Proposals To Mint for $75.00 Gold Coin

I will buy the reverse proof dime when it comes out. Aside from the RP ASE's in anniversary sets, and the RP Silver Kennedy half dollar in the anniversary set, has there been any other reverse proof silver coins?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

the reverse ASE's & Kennedy's is all I can think of.

 

Imagine in 20 years finding one of those dimes in circulation. It's gonna happen. Some junkie will rob someone and spend it at face.

 

I like the left eagle, but looking at the right Liberty -- at that resolution -- seems a bit too much like Angelia Jolie... and I'm not sure the world is ready for her on our coins... as in ever.

 

Henrietta Anderson?

edit - http://www.zorninamerica.com/ZornandStGaudens.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Gaudens_double_eagle

 

No but the plan is for a high relief gold COIN and a silver medal. Hence gold and silver. One thing I have not seen clarified is whether both of them will have the same design or if another design will be selected for the silver medal. I believe the assumption is the silver medal will also be high relief but they haven't specifically said that.

 

According to this article the coin and the medal will share the same design.
http://news.coinupdate.com/ccac-recommends-designs-high-relief-gold-coin-and-silver-medal-4681/

 

why $75??? if they are going to change the denomination of the 1 oz. gold coin they should make it $500 or $1000, not $75!

As far as design goes, these would be my picks: (from the coinnews.com article)

 

Separate gold and silver issues, not bi-metallic.

 

If we ever get another Director of The Mint in our lifetime, maybe some real change can be implemented. As it is now, with little more than political hacks running the institution as "deputies" the mediocrity will continue.

Personally, I would like to see a director with some real autonomy. Someone who has the authority and the inclination to send a band of hillbillies through the mint's design department, armed with ax handles to smash and destroy all the computer aided design equipment.

All of the staff would then be instructed to produce their designs as galvanos, and if they were unqualified in the art, then they should be shown the door and replaced with someone who is qualified.

Would it change the way art schools operate? One can only hope so, many of the most prestigious art schools today rely as much on graphic art software as the mint does, instead of nurturing traditional artistic talent. And this one fact explains why most of the coin designs seen are banal cartoonish insults to the sensibilities of most seasoned numismatists.

 

I was thinking maybe Halle Berry?!

 

I was thinking that too, Tommy, along with a bit of 'warrior women' mystic.

 

Wow. Just wow. I would totally muster up the cash for this one!

 

The face isn't right, for someone carrying a sword.

 

Most certainly a suitable Director, who is not simply selected for the appointment to head the Mint as a public relations goon and padding their resume with a government appointed role, only to step down joining the board of a major corporation in a lucrative roll as an Advisor, is very much in need.

However, I couldn't disagree more with the rest of this post!

The problem is NOT technology and the solution is NOT in violently overthrowing it and reverting to former techniques to arrive at designs for the production of coins. What worked in the past (and is hailed today) was often what was the most technologically advanced method available then and suited then current costs of labor and production.

The Mint has always sought and employed the best technology available to securely Mint coins combined with meeting the requests of banking and trade, which informs coins’ designs, in most cases, the flatter the better for how they operate in vending machines, stack, store, roll and can be counted, AND, not wear out from contact or be easily replicated (forged). They also seek the technology which is most cost effective in this pursuit, providing absolute security for our currency.

The Mint should be seeking innovative equipment, engineers and software developers plus funding their further invention and refined proprietary equipment and software, as well as training and supporting those designers selected to work with coins’ designs. There seems to be missing, and critically ought to exist, mentoring and the guidance of outside designers (who are not minting crafts-persons and technicians) in realizing better results within the parameters of minting and technological limits, and to push those limits while optimizing designs.

None of this is an aesthetic question to be solved. Designs will always be debated and never appeal one hundred percent to everyone. Everyone has their strongly different opinions on aesthetics and artist and designers cannot be blamed for what they deliver, especially within the realm of designs pressured by competing panels of influence (CACC), oversight (Treasury) and control (Congress). All design can and does suffer from this kind of bureaucracy. The designs of the past that so many today praise were imperfect and required a lot of noodling and came into creation after much debate and hard work, too. Certainly, much of the work today appears to suffer from such problems and appears to need more time to develop quality work. So yes, there is much lacking, yet. It should also be noted the amount of designs being annually produced compared to the past eras. The U.S. Mint for one has an enormous annual catalog of designs!

I disagree that the past was better than the future or that talent and contemporary designs cannot compete at or achieve the same level of success. It can today, but there are obstacles and red tape like anything else in government. If people want better designs, then they need to make it their goal in supporting it, popularizing their ideas that will improve, fund and develop the kind of work they wish to see appear on coins. There are plenty of fantastically skilled crafts-persons, engineers, artists, machinist, software developers and others out there, but they are not found cheap. They are engaged in other fields, perhaps even in fields considered much more pressing to society than making pretty coins that collectors covet.

There’s far more than technology to blame and just like when technology fails, it’s usually human error that is found as the root cause. The same may essentially be said about “banal cartoonish” coins. I disagree the blame falls on the designers and crafts people though. And don’t forget, that the “sensibilities of most seasoned numismatists” is the very last thing that the Mint is engaged in its charge to satisfy production of coins it is directed to mint. To advance that position, would require a more concerted effort amongst said group to affect the outcome of modern coinage, advising on the areas of weakness in design and production while understanding better the other side of the coin in what goes into demanding they exist in the first place.

 

Well said Chris........

 

I want a coin with Elvira on it.

 

There are lots of novelty companies that exist for just this kind of desire. The US Mint is not solely to be relied up for every kind of coin dreamed up or desired to exist or meet some slight demand. Maybe you can commission Daniel Carr to do a line of vixens of the dark side series.

 

How about Vampirella?

 

Again, find a novelty (private) mint and they will do the commission for you... don't turn the US Mint into this kind of operation or it's only going to get farther away from many of the ideals collectors seem to long for.