Final report

4.5.14  Blind and Visually-Impair ed 
As part of the outreach efforts and to understand issues associated with the 3.4M US citizens 
who are legally blind or visually-impaired [20], the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) was 
consulted on issues associated with the use of coins.  The comments that were received were 
generally positive concerning the ability of the blind and visually-impaired to recognize and 
distinguish among the incumbent circulating coins minted in the US.  While generally able to 
quickly distinguish coins by their current tactile features when a mixture of coin denominations 
is present, when handled in isolation from other coins, some difficulty still remains in 
distinguishing between some US coin denominations: 
x  The one-cent and 5-cent coins 
x  The quarter dollar and Susan B. Anthony dollar coins. 
Both the one-cent and 5-cent coins have smooth edges; aside from dimensions, no other 
significant distinguishing tactile features are available to facilitate the identity of these coins to 
blind or visually-impaired individuals. 
The similarity between the quarter dollar and the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin has been well 
documented [21].  Both have reeds along their edges and are of similar dimensions and color. 
The currently minted dollar coins have edge lettering, which is not widely distinguishable to the 
blind or visually impaired.  The otherwise smooth edge is helpful in distinguishing today’s dollar 
coin from the quarter dollar coin.  However, when asked to identify a quarter dollar coin whose 
reeds were worn off, neither of the two NFB individuals (both either blind or visually-impaired) 
who were interviewed in person for this outreach effort were able to confidently identify the 
coin’s denomination. 
Given the difficulty tactilely distinguishing between the one-cent and 5-cent coins and between 
the quarter dollar (with worn reeds) and dollar coins, changes to the dimensions of circulating 
coins may be problematic for the blind and visually impaired without additional tactile features 
215  

being included.  Introducing new coins of differing dimensions than those of incumbent coins 
would likely increase the difficulty of discriminating through tactile means alone among what 
would then be a larger pool of circulating coins.  Material changes in the construction of coins 
would generally not impact the visually impaired.  However, changes that would result in large 
differences to the weight of coins, such as minting an aluminum coin, would be useful to the 
blind and visually-impaired in identifying the various coins in circulation. 
The discussions with the NFB did not reveal any requirements for new investments to be made 
as a result of changes to US circulating coins.  Therefore, no conversion costs were attributed to 
the blind and visually-impaired as a result of changes to US circulating coins as contemplated 
and discussed in the present study. 
4.5.15  Public 
While the population size of individuals that engage in hand-to-hand transactions of coins is 
greater in number than all other stakeholders, it was generally agreed by the project team (and 
informally by many of the individuals that were interviewed for the outreach efforts) that these 
individuals (which include nearly all US citizens over the age of about 10 years) would be able 
to quickly adapt to visual and tactile elements of any new coins and correctly identify the 
denomination of these coins.  Therefore, no conversion costs were computed for the general 
public as it relates to the introduction of alternative US circulating coins. 
Based upon comments received from a notice and opportunity for public comment that was 
posted by the United States Mint in the Federal Register [2], the public differs widely in their 
opinion about introducing alternative coins into circulation. 
The cost to produce the one-cent and 5-cent coins has been well documented and discussed in the 
public media [22, 23].  However, many US citizens remain skeptical about an implication that 
lower-cost coins reflect runaway inflation or that such coins represent some attempt by the 
United States Government to devalue our country’s assets.  This thought was expressed in a 
report prepared by the Department of the Treasury in April 1980.  “It is probable that the light 
weight of aluminum would be a negative factor in public acceptance.  The light weight and less 
expensive material will be perceived by the public as further confirmation of the declining value 
of the Nation’s coinage” [24].  Some citizens would welcome changes in, while others may react 
negatively to changes in the color of US coinage.  Hoarding of legacy coins would likely 
increase upon public announcements declaring that changes to US coins are planned.  To gain a 
more comprehensive awareness of and to obtain focused information about public opinion 
related to changes to US circulating coins, separate and focused public opinion polls are 
recommended to complement the findings of the present study.  New Zealand was successful in 
gathering such data on public opinions prior to introducing their new coin set in mid-2006 [25, 
26]. 
