Kenndy Comparison - 1964 to 2009

I once read an article on the Kennedy Half Dollars that showed the changes the Mint made to the portrait and devices several years ago. I can't find the article or the website, but it was very interesting.

I took the liberty of copying some pictures of the 1964 Kennedy and the 2009 Kennedy for comparison purposes. I like the look of the '64 much better (other than the obvious reason of the '64 being minted in silver, of course). For one thing, the coin is "basined" (slightly scooped out like a bowl; most coins used to have this feature, but few do anymore). Secondly, the original portrait, in my opinion, resembles Kennedy better than the modern portrait.

The modern portrait appears smaller and more gaunt. The features aren't as pronounced as the original and don't quite seem to capture his likeness as well. Additionaly, the words IN GOD WE TRUST are larger on the original and the date seems more full.

Does anyone here know the website to which I'm referring (GDJMSP perhaps)?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That is very interesting. Bet I never would have noticed that on my own.

 

the original certainly looks better.

Thanks for pointing that out

 

The 1964 coin appears to have a much better looking jaw line and cheek bone to me. It looks more like JFK. Especially the cheek; the 2009 appears to have a much more pronounced cheek which makes it look wrong.

I also like the basined design much more than the flat coin.

 

It's hard to tell if the two images are shot the exact same way in scale, magnification, etc. but I did a quick photoshop overlay for comparison, to see where key differences show up: I applied a 50% transparency layer effect to each. On the left you have the 2009 over the 1964 and on the right the 1964 over the 2009. It's not the best alignment I'm certain but it helps illustrate the comparison.

 

Good job, Krispy!

There's certainly a difference in the portraits. The modern portrait has a much deeper part in the hair while the hair itself is more in the style of the "spaghetti hair" depicted on modern Washington quarters (ugly if you ask me). Even the ear on the modern portrait has more convolutions in it.

I think Gilroy Roberts' original sculpt was quite good and I wonder what he would think of the mongrelization of his work?

 

I too prefer the original design and dislike the modern spaghetti hair coif!

The pointedness of the nose, slope of forehead and trimmed back of the neck all seem to have changed, perhaps taking into effect that the scooped out bowl design has been removed and some stretched exaggeration in the design was attempted to be compensated for(?). All of the changes make the portrait more cartoonish and thus it feels like it possesses less humanity and character than this president had.

 

Plastic Surgery. All the celebs do it these days.

 

The Kennedy Portrait has undergone some slight yet significant changes over the years which can be spotted by comparing the original 1964 design with some from 2000 or later as the OP has done.

In a nutshell, the US Mint made a transistion to spaghetti hair in 1991 which, through later refinements and de-reliefing, ended up in reducing the size of Kennedy's head in 1995. I'm not saying that the spaghetti hair is the cause of the change in size, just that 1991 had a major change in how the hair was portrayed. I believe the design changes were dictated by having to reduce the overall relief which then enabled the use of high speed presses with a minimum of striking errors. (Dang!)

The easiest method, for me, in determining the size of the portrait is to look at where the lowest point of the bust falls in relationship to the 9 in the date. It then becomes obvious that some reduction has occured both in relief and relative size. The coin has gone from a coin-like appearance to that of a simple medal or medallion.

 

"The coin has gone from a coin-like appearance to that of a simple medal or medallion."

I would agree but only because they hardly ever circulate anymore.

 

Now without those photos I wonder how many would know this. I never noticed any difference in the face until it was just posted and I have a few albums of those. Now I got to go look.

 

Here's a 1990 side-by-side with a 1991. The difference is quite obvious. What a shame........

 

Woulda never realized that but I agree. One looks like a true likeness, one looks like a bad pencil drawing.

 

I entirely agree with the above posts. Good job Krispy with the photo comparison.

I recently purchased a 2005 satin finish half from Teletrade and I didn't notice this until I held the coin in my hand. I knew it was different right away. I wish the Mint wouldn't try to "improve" the portrait. Maybe it's time to change the design.

The earlier portraits capture Kennedy's likeness very well. The newer ones don't seem to capture him as well. One of the main differences is the part of the hair and hair itself. Jackie Kennedy explicitly recommended that the first design have the hiar "messed up a bit" and that's exactly what it shows. The new portrait goes back to a well-combed hairstyle which Jackie explicitly disapproved.

 

Thanks for the link. I am a bit surprised at 11 changes thru 1995. I only started to notice this when I was able to buy a run of Proofs for a good price. I noticed some subtle changes in the 1980's.

But it really surprised me to see the 2005 coin, so the major changes occurred in the 90's when spaghetti hair was the rage.

 

Very informative to all thanks. Would have never realized all this on my own. Couldn't come at a better time. My son is dealling with Kennedy in his 20th Century Type Set.

 

Thats the first thing I noticed when I looked at them. The cheek bone does seem to like come over farther to his his jaw its does looked messed up.

 

I used to go through rolls of JFKs, pulling out all the nicer slider and BU coins. I was always amazed at how flat struck the coins were in the mid-80s. Some years couldn't get 20 in a tube. 71's had the thick rim. A lot of peculiarities in this series.