I’m just waiting for them to change the one-dollar bill.
April 2nd, 2006It reveals a serious design-laziness on the part of the government that they refuse to change the look of the one-dollar bill to match the rest.
I don’t care how much it costs, or if it’s unnecessary—change the fucking one-dollar bill! It can’t cost half as much as us spending 30 seconds in Iraq. You went from the hundred to the fifty to the twenty to the five and then you just bypassed the one and started revising the bills all over again. Christ!
April 5th, 2006 at 1:52 am
i got a $1 bill back from a cashier the other day and it was magenta-ish. like not totally magenta, but a magenta pall cast over the green. for a moment i was overwhelmed wth excitement because i thought it was the new, redesigned $1– which would have been odd b/c there was no color change with the other denominations, although maybe there should be. why the all-green look? its as if as a nation we all wore grey flannel suits. which happens to be actually what i wore today.
April 5th, 2006 at 11:46 am
In the second redesign phase, some color-bleeds were added along with truly stupid picture overlays.
Basically, the whole money redesign program was half-hearted from the start and entirely an attempt to combat counterfeiting. From a design standpoint, I think a redesign was a great idea—it’s retarded to have money crowded with a bunch of 18th century ornamental work in this day in age. Also, I think having the look of money stay static for so long creates a sort of fetish around the power of American wealth as an end in itself.
But I think, the designers could have gone much further. I like that the images are all still hand-engraved (a process that can take a year to complete a single portrait). But I don’t like the weak attempt to retain the old ornamental work; it should have been eliminated entirely. I think the addition of color to the face of the bill (while maintaining a green back) would have been a good idea. If I had my way, I would have eliminated the portraits altogether and replaced them with images of things likes indigenous birds and flowers.
April 6th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
what about 18th and 19th century stock certificates and such? those are so excessively ornamental and so fabulous.
maybe our money just needs to be more flamboyent.
i do like the idea of indigenous birds and flowers. i also like money that’s a bit psychedelic. dutch guilders have got both those features.
April 6th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
Yeah, I wouldn’t mind it being MORE ornamental, but perhaps that ornament could diverge from the neo-classical stuff (what little there is left) on the current curency.
I loved the look of the Dutch Gilders—they were beautiful and slick and they had a shit-load going on! Great money. Alas, gone, because of the crappy-looking Euro.
April 10th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
I totally disagree with Mitch that it should be more ornamental, but I have never been more in agreement with a Bloggy post: we desparately need to redo the $1 bill. Its a matter of national pride.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
The new $10 has color: magenta. You see it?
April 13th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Yeah, I saw it. It’s OK. Is it magenta or ochre, I can’t remember. It still looks like it was designed by commitee, the “retard commitee” that is.
It’s funny how people bitch about the most simple changes to money. I’ve already heard random people say, “man I can’t get used to these 10s.” I want to tell them to grow up and give me my change; just wait ’til you see my “indiginous birds” plan, then you’ll really be bitching.