More specific replies received from the United States Mint’s public call for comments [2] are 
discussed here.  Responses were collected by the United States Mint.  In total, 224 responses 
were shared with CTC.  Sources of the feedback included private citizens, material suppliers, 
coin-processing equipment manufacturers and distributors, and associations that represent 
selected stakeholders.  Of those expressing an opinion about the acceptability of changing the 
metallic composition of US circulating coins, 59 responses were in favor of making a change, 
216  

while only 24 responses indicated that they do not support any change in US circulating coinage 
materials of construction.  Comments that expressed individual desires for coin characteristics 
and/or properties, as they relate to the focus of the current study, included: 
x  Tarnish and corrosion resistance 
x  Pleasant and unique color with good visual appearance and lasting shine 
x  Aesthetically rich and sharp details 
x  Made of familiar metals with raw material supply stability and intrinsic metallic value 
x  Low-cost alternatives to save taxpayer money 
x  Have a distinctive ringing sound 
x  Be nontoxic with no leaching of constituent materials, be antifungal and have no sharp 
edges 
x  Not easily bent, be nick resistant, have high hardness and suitable density 
x  Does not cause excessive wear on coin-processing equipment 
x  Have reliable EMS properties that differ from commonly available materials 
x  Be easily recycled 
x  Be durable and portable 
x  Be resistant to counterfeiting 
x  Be compatible with existing manufacturing processes. 
Suggested materials included: 
x  Nickel-plated zinc for the 5-cent coin 
x  Steel including copper-nickel-plated steel, stainless steel and Multi-Ply-plated steel 
x  Silver or gold 
x  Aluminum one-cent coin, aluminum-clad bronze, aluminum-bronze and copper-plated 
aluminum one-cent coin 
x  Nickel composite 
x  90% rhodium/10% copper for a 20-dollar coin 
x  90% palladium/10% copper dollar coin 
x  Bi-metallic coins 
x  10% silver/90% cupronickel 
x  Titanium, magnesium, manganese, zinc and/or tin. 
Other thoughts that were offered included: 
x  Mint a two-cent coin instead of one-cent coins 
x  Eliminate the one-cent coin 
x  Eliminate the 5-cent coin 
x  Eliminate the use of manganese in coinage 
x  Eliminate the one-dollar note in favor of a one-dollar coin (complement with a two-dollar 
note) 
x  Eliminate zinc (which was claimed to pose a danger to pets) 
x  Do not use aluminum 
x  Eliminate the half dollar coin 
x  Change all coins at the same time 
x  Mint even higher-denomination coins (five-dollar, ten-dollar and up through one-
thousand-dollar coins) 
217  

x  Put a hole in the coins (to reduce metal usage) 
x  Mint more half dollar coins 
x  Eliminate clad coins 
x  Drastically reduce the production of one-cent and 5-cent coins to coax hoarders to release 
their supply 
x  Shape coins (other than circular) to allow for quicker determination of their denomination 
x  Reduce coin dimensions 
x  Use round coins without ridges or knurls having even thickness all around and lays flat 
and is of heavy metal (not aluminum or plastic) 
x  Reduce the number of artistic designs used on coins 
x  Make all coins of a single metal. 
Of note is the general opposition of the National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA) 
to circulating coins that are steel or plated steel in design [15].  NAMA cited the need for 
extensive upgrades to the coin acceptors for their members if steel-based circulating coins are 
introduced in the US.  In addition, NAMA raised concern about potential problems with 
misvalidation of steel-based coins and difficulty in distinguishing such coins from the increasing 
number and availability of steel-based coins that are circulating throughout the world.  NAMA 
recommended against the use of steel-based coins in high-denomination coins. 
