It’s Not Worth Much, But 1,000 Are Made Per Second
Posted by Michelle Moquin on August 3rd, 2009
Just what am I talking about? The coin that many of us get bothered by when we have too many, but are grateful to have when we need just one….I’m talking about the little copper Penny.
Here’s 10 things you might not know about this little coin:
- Aug. 2, 2009, marks the 100th anniversary of the Lincoln penny, the longest-running U.S. coin still in circulation. The U.S. Mint had been producing one-cent coins since its founding in 1792, but the 1909 penny (which replaced the Indian-head coin) was the first coin on which a President’s likeness appeared. Teddy Roosevelt commissioned the coin to celebrate the 100th birthday of Abraham Lincoln. While most people applauded the new design, former Confederate soldiers were upset at the prospect of carrying the image of Lincoln in their pockets. Today, on the occasion of Lincoln’s 200th birthday, the U.S. Mint has produced four special-edition pennies with reverse-side designs that depict different periods in the famous President’s life. Three of the pennies have already been released; the final design will debut on Aug. 13.
- Despite its declining buying power — and a call by some to drop it from circulation altogether — the penny is still the U.S.’s most popular coin. Last year 5.4 billion pennies were produced. That’s more than twice the number of quarters minted, and five times as many dimes. The Lincoln penny accounts for roughly half of all coins minted within a year. About 1,000 pennies are made per second.
- Copper and zinc, the two metals found in a penny, were rationed during World War II, so the U.S. Mint had to come up with another way to produce its most popular coin. After much debate, the government decided on zinc-coated steel. The steel penny saved enough copper to make 1.25 million shells of ammunition. The gray-colored penny was manufactured between February and December 1943, but it encountered a number of problems: it rusted, it confused vending machines, and it was frequently mistaken for a dime. In 1944, a new metal combination was selected, and in 1946 production of the original prewar penny resumed.
- Sometimes pennies can be more trouble than they’re worth. While a 1909 penny could send a postcard or buy a few eggs, in 2009 it can’t even purchase itself: the U.S. Mint spends 1.4 cents on every penny it produces. “When people start leaving a monetary unit at the cash register for the next customer, that unit is too small to be useful,” argued Harvard economics professor Gregory Mankiw in a 2006 Wall Street Journal article. Arizona representative Jim Kolbe introduced the 2002 Legal Tender Modernization Act to Congress, which would have eliminated the penny. The bill failed miserably.
- In response to the copper coin’s declining value, some stores have stopped accepting it as a form of payment. In 2007, a New York City man was so incensed when a Chinese restaurant refused to let him pay for his dinner with 10 pennies (along with other cash) that he persuaded a state senator to draft a bill requiring pennies to be accepted everywhere and at all times. (The bill was not passed.) And in 2009, a number of Concord, Mass., shopkeepers banded together to protest pennies — on Lincoln’s 200th birthday, no less.
- For much of its life, the penny was produced in three different mints. Most of the 1909 Lincoln pennies were produced in Philadelphia, where the presses stamped no identifying “mintmark” on the coins. A smaller number, produced in San Francisco, were marked by the single letter S. Coins minted in Denver — starting in 1911 — bore the stamp D. Production today is divided between two mints, Denver and Philadelphia, and has grown speedier: the U.S. Mint took more than two years to produce its first million coins, but today the Philadelphia Mint can make approximately that many in 45 minutes.
- Like so much else American, the name penny comes from England. The first modern English coin was the silver penny of Offa, the 8th century king of Mercia. By the 18th century — when the first U.S. coins went into circulation — Brits still used the word penny as the singular for pence, just as they do today. The coin’s name derives from the Old English pennige, pronounced, roughly, penny-yuh.
- To design the new Lincoln penny in 1909, President Teddy Roosevelt enlisted the artist Victor David Brenner, whose earlier Lincoln plaque he had admired. The design featured a Lincoln bust on one side and wheat shafts on the other. (In 1959, on the 150th anniversary of Lincoln’s birthday, the grains were swapped out for a rendering of the Lincoln memorial.) The Lincoln cent marked the beginning of 100 continuous years of pennies featuring the words In God We Trust. (Read TIME’s business blog.)
- Pennies will buy you so little today that the concept of dividing them into even smaller change seems ludicrous. Not so back in 1786, when the U.S. Continental Congress approved the mill, describing it as the “lowest money of accompt, of which 1,000 shall be equal to the federal dollar.” (The term comes from the Latin mille, meaning 1,000.) While the Federal Government never actually produced a coin worth one-tenth of a cent, some states and local governments issued mills made of such cheap materials as tin,aluminum, plastic or paper. By the 1960s, however, the coins had depreciated so much in value that their production was virtually abandoned.
