Presidential dollars...UGLY

I was looking at the January 8th issue of Numismatic News today. The 2008 designs are shown on the cover. They look hideous!! Not sure if I spelled that right. What do yall think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think you spelled it right..


They are all ugly, but I sure did like the ADAMS Dollars.. : )

 

Jackson is especially bad, he looks like a guy who just got kicked in the butt.

 

Yes..he did spell it right.

 

its not the mints fault they werent good looking presidents

 

I appreciate that. heheheh.
Adams' dollar certainly was better than Jackson's.

 

LMAO. Monroe is almost as bad.

 

prezzies

they're bound to look about the same, after all they're designed by the same 'artists' that designed the first four.

steve

 

Just for reference' sake:

 

i dont know if i want o collect the president series any mor e

 

HEY......... wasn't that Van Buren guy on TV back in the 60's dressed up as BOZO the clown?

 

Seeing these my 7-year-old wants to go as John Quincy Adams this Halloween. But I think that's too scary for that age. Bozo, that's different, I'm considering it...

 

If I was him/her I'd sign these "Anonymous."

 

It's the eyes

Hideous.

The 3/4 perspective looks terrible.

 

Thanks Jhonn. Those ARE ugly!!!

 

These men looked the way they looked. Unfortunately, they were in office before photography was perfected so we are stuck with a limited number of portraits of them instead of nearly limitless photographs as with modern Presidents.

Styles (hair and clothing) were different back then. The earliest Presidents wore wigs (see Washington). The early hairstyles were also different from today. In 200 years today's hairstyles will probably look hideous (especially the greased mini-spikes style - ughh!).

The clothing of the day was also different. Men's collars were high and broad. They wore pants that stopped below the knees with stockings below.

These coins depict the men as they actually looked during their presidency. Do you propose we modify their appearance to make them adhere to "today's standard"? I see nothing wrong with using a depiction of the Presidents as they actually appeared; in fact, anything else borders on deception.

These men were elected back when a candidate's views and convictions were more important to voters than how they appear on television (Kennedy - Nixon). I say the coins should depict the Presidents as they looked no matter how hideous they appear as compared to today's standards.

Does anyone else remember the hoopla surrounding the redesign of the $20 FRN a few years ago when Jackson's hair was reigned in to make it less wild looking? To me this is the same thing.

 

Looks have never been a factor when it comes to politics with me...and I dont think my statement was regarding how they looked, but how they are depicted...I dont think that JAckson is depicted quite the same as he is in history and portraits:



here he looks contemplative...



Here he looks a bit noble looking off in the distance



Here he just kinda looks shocked and a bit comical...I think my problem is not how the men looked but how they were rendered on the coin...at least in the case of Jackson I dont think they did a very good likeness...I assume it is an adaptation of this portrait:



then again, sometimes once you SEE the coin it looks better.

here is what he looked like without the interpretation of a protrait painters brush (at an older age of course)

 

James Monroe- Cartoonish

John Q Adams - Just bad design ( even if a person is ugly , a good artist can always make use of the flattering aspects of an individuals face without being inaccurate ,example Lincoln cent.)

Andrew Jackson - Are you kidding me? This is garbage , its an insult To even be issued to the public.

Martin Buren - I almost like this one

 

Presidential 2 Dollar Bill would have been a better idea

You know what would have been a good idea? If instead of making presidential dollar coins they made presidential two-dollar bills. They could have put a much bigger portrait on a bill with much more detail and actually look good. The reverse could have depicted some aspect of each person's presidency. It could have brought some attention to a demonination most average Americans probably don't even know exists.

Oh well, do you actually expect Congress to come up with a good idea?

 

The image of Jackson on the dollar coin looks remarkably similar to his image on the $20 bill. Is the $20 bill ugly?