4.6  
SUMMARY OF IMPACT TO STAKEHOLDERS FOR EACH METALLIC 
COMPOSITION-DENOMINATION CONSIDERED 
The discussion above highlights the most significant impacts to all stakeholders considered in the 
present study.  Changes to the US circulating coin set and any of several coin characteristics 
and/or properties used to process coins were considered.  The major factors impacting coin 
stakeholders are visual and tactile recognition and automated methods to recognize, validate and 
otherwise process coins. 
The composition and fundamental methods of manufacturing the 5-cent, dime, quarter dollar and 
half dollar coins have not changed since at least 1965.  During that time many sophisticated 
automated coin-processing devices have been successfully developed and marketed.  While the 
majority of modern coin-processing devices rely upon active sensor technology that can be easily 
reprogrammed to accept new coins, many other such older or passive devices, which 
mechanically validate a coin, rely upon physical properties and specific characteristics of US 
circulating coins that could change with alternative materials of construction. 
Therefore, careful planning must be exercised in selecting alternative materials of construction 
when defining compositions of an alternative generation of US circulating coins, if in fact such a 
change is to be made.  Given that inflation will inevitably overcome whatever attempts are made 
to keep coin manufacturing costs below the assigned face value of the coinage, changes will 
eventually be required to coins (and/or to their assigned face value) so that they can be minted 
and continue supporting commerce without creating an undue burden to taxpayers. 
Tables 4-10 and 4-11 summarize the impacts discussed throughout this chapter and summarize 
the cost impact resulting from each of the materials/denominations that have been considered for 
218  

the present alternative metals study.  An indication of the relative impact to various stakeholders 
is presented for two different scenarios: 
x  Material change while maintaining the dimensions of incumbent circulating coins (Table 
4-10) 
x  Coin dimensions change and accompany the material change (Table 4-11). 
Three total conversion cost values are given in these tables: 
x  Low 
x  Most probable (Est) 
x  High. 
These values bracket the expected conversion costs to the US stakeholders that are dependent 
upon coinage for commerce.  The range of values accounts for sensitivities of the many factors 
that impact the stakeholders as discussed above in those sections that relate to each of the 
stakeholder groups identified in Tables 4-10 and 4-11. 
In all cases, the assumed date of introducing alternative US coins into circulation is the Fall of 
2014; this is also the date that all equipment upgrades or replacements were assumed to occur for 
all stakeholders.  Introducing coins at a later date would generally result in a small reduction in 
the magnitude of the conversion costs as older automated units are replaced with units built 
around modern technology that allows for easier and less-expensive upgrades. 
Commercially available equipment throughout the US from one of the major American-owned 
active coin-validation equipment manufacturers relies upon coin validation technology that is 
unable to read ferromagnetic-steel-based coins with all sensors (see the section below entitled 
“Validation of Nonsense Pieces”).  This manufacturer indicated that using ferromagnetic-steel­
based coins would require a complete replacement of all their currently fielded vending machine 
units (and selected others) throughout the US.  The associated costs are reflected in Table 4-10 
where one of every three coin validators for the vending industry was assumed to be replaced if 
ferromagnetic-steel-based coins (5-cent, dime and/or quarter dollar) are introduced into 
circulation. 
One of the major manufacturers of active-coin validators for vending machines and other 
stakeholder equipment was able to distinguish between incumbent 5-cent coins and both 669z 
and G6 mod 5-cent nonsense pieces
106 
(see the section below entitled “Validation of Nonsense 
Pieces”).  Given the acceptance windows typically used for the US-based validators from this 
manufacturer, the majority of the US-based units would reject 669z and G6 mod 5-cent nonsense 
pieces.  Although alloy and/or material processing changes could be completed to alter these 
alloys so that a later generation of nonsense pieces from these modified alloys would be 
indistinguishable from incumbent 5-cent coins, an assumption was made in this analysis that 5­
cent coins made from either 669z or G6 mod alloys would require that all active vending 
machine validators from this manufacturer would require upgrading or replacement. 
