The news about the revival of the effort to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 note with Harriet Tubman has received a lot of press. Change is always difficult, but when that change involves removing one political figure from currency and replacing it with another, the debates can be fascinating and frustrating.
Ellen Feingold, the curator of the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian, wrote an article for Politico explaining the history of currency changes. As part of her discussion, Feingold suggests that the $20 bill should only be the beginning and that history is behind this type of change.
Within the numismatic media, writers are noting how collectors are weary of the changing quarter designs. If you read the online forums and blog comments, there might be a dominant view that there have been too many changing designs. More than a few posted that a commemorative coin may be a better option than the Prominent Women on Quarters program.
Taking the cues from numismatic forums and blog posts may not be the right venues to gauge public opinion. It is like asking the season ticket holder why baseball attendance was on a downward projection (pre-pandemic). In other words, you are preaching to the choir.
Why not they ask the kids, the future of the hobby? Young people grew up with constantly changing designs. Think about it, an 8-year old that started collecting state quarters in 1999 will be 30 this year. Change is all they know.
Charles Morgan might be right. It may be time to change all of our change. Maybe it is time for a modern renaissance.
And now the news…