New U.S. $100 Bill
malanu...@aol.com
be unveiled? It was supposed to be issued in late 2008, and now, in
2009, it has not even been unveiled yet. I'm guessing that this is
because of Barack Obama taking office, and choosing a Treasury
Secretary. But how much longer do you guys think the $100 bill
unveiling could be delayed? I mean, should we know what it looks like
by spring? I keep checking Where's George for information, but
apparently, there haven't even been any NexGen $100s printe yet as of
November '08. I'm anxous to see the December '08 report though,
because maybe they may have printed some by now.
Hope everyone had a Happy New Year.
Tom
Bruce Remick
<malanu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:10a807b3-bf0e-451d...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Excitement over any potential changes to the $100 bill, has probably been
overshadowed by the anticipation of an upcoming Kleenex box redesign.
Goodness Tom! You gotta just go out and SPEND some of these bills and
coins, instead of worrying about what they look like. As long as our bills
have a clear numeral on the front corners, that's pretty much all most of us
care about.
RWF
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:dEo7l.60109$Uk3....@newsfe10.iad...
> Goodness Tom! You gotta just go out and SPEND some of these bills
> and coins, instead of worrying about what they look like. As long as
> our bills have a clear numeral on the front corners, that's pretty
> much all most of us care about.
Except, of course, the currency collectors.
I would like to see the rate of return of collectable old currency for
the last 20 years or so.
Bruce Remick
"RWF" <R...@2009.invalid> wrote in message
news:gjlunr$uq2$1...@news.motzarella.org...
I can't believe there are many serious currency collectors who are
salivating over a modified $100 bill design. Rather, they should be
figuring how to afford another of our beautiful early notes.
I made the mistake(?) of saving some $1 Barr and Kabis/Kennedy notes because
I was told at the time that these short run bills would be real collectors
items. So forty years later, having left those notes in my savings account
would have yielded a better profit today. About like the dozen can't-miss
BU rolls of 1959 Lincolns that I saved. Now if I could just live for
another forty years.......I'd at least probably make the local news when I
croaked.
Peter
Perhaps you can find (and let us all know) an economical way to buy
currency that is sure to be a collector's item and sell short
currently issued postage stamps that you are sure will not?
Bruce Remick
"Peter" <w2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef5c70ff-d123-4782...@e6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
____________
Sure. Buy your currency at face value and hold onto it for 150 years. This
tactic would probably work for just about anything-- cereal boxes, beer
cans, newspapers, etc.-- except for stamps. No charge for the advice. But
if I were intent on adding a piece of currency to my collection with the
potential for profit, it would likely be something over 80 years old that
already has a track record. Not a new $100 bill. But then there aren't
many (any?) attractive 80-year old bills available for my $100. Guess I'll
stick to coins.
As for modern postage stamps, those seem to have lost their glow by the
1960's as profitable collector items. I still have my 1936 Rhode Island FDI
cover that's worth about what it cost in 1936. To be fair and balanced, I
also still have a bunch of 1936 Lincolns that aren't worth much more than
they cost in 1936. Ironically, modern Mint-issued coins seem to be
following the same doomsday path that confounded stamp collectors-- tons of
new issues with too many versions of each issue required for a complete
collection. My solution has been not to worry about long term profits
anymore. You can't take it with you.
RWF
>You can't take it with you.
Then I'm not going!
Bruce Remick
"RWF" <R...@2009.invalid> wrote in message
Now THAT'S a strategy we'd all like to hear more about. How do you figure
it will work? Have you tested it yet?
RWF
Well, I'm still here!
Bruce Remick
"RWF" <R...@2009.invalid> wrote in message
When are you due to go?
Scott Stevenson
wrote:
>
>"Peter" <w2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ef5c70ff-d123-4782...@e6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>
>Perhaps you can find (and let us all know) an economical way to buy
>currency that is sure to be a collector's item and sell short
>currently issued postage stamps that you are sure will not?
>____________
>
>Sure. Buy your currency at face value and hold onto it for 150 years. This
>tactic would probably work for just about anything-- cereal boxes, beer
>cans, newspapers, etc.-- except for stamps. No charge for the advice. But
>if I were intent on adding a piece of currency to my collection with the
>potential for profit, it would likely be something over 80 years old that
>already has a track record. Not a new $100 bill. But then there aren't
>many (any?) attractive 80-year old bills available for my $100. Guess I'll
>stick to coins.
I don't know--80 years gets you back to the end of the
"horseblanket" era, and there are some nice looking ones.
If you want to go another way, there's always the Series 1928 $1
USN, which had just over a million printed.
take care,
Scott
malanu...@aol.com
> <malanutt4l...@aol.com> wrote in message
Damn, Bruce! You seem to have an issue with my interests of new
currency designs. LoL I DO spend money. How do you think I get by?
Certainly not by using your stupid "plastic" The only plastic I'll
ever use on a regular basis, is if the U.S. switches from cotton/linen
to polymer currency. And by the way, I had yet another experience with
some guy having trouble with a creidt card, that kept me in line, for
15 minutes or more, and as I said, the last person in front of us.
