"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:11:27 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

That might be down to interpretation. The last intentionally-regular
issues for general circulation seem to have been after the 1887 Royal
Jubilee. Since then have been mostly commemorative issues but even
before Victoria's time they don't seem to have been established as an
"everyday" issue. I suspect their size possibly clashed with some kind
of practical threshold above which coins were inconvenient to carry or
handle.

Was the size of coins really an issue, though?

How were people in the United States handling the 20-dollar coins, or even
the Liberty silver dollars?

The Eisenhower dollars of the 1970s were also quite big, and I believe that
they were in general circulation.

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:41:19 +0100, wrote in
misc.transport.urban-transit:


"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:11:27 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

That might be down to interpretation. The last intentionally-regular
issues for general circulation seem to have been after the 1887 Royal
Jubilee. Since then have been mostly commemorative issues but even
before Victoria's time they don't seem to have been established as an
"everyday" issue. I suspect their size possibly clashed with some kind
of practical threshold above which coins were inconvenient to carry or
handle.

Was the size of coins really an issue, though?

How were people in the United States handling the 20-dollar coins, or even
the Liberty silver dollars?

Wasn't the $20 gold piece smaller than the Liberty dollar? As I recall
gold is more dense than silver.

The Eisenhower dollars of the 1970s were also quite big, and I believe that
they were in general circulation.

They were the same size at the Liberty IIRC.

"Free Lunch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:41:19 +0100, wrote in
misc.transport.urban-transit:

Wasn't the $20 gold piece smaller than the Liberty dollar? As I recall
gold is more dense than silver.

It's possible that it had a smllaer diameter, but not by that much. They
were used in general circulation, in any event, as were the silver dollar
coins.

The Eisenhower dollars of the 1970s were also quite big, and I believe
that
they were in general circulation.

They were the same size at the Liberty IIRC.

I think that you are right, based on my own recollections.

Like I said, however, they were quite large and in circulation.

It was when they introduced the Susan B. Anothony dollars that complications
started with dollar coins in the United States, IIRC, because their size
allowed them to be easily confused with a 25-cent coin. Would it not have
been easier to put shape on the coin's circumference, as many nations do?

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 12:41:19 +0100, wrote:


"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:11:27 +0100, "Peter Masson"
wrote:

That might be down to interpretation. The last intentionally-regular
issues for general circulation seem to have been after the 1887 Royal
Jubilee. Since then have been mostly commemorative issues but even
before Victoria's time they don't seem to have been established as an
"everyday" issue. I suspect their size possibly clashed with some kind
of practical threshold above which coins were inconvenient to carry or
handle.

Was the size of coins really an issue, though?

Think also in terms of "Is that the smallest you've got?". For the
ordinary person they possibly had the same inconvenience as a 50 or
100 pound note now has for everyday use.

How were people in the United States handling the 20-dollar coins, or even
the Liberty silver dollars?

The Eisenhower dollars of the 1970s were also quite big, and I believe that
they were in general circulation.