There is no more revered spot in America, from its founding as a mercantile nation, than on the country’s coins. Here reside George Washington, who won the colonies their freedom, Thomas Jefferson, who put the new nation’s philosophy into poetry, Abraham Lincoln, who saved America in its greatest hour of peril, and Franklin Roosevelt, who preserved capitalism and then democracy. In grief we put John Kennedy’s image on a half-dollar, and in respect we put Susan Anthony and Sacagawea on the dollar coin.

But we did not put Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, John Calhoun, Henry Cabot Lodge, or Mike Mansfield on our coins. They were great men, huge pinions of power, but ours is a lucky nation for having had so many great leaders in so few years of existence. This is a profligate country, but we are stingy, and rightly so, with our biggest honors.

Until now. The U.S. Mint, which presumably is better situated than most federal agencies to understand that the rare is more valuable than the common, this month announced a new series of dollar coins, one for each president, a new one to be distributed every three months. This rapid rate of distribution disrupts the natural order of things in a country that has put so few of its citizens on its coins, even in a nation that sometimes feels as if it would like to change presidents after three months of foolhardy behavior.

But that is the least of the problems with this plan, which has the rancid air of a publicity stunt gone awry. Putting all the presidents on a classroom calendar or on a metal ruler is one thing. Calendars last a year and metal rulers are lost in a month. Putting all the presidents on circulating coins is another thing altogether. It’s a very bad idea. As for last week’s announcement about the release of an accompanying series featuring the presidential wives, at least these pure gold coins are only for the collector’s market — and the collection is wisely called the First Spouse series, to allow for future gender shifts in the Oval Office.

The truth of the matter is that all of our presidents do not deserve to be honored. James Buchanan was the worst president, unless of course you consider Warren Harding, and the temptation is strong to say that they are both worth forgetting, except as examples of blunderers and fools. Buchanan and Harding do not deserve coins of their own, and no amount of historical revisionism will likely change the verdict on their presidencies. William Harrison was president for a month. He doesn’t deserve a coin. William Taft was a good man and a good chief justice, but as a president he left few marks. No coin for him, either.

Regular readers of this column know of my abiding respect for Calvin Coolidge, but the 30th president, known for his abstemiousness in speaking as in spending, would be appalled at the idea of a dollar coin in his honor. Put him on a penny if anywhere, and expect to save it, not spend it. Lyndon Johnson was one of the biggest spenders, and one of the biggest egos, ever to inhabit the White House. A dollar is not big enough for him. Richard Nixon devalued the dollar. Shouldn’t we think of giving him a 75-cent piece?

None of that, of course, is really the point. The point is that all presidents are not equal and they should not be treated, or honored, equally. President Kennedy once said that only the few dozen men who had held the office could understand the pressures of the presidency, a thought Bill Clinton uttered more than once, but even Kennedy and Mr. Clinton would not argue that they deserve to be remembered in the same manner as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt.

Putting Arthur and Garfield on the same plane, or on the same coin, as some of their presidential predecessors is a moral equivalency that the American people, who say they love equality but who honor excellence, should not tolerate. This effort proves only one thing, about which we might not be particularly proud: In America, money is the great equalizer.

But the real problem with this notion is that placing every president on a dollar coin rewards attainment, not achievement. That is not a good lesson for our children, or for our country. It is one thing to be elected president, or to be admitted to Harvard, or to win the corner suite in a Fortune 500 company. It is another thing to do something with that attainment. Some presidents win the White House, just as some young people get into Harvard, and then do nothing with the opportunity. You know who they were, and who you are.

The first four coins, which are to be distributed next year, are to be Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, and James Madison. That’s a good start, and it should make everybody feel good about the old phrase “as strong as the dollar.” But how are we going to feel when we get beyond James Polk? Franklin Pierce will be a favorite in New Hampshire, where his Southern sensibilities have been forgotten, and Buchanan may be a favorite in Pennsylvania, which is so bereft of historically enduring political figures that anything is a consolation. But will those coins make the nation swell with pride?

Now — and here is a sentence you never expected to read in a daily newspaper — let us pause to consider Grover Cleveland. An interesting man, perhaps underrated historically. But his eight years in the White House were interrupted by the four years of Benjamin Harrison — can’t wait to get my hands on that coin — and thus he is entitled to two presidential coins. Is he twice as worthy as Franklin Roosevelt, who was elected twice as many times? Or twice as worthy as Gerald Ford, who wasn’t elected at all but who helped and healed a hurt nation? Bet you a Herbert Hoover dollar that he isn’t.