| Author |
 Replies: 33 / Views: 4,254 |
Page 3 of 3
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
932 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2208 Posts |
The Lincoln cent--which now weighs as much as a plastic disc--is a nice coin with the exception of the reverse. The shield design has all the charm of a subway token. Plus you're mixing a 1909 classic design with 21st century minimalist modernism. It's a mule. Yuck. Same with the Jefferson nickel, but only worse. Felix Schlag's 1938 reverse is not terribly interesting, but combining it with the 21st century 3/4 view of Jefferson's bust on the obverse makes for another mixed-up mint mish-mosh. Blechhh. The Roosevelt dime is one of the last of the true heroes, having resisted any type of change. Both the obverse and reverse are at once simple and elegant. Memo to the mint! The Washington quarter--and I call it the Washington quarter even though officially it's called the America The Beautiful quarter--has suffered the worst ignominy, having to put up with four new reverse designs every year! It's a fairly good gimmick in that it gets people interested in coin collecting (which in no small measure hikes up the mint's profits), but come on--we endured years and years of the often ugly Statehood Quarters, and now there's no telling when we'll see the end of the completely random ATB Quarters. Bring back John Flanagan's grand eagle please! The Kennedy Half--what can you say about such a beautiful coin? Both sides are epic and brilliantly presented. But most of all, it FEELS like a real coin, and half a buck at that! It's HEAVY. This is the way the larger denominations used to feel in your hand and in your pocket. My favorite current coin. Get some from your local bank (they may be hard to find) and carry 'em around. And then spend them. You'll be glad you did. Dollar coins--I've lost track of what the heck the mint is doing with these dopey "gold" coins these days. Is it Sacawegea? Susan B. Anthony? Martin van Buren? And with all the changes to obverses and reverses of the Sacawega dollar, it's hard to really care. And the "$1" reverse, like the Lincoln reverse, is totally devoid of artistic intent. Barf. Two dollar coins--Now there's an idea! Edited by jpsned
09/10/2015 7:58 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
214 Posts |
When you are minting two different types of a dollar coin at the same time , and they are not being used by the public, it is rather clear that they are only being minted for collection. When halfway through the series ( Presidential dollars) they cease to issue them for circulation and only make the remainder of the series available from the mint at a premium over face value, it becomes clear that we are not collecting coins that were being used by people to conduct commerce in their daily lifes, but rather trinkets made just for the sake of selling them to collectors. I would rather just collect the older coins that were actually used by people, and represented a measure of value due to their metal composition. |
|
New Member
United States
25 Posts |
Part of me says there are too many changes and gimmicks currently going on. Its almost like what happened to sports cards and stamps with all the special issues and limited runs that contributed (but not the sole factor) in killing those hobbies. But I also think its partly related to all the different "sets" more than the changing designs and some of the special issues that haven't been mentioned more than the rotating designs on the quarters, etc. The coin and chronicles sets, the coin and currency set, the "limited edition" silver proof sets, the first spouse gold coins, and even the high relief liberty gold coin. These are the special issues that bother me more and I think are flooding the market with too many choices and hurting the hobby. Lets take the leftover extras from our silver proof coins, make a random finish sac dollar, throw in a silver eagle, some extra dollar bills and like 10 different kinds of special packaging and make a bunch of random sets. For the record I really like the ATB Quarter series. It (and its associated 5 oz. pucks) are part of what got me in to coin collecting vs just bullion and junk for its silver content. So maybe it seems tiresome after the State Quarter program but thats just because the State Quarters were kinda lame (IMHO); not the ATB Quarters fault. I think for the most part they have been good designs (although I did like some of the other finalists that weren't chosen vs the ones that made it on the coins). Here's what I hope doesn't happen. Maybe there does need to be a little more stability but I also find a lot of the "classic" coin designs somewhat boring. I definitely appreciate them for their historically significance but I refuse to buy into the idea that we need our coinage to go back to where every coin has a lady liberty that looks like a dude in a hat that got beat by the ugly stick. I think there is room for historical appreciation and design innovation. Room for people like me who dabble in older coins; both "classic" and ancient for their historical significance and moderns. While new here I hope this place doesn't turn into the only 1920 (arbitrary date) and older coins are for the "real" coin collectors and all modern designs (and their collectors) are stupid mentality that I've witnessed at other unnamed locations on the internet. /rant off Edited by icculus
09/11/2015 07:45 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
998 Posts |
For those advocating a return to precious metal coinage: If we went back to using silver for US coinage we would have to re-value the dollar or re-denominate it somehow. Right now silver melt value is about 11 times face and it fluctuates too much to leave it at that. In order to cover minting, processing and transportation costs you are looking at at least 15 and probably closer to 20 times current face. A new 90% silver coin the size of a current dime would have to be worth about $1.50 to $2.00 in today's currency. It could work at 50% silver at an even $1.00 current, we could then just move the decimal point over a position. In the past silver prices were stable enough to be used as currency with a few exceptions here and there. The few times it's value increased over face value saw great outflow of silver as well as hoarding. Of course in those days silver dollars as well as gold coin was the basis of large trade and bank holdings but I still think that if silver or some other precious metal were to be reintroduced to circulation coinage we would see shortages as soon as the value approached face value. We may well go through the mid-60's debasement all over again a few years down the line. I suspect however that coins and currency will likely be gone in favor of electronic value transfers long before the politicians can get together and act on what is really a non-existent crisis. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
828 Posts |
jpsned-- I couldn't have said it any better.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4870 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
932 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
932 Posts |
I like the idea of the new coins, but keeping the old ones?! Thats ridiculous! Get rid of the dead presidents I say!
|
|
Moderator
 United States
188952 Posts |
Quote:
Now this is most fascinating... Yup, just like the dollars now. Here is an old related topic, for reference... https://goccf.com/t/148588 |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
n9jig - I don't think any of us advocates a return to hard-metal coinage. Ridiculous on the face of it, for sure. I think we're just thankful that these wonderful old things are out there to collect as an option to today's mass-produced junk.  Edited by Coinfrog
09/11/2015 6:42 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
932 Posts |
I definitely agree with The Frog of Awesomeness and Truth...  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2208 Posts |
Quote:
jpsned-- I couldn't have said it any better.  Edited by jpsned
09/12/2015 08:05 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
998 Posts |
I agree that a return to silver coinage is not practical. I also agree that if Liberty Coinage (like that proposed in the quoted article) were introduced it should be instead of current designs and not alongside it. The State Quarters were a great idea but it is time to move on and away from politicians on coins. The guys that are on them wouldn't want to be if they had a choice and the guy most often proposed for one wouldn't either. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4870 Posts |
I'm not really concerned with the metallic content but rather the designs is what I am concerned about. I guess having the same presidents on them for decades is just uninspiring and having multiple reverses is just annoying. The front facing portrait of Jefferson on the nickel is hideous. Monticello is BORING. Would have rather had the bison reverse as the 2005 Westward Journey nickel.
|
|
Page 3 of 3
|
Replies: 33 / Views: 4,254 |
Page 3 of 3
|
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 09/10/2015 7:50 pm