- The 1943 copper-alloy cent is one of the most enigmatic coins in American numismatics— and reportedly the most valuable Lincoln penny of all. Just 40 of the coins — probably created by accident on copper-alloy one-cent blanks left in the presses in the wartime years when pennies were converted to steel — are known to exist. The first 1943 copper cent was sold in 1958 for more than $40,000. In 1996, another went for a whopping $82,500. Their collection value makes 1943 copper pennies a prime target for counterfeiters: fakes are often made by coating steel cents with copper or altering the dates of 1945, 1948 and 1949 cents. How can you tell if your 1943 copper penny is real? Use a magnet. If the penny sticks, it’s not copper. Better luck next time.
-Time on line
Here’s my two cents on a few thoughts.
Hi Al: I am aware of the dictionary definition of ‘racism’ and I appreciate your point, as it allows me to say more.
What seems to be flooding the media, as well as this blog, is white people discriminating against otw’s. I have yet to experience otw’s trying to rid this world of the white race; they just want to be seen and treated equally to whites, not be rid of them. They want to share the world space and have the same opportunities that whites have. Racist whites on the other hand, do not want to share the world space let alone give otw’s equal opportunities.
Let’s also remember that it was the whites that annihilated the American Indian. The Germans (whites) killed millions of Jews. The Aborigines are victims of racism by the hands of the Australians (Whites). And blacks were enslaved by the hands of whites. Need I go on?
The KKK are white supremacists. What group of otw’s have a group that pushes supremacy? I know they’re out there but did they not come about defensively to counter white supremacy? If there were no white supremacist groups out there, would other supremacist groups even exist? If whites racists didn’t exist, would racism?
Let it be known, I do not hate my own race. I am just disappointed and outraged that people can feel so strongly against another human being because of their skin color.
Diversity is beautiful.
Anonymous #5: I will agree with you about 2012 not getting here fast enough. When Obama gets re-elected in 2012, watch out - we think he’s got a set now? The man we see now is just getting started. And by the way aren’t we a tad hypocritical? I think the repugs have been quite good at bending the law their way, not to mention election fraud. Thanks Anonymous #8 for clarification.
Anna: If I could get away and come to your island, I would.
Umm…Anonymous #15, I agree with Anonymous #20, No one indoctrinates black children. As far as crime, I don’t believe that there are more black criminals than whites – that numbered is way skewed because blacks (and otw’s) are the targets and whites get off. We see it time and time again that blacks are sent to jail for a crime, when whites are set free for the same crime. Now, I’m not talking ‘dahmer’esque type criminals.
When a type of race is held down by another type of race, the group that is held down might resort to things that they would not do, should they have the same opportunities that the other group has.
In regards to black on black violence, how would whites act if the roles were reversed and whites did not have equal opportunity? How many whites would be fighting each other? How many whites would be targeted and sent to prison? And I’m not saying that all crime is because of the lack of opportunity to otw’s but you have to admit that it does encourage it. And then you have otw’s targeted to begin with….What easier way to help rid the world of a certain group that one doesn’t like?
Well…that is the end of my two cents. A penny for your thoughts? Blog me.
Gratefully your blog host,
michelle
Aka BABE: Your Bad Ass Bitch Editor
For archives dated before January 17, 2008 click on my Blogroll:
or click here: “A Day in the life of…”
All content on this site are property of Michelle Moquin © copyright 2009
sonal, Travel, Random, Photography, Religion, Aliens, Art, Entertainment, Food, Books, Thoughts, Media, Culture, Love, Sex, Poetry, Prose, Friends, Technology, Humor, Health, Writing, Events, Movies, Sports, Video, Christianity, Atheist, Blogging, History, Work, Education, Business, Fashion, Barack Obama, People, Internet, Relationships, Faith, Photos, Videos, Hillary Clinton, School, Reviews, God, TV, Philosophy, Fun, Science, Environment, Design, The Page, Rants, Pictures, Church, Blog, Nature, Marketing, Television, Democrats, Parenting, Miscellaneous, Current Events, Film, Spirituality, Obama, Musings, Home, Human Rights, Society, Comedy, Me, Random Thoughts, Research, Government, Election 2008, Baseball, Opinion, Recipes, Children, Iraq, Funny, Women, Economics, America, Misc, Commentary, John McCain, Reflections, All, Celebrities, Inspiration, Lifestyle, Theology, Linux, Kids, Games, World, India, Literature, China, Ramblings, Fitness, Money, Review, War, Articles, Economy, Journal, Quotes, NBA, Crime, Anime, Islam, 2008, Stories, Prayer, Diary, Jesus, Buddha, Muslim, Israel, Europe, Links, Marriage, Fiction, American Idol, Software, Leadership, Pop culture, Rants, Video Games, Republicans, Updates, Political, Football, Healing, Blogs, Shopping, USA, Class, Matrix, Course, Work, Web 2.0, My Life, Psychology, Gay, Happiness, Advertising, Field Hockey, Hip-hop, sex, fucking, ass, Soccer, sox"
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:27 am
SIMPLE HAND EXERCISE REDUCES BLOOD PRESSURE
I remember my grandmother doing isometric exercises each day when I was little. The simple routine seemed to work for her, since she lived well into her 90s. Isometrics may be making a comeback… as an effective way to control blood pressure. New studies show that isometric hand exercises can help you to quite literally get a grip on blood pressure problems and — kudos to Grandma — the origins of this finding do, in fact, date back to the 1960s. That’s when a researcher made the serendipitous discovery of a link between the hand grips used by fighter pilots to help them tolerate gravitational forces while flying, and their subsequently lower blood pressure. The aim of the gripping during flight is to increase blood pressure to maintain the flow to the brain and prevent blackout. The beneficial side effect was that when pilots were not flying, they experienced training-induced reductions in their resting blood pressure.
