In message net.com,
at 09:56:56 on Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Roger T.
remarked:
Haven't written a cheque in donkey's years.

You can't have a child doing school trips. Even putting those aside, I
write probably ten cheques a month.
--
Roland Perry

In message
wrote:

"Chris Tolley" wrote in message
...
Pete wrote:

When I started drinking about 12 years before D-Day I paid 1/3d pint
for Simmonds, 1/5d for Strongs and 1/6d for Marstons - that 3d
difference was a lot of money at those prices.

Yes, but you appear to have forgotten the convention for writing the
amounts down. It would be either "1s 3d" or "1/3". If one of your prices
had been 1s 4d, then the way you wrote them would have indicated a
farthing.
--

Thought it would also have been set off as 1' 3".



That's one foot three inches.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

"Graeme Wall" wrote

Thought it would also have been set off as 1' 3".

That's one foot three inches.

or one minute three seconds (of arc).

Peter

In article (Neil Williams) writes:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:51:50 +0100, Martin Rich
wrote:
I doubt many people in Britain still use cheques to pay their credit
card bills, in preference to instructing bill payments by phone or
Internet.

I can't see cheques in the UK lasting another 10 years at all, to be
honest. In the US, though, my understanding is that many people still
get paid by cheque, which in the UK is almost completely unknown -
direct bank transfer is the usual.

I can't remember ever having seen a cheque used in the Netherlands. But
I know that cashing them can be a problem, so much so that cashing a
cheque that I received for a refund from the US would cost me more than
its value.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
In message
wrote:

"Chris Tolley" wrote in message
...
Pete wrote:

When I started drinking about 12 years before D-Day I paid 1/3d pint
for Simmonds, 1/5d for Strongs and 1/6d for Marstons - that 3d
difference was a lot of money at those prices.

Yes, but you appear to have forgotten the convention for writing the
amounts down. It would be either "1s 3d" or "1/3". If one of your
prices
had been 1s 4d, then the way you wrote them would have indicated a
farthing.
--

Thought it would also have been set off as 1' 3".



That's one foot three inches.

--
Indeed it is, but I believe that such quotation marks are used for other
things as well.

$2 bills have a worse problem, incidentally. Many people have never
seen one in their entire lives -- or even know they exist -- and they
look different than all the other bills. Many clerks won't take them
without checking with a manager; if the manager hasn't seen one before
(which is fairly rare -- they _are_ still in circulation), they may
refuse to accept it even though the potential loss from a counterfeit is
negligible.

I had trouble enough trying to get rid of some $1 coins that an airport
vending machine gave me some years back. Not really knowing the US monetary
system and being used to a £1 coin, I was most bemused to find that nearly
every shop I tried to spend it in ending up examing it, raising eyebrows and
in one case, calling over a supervisor. If they still use the $1 note, why
have a coin as well? Were they an experiment? Are they still minted?

--
---
This message has come to an end.
Please exit to your left.
---

"Lew 1" wrote in message
...

I had trouble enough trying to get rid of some $1 coins that an airport
vending machine gave me some years back. Not really knowing the US
monetary
system and being used to a £1 coin, I was most bemused to find that nearly
every shop I tried to spend it in ending up examing it, raising eyebrows
and
in one case, calling over a supervisor.

Ignorance?

If they still use the $1 note, why
have a coin as well? Were they an experiment? Are they still minted?


They are certainly still being minted. They started a dollar-coin minting
campaign about a year ago with all the deceased US presidents, as a matter
of fact.

There have been US 1-dollar coins in circulation synonymously with the
1-dollar note on and off for the past 30 years at least. There were the
Eisenhower dollars of the 1970s, which are roughly the size of a 5-pound
coin. Then, in the late 1970s/early 1980s, they started minting the Susan B.
Anthony dollars. I understood that this was to be a real effort to eliminate
the dollar banknote, though the coins' size was too close to a 25-cent
piece, which created confusion. AIUI, the SBAs were never really popular,
though they were useful in vending machines.

Then came the Sacagawea dollars of the late 1990s, which are larger than
SBAs. I don't know how popular those coins are or not, but as long as the
dollar note continues to exist in circulation, I don't think that they are
going to gain that much popularity. I am also guessing that coins from the
presidential dollar campaign will mostly be hoarded, rather than used in
circulation, as long as the dollar-note exists.

I have heard that one reason they don't do away with the dollar note with
its image of George Washington is psychological as the 1-dollar note is
probably one of the foremost symbols of the United States. Take that away
and what do you have, so the thinking might go. This could have adverse
effects.

I have also found myself wondering why the Federal Reserve does not issue a
multi-sided coin, if they were really serious about eradicating the dollar
note. This would avoid confusion with other coins and not require it to be
so big, as was the case with the Eisenhower or Liiberty dollars.

In message
wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
In message
wrote:

"Chris Tolley" wrote in message
...
Pete wrote:

When I started drinking about 12 years before D-Day I paid 1/3d pint
for Simmonds, 1/5d for Strongs and 1/6d for Marstons - that 3d
difference was a lot of money at those prices.

