RCM Sellout Alert - 2016 140th Anniversary Of The Library Of Parliament Concave Silver Coin

When I first saw this coin a few days ago, I immediately felt that there was something "not right" about the reverse design.

As I looked at it again last night, I realized that the problem I was having with the coin is mostly the rendering of Queen Victoria's statue. I've compared it with a number of photos of the statue and now see the coin's depiction as inaccurate in several ways:

Note: My observations are based on the images the RCM has provided on its web site; the actual coin may have better detail and address some/all of my criticisms.

- Queen Victoria's face is lacking in detail and is absent any of the grace found on the statue. I realize it is very small part of the coin and may not be large enough to incorporate significant detail, but I find the face to look somewhat "alien" rather than human in the RCM's images. It definitely could be better.

- The Queen's right hand (holding the staff) appears much smaller than her left hand which holds the wreath - compare the thumb size of each hand - yikes! These types of disparities are troublesome and take away from the overall aesthetics, IMO.

- The fingers of the Queen's right hand do not appear to be wrapped around the staff on the coin - they extend out and away from it. On the actual statue, the fingers wrap around the shaft of the staff.

- When the actual statue is seen head on, the Queen's left arm is essentially straight and depicted hanging at a slight angle away from her body to the point her hand bends at the wrist to meet the wreath. On the coin, the Queen's left arm seems to make an unnatural curve away from her body and then back to meet up with the wreath.

- The wreath on the coin lacks detail; it almost looks like a big doughnut.

- The Queen's near featureless left hand seems to merge into the wreath rather than holding it with individual fingers.

I would have thought with Victoria's statue being a central design element, a bit more care would have been taken in depicting her statue.

The coin certainly has other merits - the many architectural details of the dome, for example - but they don't make up for the issues with the statue to my eyes.

Have to say that I am watching this one but agree the details are not nearly as well done as the Mint would have us believe in their marketing language.

I also am not a fan of the antique finish. Still, it's a nice coin enough coin and I would have bought one in the $100-110 range. But it's not a $160 coin IMO. Let's see what secondary market buyers think over the next few weeks.

Don't mind the antique finish so much, but now that it is mentioned it does seem that the middle ground detail is lacking - perhaps part of the process. And, yes, $160 is too much, I might have bit at $100. Then again maybe I'll pick it up at an auction in 3-4 years at $65 . . . .

When your mandate is to produce an ever increasing amount of material the sources you pull from tend to get a bit streched . .

um.. just happen to be on Canada post website and I think they accidentally have the link to the coin.

https://www.canadapost.ca/shop/coin...ecution=e1s1

you can use the code in the other thread to get $10 Esso Card

ah my bad.. lost track with all these....

The US baseball curved coins were cool in all aspects, this coin would look better in a proof finish and a regular obverse.

It does give me hope however, for my theme suggestion that I submitted two years ago, celebrating the 175th anniversary of the Geological Survey of Canada. Canada's oldest scientific institute, a full 25 years before we become a country, and those early surveys helped build the country, pointing where coal was and where railways should be built to connect the country. I have a bias of course, since I am a research scientist with the GSC.

The main issue is that the 175th anniversary is 2017... competing with Canada's 150th...