Gee, I’m sorry you don’t like having a new anti-counterfeiting feature on the $10!
… which by its omission, I should add, makes the $5 easier to fake. But who cares if someone cranks out a boatload of bogus 5-dollar bills and damages the U.S. economy in the process? We get to “preserve the symmetry”! Heck, let’s just throw out that watermark and plastic security thread while we’re at it – they’re off-center to begin with. And those awful blue-and-red microthreads scattered throughout the paper! The paper would look so much more homogeneous and tasteful if they weren’t there. Same goes for that microprinted “United States of America” going around the dead guy’s portrait – hidden messages are for nerds!
So you’re telling me, that the only way to copyproof our currency is to make it completely hideous, is that correct?
Is this the “eye-melt” theory of currency safeguarding?
You do realize that the arrangement of the various elements of anti-counterfeiting devices do not lower the effectiveness, right? I mean if they wanted to, they could douse all four corner numbers with the color-change ink you so adore, and succeed in both symmetry and our economic stability. The U.S. Treasury can go ahead and add whatever crime-detering toys the boys want, but at least spend the hour to ty to make it look like it was designed by the primate house at the National Zoo.
SterlingNorth
[sub]To further the study of currency design, please send me some examples. Preferedly in large denominations! :D[/sub]
PS you’d better run, not walk to the Treasury Dept, tracer! They decided to not safeguard our ones at all. Think of all the damage to the economy if someone cranks out a boatload of bogus one-dollar bills! Time is of the essence!
And in increasing the cost of printing each bill. Putting a number-shaped pattern of color-changing ink on a bill adds a couple cents to the cost of printing it. Putting four such number-shaped patterns of color-changing ink on the bill would be nearly four times as costly as putting one pattern on it. It’s a balancing act between increased security and increased production cost.
Actually, that’s been a … er, well … shall we say “tradition” for about a decade now. In the early 1990s, before the modern currency re-design was even a glimmer in the Treasury Department’s eyes, U.S. paper money started being printed with a polymer “security thread” emdedded in it that said “USA” and the denomination over and over in little teensy uppercase letters. (You can see it if you hold the note up to the light.) However, the $1 did not get this new security thread. Nor did the $1 get the microprinted “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” around the portrait like all the other denominations did.
The reason? The same reason why the color-changing ink only appears in one place on the new $10 and larger bills: production cost. A $1 bill in circulation only lasts for an average of 14-18 months before it’s too ratty to use anymore – and even when they are in circulation, they’re only worth one lousy dollar anyway. A security threads would add significantly to the production cost of a new $1 bill.
Yes, I realize that what you’re really saying in your P.S. is that counterfeiting 5-dollar bills would be pointless 'cause they’re not worth very much anyway.
Who said that was the only way you could add color shift ink to the batch. Must I list every single possibile location for the color change ink so that we could debate the cost-effective merits on each.
OK lets begin.
[ul]
[li]On the shield of the Department of Treasury[/li][li]On the signature of the US Treasurer or Secretary of Treasure (or both)[/li][li]“The United States of America”[/li][li]on the initials of the above[/li][li]“Federal Reserve Note”[/li][li]“In God We Trust”[/li][li]on the disclamer “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.”[/li][li]on the text that denote the value of the bill (“TEN DOLLARS”)[/li][li]On the names of the featured portrait[/li][li]on the stamp that denotes which bank produced the note.[/li][/ul]
I’m sure you could come up with more.