This can not be possible, unless credit cards are EXTREMELY flawed,
because its happened to me more than 30 times in my 28 years of life
time, and is really annoying. But hey, people have also accused me of
wanting new $200, $500, and $1,000 bills, just to drool over the new
design, which is NOT true. I want these large bills for my
convenience. Not to stare at a new design. I also want a new $2 bill
design, because I believe it will help that denomination circulate
better, even if some people tend to disagree.
"Roßert G. Schaffrath"
I'm coming back to get it!
Bruce Remick
"Scott Stevenson" <almostf...@UCKSAY.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4960ee00....@news.giganews.com...
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 20:41:41 -0500, "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter" <w2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:ef5c70ff-d123-4782...@e6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>Perhaps you can find (and let us all know) an economical way to buy
>>currency that is sure to be a collector's item and sell short
>>currently issued postage stamps that you are sure will not?
>>____________
>>
>>Sure. Buy your currency at face value and hold onto it for 150 years.
>>This
>>tactic would probably work for just about anything-- cereal boxes, beer
>>cans, newspapers, etc.-- except for stamps. No charge for the advice.
>>But
>>if I were intent on adding a piece of currency to my collection with the
>>potential for profit, it would likely be something over 80 years old that
>>already has a track record. Not a new $100 bill. But then there aren't
>>many (any?) attractive 80-year old bills available for my $100. Guess
>>I'll
>>stick to coins.
>
> I don't know--80 years gets you back to the end of the
> "horseblanket" era, and there are some nice looking ones.
Exactly my point and exactly 80 years, too. Once you get past those large
size bills that look pretty much like today's notes, there are hundreds of
fantastic looking examples, none of which could be bought in decent
condition with a modern $100 bill. I have found obsolete "broken" banknotes
to be an attractive and more affordable alternative. Just like I have found
Conder tokens to be an interesting and affordable alternative to US 18th
century coppers.
>
> If you want to go another way, there's always the Series 1928 $1
> USN, which had just over a million printed.
Like I said, these look too much like today's notes, and I do already have
one example that my mother had saved. I wouldn't care to pay $100 for a
crisp one, even if offered one at that price.
Bruce Remick
<malanu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5c2ede97-715d-4f09...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
___________________
No one can argue with your personal wants. We all have our own. My only
comments involve the premise. My opinion is that you are in a large
minority who would find $500 and $1,000 bills more convenient than plastic
or electronic means for making payments. Even in the era when these
denominations were produced and plastic was only a dream, I doubt people
found them convenient to purchase a home or a car.
I have recently found plastic to be very convenient for online purchases and
for a 5% rebate on gasoline. I never use a credit card to pay for anything
I couldn't otherwise write a check for. And I pay off any balance at the
end of each month so I have never paid a cent in interest. I have had one
problem in about ten years, and it was resolved quickly. With a wallet full
of $500 bills, I would have been out of luck.
I also disagree that a redesigned $2 bill would encourage it to circulate
more. But the fact that we can disagree can make for some interesting
discussions.
Happy New Year!
Peter
>
> - Show quoted text -
Noted.
You neglected to explain the inexpensive and safe way to sell
something short to pay for buying the currency that might appreciate.
mazorj
I have a can of AU 1959 pennies hoarded that year from pocket change.
Prolly worth a solid .01 apiece now. OTOH, a few years ago I sold on
Craig's List for $250 a pristine pack of 50 star $1 bills that I had
hoarded at face value in the 1970s. Without doing the math over the
30 years, I think I came out ahead of banking the original $50 even
with the high interest rates of the late 70s and early 80s. You win
some, you lose some.
Bruce Remick
_________________
Probably because I don't think in those terms and because I don't see how it
relates to what I said in my post. Please clue me in and I'll try again.
Peter
>
> - Show quoted text -
You described a problem whose solution is a perfect hedge.
You declined to speculate in one sort of acquisition ($100 bills or
1936 Lincolns) because you could make more in a savings account. If
you can own something and be short an equal amount of something else
(ideally something that decreases in price but at least doesn't
increase as much in price) then you need not worry about what other
opportunities there are for your money.
I can't think of a perfect way to hedge either, but in case you
could ...
Bruce Remick
__________________
I'll defer to you......... I'm sure I have an appropriate argument
somewhere but I just can't seem to place it at the moment.
Bruce Remick
Maybe I was thinking more along the lines that if I had $100 to invest in a
piece of currency, it wouldn't be a modern redesigned $100 bill. It more
likely would be in something long obsolete that had shown a record of price
rise. I commented that, in hindsight, the face value of my 1936 Lincolns
would have fared better over the decades in a savings account.
I believe perception plays a significant roll in inflation, if that is what
you're referring to. I feel like I'm getting screwed paying $3 for the
draft beer I used to pay 15¢ for 50 years ago, or $20,000 for the VW Beetle
I once could have had for $1300. I don't consider inflation as a factor as
much as I do the actual dollar amount. Maybe that comes as a result of age.
Or maybe I missed your point entirely.
Jon Purkey
>I also want a new $2 bill
>design, because I believe it will help that denomination circulate
>better, even if some people tend to disagree.
I think all the last change to the $2 bill did was cause people to
save them. The same would probably happen if the $2 bill were changed
again. Now, if the $1 bill were eliminated, then people *might* start
using $2 bills more along with $1 coins.