EASY AND VERY EFFECTIVE
In 2004, a research team at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, gathered people taking medication for high blood pressure for a study on the effects of isometric hand grip training using a device called Zona Plus. One of the two groups exercised with both arms while the other group used just one arm. All were taking anti-hypertensive medications (a wide variety) before and throughout the study. After eight weeks of thrice-weekly isometric hand exercises (four sets of two-minute isometric contractions), the group exercising with both arms decreased their systolic (the upper number) blood pressure by an average of 15 mmHg. The diastolic pressure dropped about 3 mmHg — a lesser amount, but this figure is also less relevant. In a more recent study, researchers from the same university found that patients in their 60s, all with normal blood pressure, had significantly reduced resting blood pressure after completing eight weeks of isometric hand grip training, using inexpensive spring handgrip devices.
I called Maureen MacDonald, PhD, one of the lead investigators, to discuss the latest findings. Isometric hand exercises seem to somehow reprogram the way the nervous system sets its control level of blood pressure, she explained, sending a message that a high resting blood pressure isn’t necessary. More research has to be done on the whys and wherefores, but she told me that evidence is building for the benefits of using this as a lifestyle modification for hypertension.
GET A GRIP
Hand gripping devices are inexpensive and easy to find in sporting goods stores. Grips come in a variety of resistances that feel different, so check around until you find one that is comfortable for you. To determine whether the grip is sufficiently intense, hold the device steady, keeping your body relaxed and your breath normal. If your hand tires after two minutes of squeezing the grip and holding the contraction (like when you reach your limit when lifting weights), you have found the correct grip — Dr. MacDonald says you need to grip at least 30% of your maximum strength; less than that does not have any impact.
Here is an exercise sequence that Dr. MacDonald advises should be performed three to five times each week. Remember to breathe normally throughout.
• Squeeze the grip and hold the contraction with your left hand for two minutes. ?
• Remove it and rest for two minutes.?
• Squeeze the grip and hold the contraction with your right hand for two minutes.?
• Remove it and rest for two minutes.?
• Now repeat this process until you have done four complete sets.
THE DELUXE SOLUTION: ZONA PLUS
Another option is to buy an electronic hand grip called the Zona Plus that measures the grip to the correct level and also guides the user through the series of exercises. The price is $399. (The research team used the Zona Plus in some of their experiments.) Dr. MacDonald says that the Zona Plus is ergonomically designed so it is more comfortable to grip. Go to zona.com or call 866-669-9662 for more information.
According to Dr. MacDonald, so long as you continue to do these exercises regularly, your blood pressure will remain at a lower level — but, you should know that when research subjects did not exercise for eight weeks, their blood pressure returned to its elevated state. Note: There are concerns that this form of exercise can be dangerous for individuals who have an aneurysm or a mitral valve problem, so if you fall into that category, check with your doctor before trying it.
Source(s): ?
Maureen MacDonald, PhD, associate professor, department of kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:43 am
Iran will be exciting this day.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
I found this on the net.
Robert Kuttner: Why is our health system so massively inefficient? Because it is run by and for private insurers, aided and abetted by for-profit drug companies and hospitals. Even if we insure more people, as President Obama hopes to, a fragmented, profit-oriented system dominated by these interests simply cannot yield the most efficient use of health outlays.
