cheap meaningless "commemorative" gimcracks, and marketing them with all the class of a ShamWow commercial, to be abhorrent?

​The Royal Mint still brings up images of Una and the Lion, Britannia, Saint George, Petition Crowns and the beauty of our pre decimal coinage but they are not too far behind the Canadians in the rush to become the new Liberia. Hundreds of years of tradition and a reputation for excellence are in grave danger from the marketing gurus and accountants. The most important person at the mint should be the engraver, not the advertising executive.

​If the public has either the need or the desire to change the currency then the Mint should act accordingly, not on the basis of how much money they can make. If they make an operating loss..... well isn't that why we pay taxes? [...]

​I agree with much in this, but would like to comment on some specific points.

1 ─ Profits: I am OK with the Mint (here, a "crown corporation" if I'm not mistaken) to make profit, because then it is ─in theory at least :)─ benefiting the whole country. Often, right-wing politics is to privatize governmental offices when they are unprofitable... And we know what happens next: their buddies slash jobs and turn the whole thing into a profit-making machine for themselves.

2 ─ Changing the currency: I think we shouldn't wait for the public to decide what is and isn't a sound economic policy. For example, there was in the mid-1980s in Canada much opposition to the move from a 1$ bill to a $1 coin. In spite of the huge benefits of striking coins (which last well over 20 times any cotton-based currency), people complained, among other things, that their pants would fall down because of the weight of the coins in their pockets B.. Within less than a year after the shift, such complaints had virtually vanished. When I traveled to New Jersey several years ago, I had to carry loads of quarters just to pay toll along the highway. I hoped to save many of the state quarters, but I had no choice but to use them. :(

3 ─ Meaningless commemoratives: I cannot agree more. I have said it many times on Numista, both in English and French: These are only profit-making issues and I find that they pollute the market ;(. Try to find a post-1980 circulating Canadian issue in the Numista catalogue... Good luck. It's littered with those pseudo-coins. They should be listed separately. I applaud the Charlton Catalogue editors for producing two catalogues annually: one for real coins and one for what they call "numismatic" issues.

EDIT: Thanks, ashlobo, for the useful information.

EDIT 2: We had a good discussion on this thread about those mint collectors' issues.
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
Camerinus, the 12 1/2 cent goes a looong way back. Here in the USA we have tokens of that value. it goes back to the days of the 8 reales and its function as the main coin of use in America. a real equaled 12 1/2 cents, or a bit. so 2 bits was a quarter, 4 bits was a half... the old rhyme 2 bits, 4 bits, 6 bits, a dollar, all for ______ stand up and holler comes from this as well. in some places here in Oklahoma you still hear 2 bits used for a quarter... an old west insult was to be called a 2 bit whore...
Library Media Specialist, columnist, collector, and gardener...
Quote: "Oklahoman"​Camerinus, the 12 1/2 cent goes a looong way back. Here in the USA we have tokens of that value. it goes back to the days of the 8 reales and its function as the main coin of use in America. a real equaled 12 1/2 cents, or a bit. so 2 bits was a quarter, 4 bits was a half... the old rhyme 2 bits, 4 bits, 6 bits, a dollar, all for ______ stand up and holler comes from this as well. in some places here in Oklahoma you still hear 2 bits used for a quarter... an old west insult was to be called a 2 bit whore...
​Fascinating, especially the fact that "2 bits" is still used for a quarter (just like in Quebec "30 sous" is still used for a quarter but goes back to the French regime).

Yes ─ 12½¢ = 1 real = 1/8 of a "Spanish dollar". The problem is, for Canada at least, that there was never a ½¢ coin to make up the change. So I am quite surprised to still see such values as late as 1913 (and possibly beyond?). By the way, I acquired this yesterday:



I'm not sure yet what it is (provenience, date, etc.), but that will be fun to research. I also purchased a Toronto Transit ticket for 12½¢ from the 1950s, but you had to buy them in strips of 4 = 50¢.

So, thanks very much, Oklahoman and everyone else, for your great feedback. :)

EDIT: For more about the 12½ value, copy and paste this:

"12½" site:numista.com

in Google or Google Images. Especially interesting is the Venezuelan 12½ céntimos (= 1/8 bolivar) which was produced as late as 2007.

EDIT 2: Morrison's was a saloon in Seattle. They also struck a 25¢. Morrison's can be seen (though barely, on the left) in this 1900 picture from the Seattle Municipal Archive:

₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.
Quote: "Camerinvs"​The problem is, for Canada at least, that there was never a ½¢ coin to make up the change.

Actually, the Royal Mint produced 1/2 Cent in 1861 & 1864 for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Both of these were produced after our KM#1 (see Charlton). And I see the United States were still minting them until only 1857 (btw, I have to get some of those...beautiful).
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble.  It's what you know for sure, that just ain't so.  Mark Twain
Quote: "Peter M. Graham"
Quote: "Camerinvs"​The problem is, for Canada at least, that there was never a ½¢ coin to make up the change.

​Actually, the Royal Mint produced 1/2 Cent in 1861 & 1864 for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Both of these were produced after our KM#1 (see Charlton). And I see the United States were still minting them until only 1857 (btw, I have to get some of those...beautiful).
​Yes, but as pointed out in Charlton, the New Brunswick ½¢ were a mistake and most of them were melted down (and they are quite expensive nowadays). Only Nova Scotia needed a ½¢ because the rate of the NS$ to the British £ was different from the rate of the NB$ to the £.

As for Canada, if they had felt the need for a ½¢, they would have needed to coin their own rather than expect the Nova Scotia ones to trickle down into the Canadian market. I agree, however, that there is the possibility that the US ½¢ circulated here, but they may actually have been rarely seen since none has been countermarked by a Canadian firm so far as I know (I would need to double check in Brunk).

I'm wondering whether one possible solution to this problem is the use of stamps in payment (just a guess at this point). Canada issued ½¢ stamps until late in the reign of Victoria (I suppose you had to buy them in pairs?!), and until the 1960s at least, dealers sometimes accepted stamps in payments sent them through mail rather than cheques or cash.

Interestingly, some Canadian stamps in pence (before 1857/8) were rated in "sterling" and "currency". I suppose "currency" = local currency = the Canadian rate of the £ / s /d. So, they had 2 values on them.

And this is interesting ─ one of the first stamps valued in cents (with sterling value as well):



EDIT (November 8th 2016): For the record, I just found this in an 1896 Eaton's Catalogue:



This doesn't prove my theory about the ½¢ stamp, but it does show that stamps could be accepted in payment. At Eaton's, up to 100 1¢ stamps.
₱o$₮ag€ $₮am₱$ a₹€ mo₹€ £€₲i₮ima₮€ a$ a ƒo₹m oƒ ¢u₹₹€nc¥ ₮ha₦ ₮h€ €₦₮i₹€ "¢oi₦" ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ oƒ ₦au₹u o₹ ₦iu€. ••• £€$ ₮im฿₹€$-₱o$₮€ $o₦₮ ₱£u$ £é₲i₮im€$ €₦ ₮a₦t qu'o฿j€₮$ mo₦é₮ai₹€$ qu€ £a ₱₹odu¢₮io₦ €₦₮iè₹€ d€ «mo₦₦ai€$» d€ ₦au₹u ou d€ ₦iu€.

» Forum policy

Used time zone is UTC+1:00.
Current time is 13:42.