Yes, but you appear to have forgotten the convention for writing the
amounts down. It would be either "1s 3d" or "1/3". If one of your
prices
had been 1s 4d, then the way you wrote them would have indicated a
farthing.
--

Thought it would also have been set off as 1' 3".



That's one foot three inches.

--
Indeed it is, but I believe that such quotation marks are used for other
things as well.



As someone else has pointed out, for angles, but not, in my experience, for
monetary values. Remember the default was 3 values, pounds, shilling and
pence, the use of ' and " wouldn't allow that.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

wrote:

I have heard that one reason they don't do away with the dollar note with
its image of George Washington is psychological as the 1-dollar note is
probably one of the foremost symbols of the United States. Take that away
and what do you have, so the thinking might go. This could have adverse
effects.

Interesting - eight years ago I recall seeing posters on the New York Subway
showing Washington himself explaining his face isn't on the dollar coin as
though this was an asset...

wrote:
"Lew 1" wrote in message
...
If they still use the $1 note, why
have a coin as well? Were they an experiment? Are they still minted?

They are certainly still being minted. They started a dollar-coin minting
campaign about a year ago with all the deceased US presidents, as a matter
of fact.

There have been US 1-dollar coins in circulation synonymously with the
1-dollar note on and off for the past 30 years at least. There were the
Eisenhower dollars of the 1970s, which are roughly the size of a 5-pound
coin. Then, in the late 1970s/early 1980s, they started minting the Susan B.
Anthony dollars. I understood that this was to be a real effort to eliminate
the dollar banknote, though the coins' size was too close to a 25-cent
piece, which created confusion. AIUI, the SBAs were never really popular,
though they were useful in vending machines.

The public _hated_ the SBA dollar coin, both for that reason and because
it had a relatively obscure woman on the face instead of a dead
president, which has been our custom for many, many decades now, just as
many other countries put their current leaders on their coins and/or notes.

Then came the Sacagawea dollars of the late 1990s, which are larger than
SBAs.

They are exactly the same size and weight, and have the same electrical
properties, as SBA dollars so that they work interchangeably in vending
machines. However, the new coins are gold-colored (at least when minted
-- they tarnish rapidly), which helps distinguish them from quarters by
sight, and have a smooth edge instead of a milled one, which helps
distinguish them by touch. They're also slightly thicker and larger
than quarters, but not enough for most people to distinguish by sight or
touch.

I don't know how popular those coins are or not,

People hate Sac dollars almost as much as they hate SBA dollars.
They're heavy and still easy to mistake for quarters if you're in a
hurry. And they still didn't have a dead president on them, but rather
a native American woman most people have never heard of, which many
people mistake to be an illegal immigrant sneaking over the border
carrying a baby. From bad to worse.

but as long as the dollar note continues to exist in circulation, I
don't think that they are going to gain that much popularity.

People don't like them because they're heavy and bulky in comparison to
bills representing the same amount of money. Of course, there are
problems with bills, particularly in vending machines, but that doesn't
outweigh the downside. Maybe if we had a $5 coin too...

The Sac dollar was specifically introduced so that we could stop
printing $1 notes, and there was a law passed to that effect, but the
vending machine lobby (and public opinion, to a lesser extent) got that
delayed indefinitely.

I am also guessing that coins from the presidential dollar campaign will
mostly be hoarded, rather than used in circulation, as long as the
dollar-note exists.

That's intentional on the part of the Mint. They've made _tons_ of
money (no pun intended) on people hoarding state quarters, and they hope
for similar success with the presidential dollars. They also claim as a
goal education about some of the lesser-known presidents, and it also
puts off the darn problem of picking which dead president (NOT another
obscure woman!) to put on the dollar coin for a couple decades --
they'll just use all of them in rotation.

I have heard that one reason they don't do away with the dollar note with
its image of George Washington is psychological as the 1-dollar note is
probably one of the foremost symbols of the United States. Take that away
and what do you have, so the thinking might go. This could have adverse
effects.

Indeed. Too bad Washington's face is already on the quarter, or we
could have solved that problem easily by putting him on the dollar coin.

I have also found myself wondering why the Federal Reserve does not issue a
multi-sided coin, if they were really serious about eradicating the dollar
note. This would avoid confusion with other coins and not require it to be
so big, as was the case with the Eisenhower or Liiberty dollars.

The Federal Reserve does not issue coins; that's up to the US Mint, and
the Fed buys coins from them at face value. In contrast, the Fed buys
notes from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing for $1 per 1000.
There's an obvious bias there...

AFAIK, the US has never had multi-sided coins, nor bimetallic ones.
Both would be interesting approaches to the problem, but _any_ change
from the status quo will be resisted by the vending machine lobby and
the retail lobby, and fight a long battle with public opinion. It's
easier to just maintain the status quo, even if it's not ideal.

S