Mary
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:10 pm
We passed into a plain without knowing that we had. In that plane an owner of a right wing television station died tomorrow. It was carried on all the other stations. He was practically canonized. One would never know that he was despised and hated by most.
I am happy to be back in this plane, I will wait to see if that one was a precursor for this one
Wei
August 4th, 2009 at 4:36 am
I found this on the web. It is interesting for more than one reason. See if you Constitution buffs get them.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Barack Obama’s birthday is tomorrow (or is it?) and in the spirit of gift giving, I’ve got something for the 28% of Republicans who don’t believe Obama was born in America: An invitation to common ground.
Here’s the first place we can agree: It would be nice if the president would ask Hawaii to release his original, long form birth certificate.
There are all kinds of perfectly good moral, legal and political reasons why he shouldn’t, but, frankly, I’m still tuckered out from all the perfectly good moral, legal and political reasons Hillary Clinton wouldn’t release the Rose Law Firm billing records.
I’m not going through that hell again.
Here’s the second place we can agree: The rule of law is a good thing.
Lincoln said:
As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor; let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the laws be breathed by every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap – let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges – let it be written in primers, spelling books, and almanacs – let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice.
That goes double for me. Can’t get enough of that Constitution and Laws. When it comes to the Constitution and Laws I’m right there, lisping and prattling like Glenn Beck.
My children may not have primers, spelling books or almanacs — because they go to school in California — but they understand that we can’t pick and chose which laws we obey and which we don’t. If we acted like that, we’d be no better than wild animals in the jungle or Dick Cheney.
Here’s the third place we can agree: If the Constitution says Barack Obama is ineligible to be president, he’s ineligible to be president.
The Constitution is always right because the Framers were infallible, even about slavery and not letting women and Indians vote. The Constitution means what it says and says what it means, not unlike Horton Hatches an Egg, if it had been written 230 years ago by 55 guys.
The Constitution says:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
And that’s what it means.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think we can get Obama on the “natural born” part. I don’t know what it means and neither do you, and neither did the Founding Fathers. I think it had something to do with not letting Louis XVI be president or black people vote, but your guess is as good as mine. And guesses don’t count.
The only person I’m absolutely certain is a natural born man is Bo Diddley.
Luckily, we don’t have to interpret what they were getting at. That’s why God created Originalism and sent us Antonin Scalia.
Originalism forbids interpretation. (Which could lead to thinking.) It says the document is what it is. We’ll never know what the Framers meant, so the safest thing to do is exactly what they say.
So we can agree: Every word in the Constitution, no matter how oblique or arcane, is there for a reason and any president who violates it is gone, or our system collapses, strangers steal our mail, and our sons start playing with dolls.
Good. Now let’s talk about the phrase “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.”
Six simple words that mean exactly what they say. No spin. According to the clear letter of the law of the United States Constitution, Barack Obama can’t be president, even if he was born in Hawaii, because Hawaii wasn’t a state when the Constitution was adopted.
In 1788.
For their own impenetrable but absolutely unambiguous reasons, the Framers made a rule that says you can only be president if you were born in one of the original 13 colonies.
Sorry Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, Ulysses Grant, William McKinley, James Garfield, William Howard Taft, Harry Truman, Herbert Hoover, Harding, Harrison and Hayes. A rule’s a rule. Get out.
What are you smiling at, Abe? Kentucky didn’t join the Union until 1792. Take your almanac, your primer and your lisping baby and scram.
Wait a second. I just had a thought. What if Article 2, Section One of the Constitution couldn’t possibly mean what it literally says?
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…”
Read it again. It’s not just about where you were born. It says you can never be president unless you were alive in 1788.
That leaves out everyone but Robert Byrd.
I’m not saying we can’t nullify the election. I’m just saying we can’t do it without interpreting the Constitution. And we can’t interpret the Constitution, because then we’d be no better than one of those horrible activist judges who legislates from the bench.
Next thing you know, we’d be feeling empathy.
——————————————
Well?
Gill
August 4th, 2009 at 4:40 am
Sorry that article was written by Chris Kelly.
Gill
August 4th, 2009 at 4:49 am
If you have not studied Constitutional law & are unfamiliar with the major issue which separates The Supreme Court today, it is the difference of opinions between the strict constructionists who believe the meaning of the Constitution is exactly as it was written & those who are called activist judges because they believe the Constitution was written to be & is a living evolving principal.
This very much goes to the fallacy of the strict constructionists. Also goes to the fallacy of complaining about activist judges.
Whenever The Supreme Court creates new interpretations of the law or reverses earlier positions, it IS Judaical activism. That is & has been the purpose of the court.
It is also why the framers provided the authority to add Amendments to the Constitution.