Just $1640 American Liberty

For various reasons, this coin will have to slog uphill.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Dagnabit. I forgot about that going on sale. C'est la vie.
Maybe I will find someone to trade a 2016 Liberty Medal for one of those, though

 

That coin had a lot of design potential.

I wish the eagle's entire body (i.e. tails) were in view like in previous years. Not sure why there's a trend now to exclude parts of animals - perhaps that's the trade-off for larger portraits and higher reliefs to hit you in the face with.

The obverse bust looks great, minus the gaudy star tiara band thingy. The hair details should be nice, depending on how strong the strike is.

Continuing the design element of concave fields is a nice touch - actually a very nice touch. It hearkens back to classic coinage design. Plus, it allows for a higher relief for the devices. I think all coins should have concave fields, or at least for the precious metals commemorative issues.

Incuse inscription is ok, though reeding is probably better IMHO for this piece.

Price is terrible. Maybe the US Mint is testing the market to see if they need to tone it down a bit with their pricing strategy.

 

I just had a thought for why it could be priced so high. The mint probably figured the sales would suck, so wanted to give the PC crowd an excuse for why the sales were so bad, instead of the obvious one.

 

Go on...

 

Call me crazy, but I'm guessing he's alluding to the fact that racial pandering was deemed more important than artistic merit.

 

Or that the mint designed a coin supposed to be for collectors, who realistically are the only people that care about the mints 225th anniversary anyway. That completely ignores the core demographics that make up that collector base and thus alienates a large number of them. This likely also reflects why the first day sales were so poor despite the mints hyping of the release.

 

So, the "obvious problem" is that Lady Liberty, like Santa Claus and [obvious religious reference redacted], is obviously supposed to be white? That depicting her as a member of another race is "pandering", or offensive to our hobby's "core demographics"?

Like I said in another thread, there's some sort of irony here.

 

There's nothing wrong with having a black lady on the coin, I don't think that's the problem here. The problem is an ugly design which was made worse with that dumb looking star headband! With that said, there aren't that many black people who collect coins so who is gonna buy all them gold coins and save this loser of a sale?

 

If you read statements that were from the CCAC committee regarding how this coin design came about and was selected. To me it seems pretty clear that this design was purposely selected for political reasons. If they wanted to represent the diversity of the U.S. why not do so on coins that circulate. Coins that would likely actually be seen and hopefully appreciated by more of the targeted demographic they sought to represent with each issue. Realistically how many of each targeted minority that will be represented in this series are even going to know that these coins exist or ever even see them? People are free to ignore the reality of the collector demographics in our nation if they choose to do so but it is what it is.

If the mint wants to expand and diversify the collector demographic makeup of our nation, which imo is a good thing. I also think it's a pretty poor choice to attempt to do so using a coin that most people will never see and many Americans won't be able to afford anyway. As $1640 for a coin isn't exactly everyday affordable for the majority of Americans. I know it's going to be issued in silver medals also but I'm not sure how effective the medal versions that follow each design will be as they don't have the 'coin' appeal factor.



Anyways below are some statements from CCAC committee members regarding the design choice

'Mindful of the multiculturalism of our nation, the Committee took the opportunity to make a difference in applying a new perspective to broaden the view of Lady Liberty which, up to this point, has been cast in a European classical mold. We felt we could be inclusive of the many races in our country, mindful that there are many ideals of a woman, and sensitive to these defining characteristics. After studying the wide variety of Liberty depictions offered to the Committee, our recommendation is a profile view of an African-American woman'

https://www.ccac.gov/media/calendar/lettersToSecretary/2016_0315.pdf

 

I am nowhere close to affording or spending that much on a coin at this point in time, but I personally do like the design and the idea behind it. If you don't like the design, there's obviously nothing wrong with that, but it seems to me that the somewhat vocal opposition to it on here might have more to do with...other things...and less to do with the design itself. I may be wrong, and I hope I am, but that's how I see it.

 

I gotta agree, they could have put it on the reverse of a quarter cause I know good and well they wouldn't put it on the obverse of a dime, 1 cent or nickel for historical reasons. The US Mint stepped in a huge pile with this design all because they listened to the posers and idiots of the CCAC! I hope they learned a lesson this time!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/us/black-lady-liberty-us-coin.html

 

I'm sorry stop with insinuating that those of us that don't like the coin whether that's because of the design itself or the pandering political reason it was created are 'racists'. At root for me it has nothing to do with the fact the mint choose to portray Liberty as an African American woman. Heck the Saint Gauden's double eagles obverse model was a woman of African American descent named Hetty Anderson and that coin is largely regarded as the most beautiful coin in U.S. history. Which is ironic because apparently no one at the mint knew that and weren't even aware of their own history when touting this coin.

I personally like the idea behind what the mint was trying to do here but the execution of that idea was flawed imo. They should have replaced the half dollar, presidential dollar or native American dollar and made this a circulating coin if they wanted it to reach the masses and have the design be truly appreciated. Instead we end up with a coin that the majority of Americans can't afford or won't even know exists all while the CCAC & mint officials get to pat themselves on the back for being progressive.


Hetty Anderson


http://sgnhs.org/augustus-gaudens-cd-html/Models/Hettie.htm

 

Look, I'm not saying it is right to not want a coin because of who is or who is not on it, but it's a fact. Are they trying to draw new collectors in? Doubt it, or it would have been on an affordable coin. It was purely political. I actually like the way the real coin looks (from what I have seen so far), but I think it will be a flop, so I cannot afford to put that kind of money into something I am pretty sure is going down in value.

 

Somebody needs to tell the always accurate New York Times that coins are not printed.

 

Spare us the "since you don't agree with this, you must be a racist" horse manure. Grow up.

 

I didn't buy any gold from previous years, but if say, last year's gold coins were priced decently and sold ok/well, then I don't get the Mint's angle on their pricing strategy. Maybe the Mint is overly optimistic about its 225 years of history to attract the average collector / buyer. I guess if they don't sell enough, then they can melt down their inventory.

 

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said what you just said, I didn't imply it, and I don't agree with it. If someone doesn't like the design, that's their opinion and I have nothing against it. I just think that some people may be using dislike of the design to mask their true feelings about the coin. And as I said, I may well be wrong. As of now, I plan to no longer participate in threads on here that are polemic in ways that do not pertain solely to coins themselves.

 

I didn't say that, Jeff, and am fairly confident that's not what either Mr. Witten or Mr. Blisskr intended. This isn't about white vs. black or even purple people eaters, but is about promoting a certain agenda which resulted in said racial pandering. Of course a "black" representation of Ms. Liberty could be every bit as or even infinitely more appealing than one supposedly "white", but that's not what we have here, is it? Did the design options focus only on said "artistic merit", with this one chosen as the very best possible, or was the plan to portray her as being of a specific race from the get-go, with all designs submitted required to adhere to it?

I don't know about you, Jeff, but I would much prefer generic representations, chosen solely by said artistic merit, than continue with this racial nonsense that has done NOTHING positive for this country as a whole. Unfortunately, this isn't going to happen as long as some of us wish to spin views not mirroring their own into coming from that of racial boogymen.

 

Getting to the removal point for some posts. Yes, coin design is political, no doubt, so doesn't need to be expressed beyond that point. If you don't like it, don't buy it , that simple. No need to keep talking about why, except you don't wish to buy it. Wow, the mint will be so sad. But when you start inferring certain politicians beyond the committee themselves is responsible, you are discussing politics and THAT is an infraction of the rules. If you feel it is worth losing privileges, continue, otherwise just say no if you wish, and move on. Thanks Jim