Approximately one third of the US-based vending machine active coin validators would require 
this upgrade if 669z or G6 mod (in their current chemistry and processing conditions) were 
selected for the 5-cent coin. 
106 
These two copper-based alloys were considered by some to be nearly seamless; if their compositions and/or 
processing routes were slightly altered, they may be found to be a seamless alloy option. 
219  

Table 4-10. 
Impact to Stakeholders:  Maintain Incumbent Coin Dimensions and Change Material Composition of US Coins 
Material 
D
enomin
a
ti
o
n
Ven
d
in
g
 M
a
ch
in
e 
Own
ers 
a
n
d
 Op
era
to
rs
Laundr
om
at O
w
ne
rs
 and 
Op
era
to
rs
P
a
y 
P
h
on
e Own
ers a
n
d
Op
era
to
rs
M
u
n
ici
p
a
l P
a
rk
in
g
 Offi
ci
a
ls
Am
u
sem
en
t M
a
ch
in
e Own
ers 
a
n
d
 Op
era
to
rs
Ga
m
in
g
 M
a
ch
in
e Own
ers 
and O
p
er
at
or
s
Tra
n
sit Officia
ls
Ca
r Wa
sh
 Own
ers a
n
d
Op
era
to
rs
M
erch
a
n
ts
Manuf
ac
tu
re
rs
 of
Co
m
m
erci
a
l Co
in
-H
a
n
d
li
n
g
Equip
m
en
t
Ven
d
in
g
 M
a
ch
in
e a
n
d 
Oth
er 
Co
in
-Accep
to
r 
Manuf
ac
tur
er
s
Dep
o
sito
ry
 In
stit
u
tion
s
Co
in 
a
n
d
 Cu
rren
cy
 Han
d
lers/
A
rmor
ed
-C
ar
 O
p
er
a
to
rs
B
lind and 
V
is
u
all
y
-I
mp
air
ed
Public 
Estimated Total Cost 
Impact in Fall 2014 
Accounting for Net 
Effective Conversion 
Cost Associated with a 
20% Corporate Tax 
($M) 
Low 
Est** 
High 
5052-H32 Aluminum 
One-
cent 
Ŷ 
Ŷ 
Ŷ 
Ɣ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ŷ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ŷ 
52.3 
55.2 
59.3 
CPS – Jarden 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ɣ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
3.3 
5.2 
6.9 
CPS – RM 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ɣ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
3.3 
5.2 
6.9 
302HQ SS 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ɣ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
3.3 
5.2 
6.9 
Surface-Modified Zinc 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ɣ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
3.3 
5.2 
6.9 
NPS – RM 
5­
cent 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
444.9 
531.5 
915.8 
Unplated 31157     (‡) 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
8.8 
11.3 
13.7 
MPS – RCM 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
444.9 
531.5 
915.8 
Dura-White-Plated Zinc 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ɣ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
247.6 
277.4 
619.3 
669z 
Ɣ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ɣ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
46.2 
56.4 
71.0 
G6 Mod 
Ɣ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ɣ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
46.2 
56.4 
71.0 
302HQ SS 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
247.6 
277.4 
619.3 
Surface-Modified Zinc 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ɣ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
247.6 
277.4 
619.3 
302HQ Stainless Steel 
10­
cent 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
247.6 
277.4 
619.3 
NPS – RM 
25­
cent 
Ŷ 
Ɣ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ŷ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
517.8 
632.5 
1042.8 
MPS – RCM 
Ŷ 
Ɣ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ŷ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
517.8 
632.5 
1042.8 
302HQ SS 
Ŷ 
Ɣ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ŷ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ɣ 
Ŷ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
318.3 
375.6 
743.1 
669z-Clad C110
 (‡)  (†) 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ 
Ÿ