Another new US Dollar coin series in 2019?

Looks like Obverse and Reverse 08 were recommended. Much improved over the first round of choices....

http://news.coinupdate.com/art-libe...age-advisory-committee-makes-recommendations/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Meh. I would have gone with Obverse 1 or 9, and Reverse 1.

 

Obv 8 is nice but it looks more like a design that would be used on a medal. Rev 1 is I believe one of the original reverse choices, or very similar. My personal choices are Obv 6 and rev 4. I'm not really thrilled with any of the obverses, a couple are OK but the don't really strike me as coin designs or they seem "unfinished". On the reverse half of them don't explain why Washington's signature is there and several that do don't make it clear. Of those that do make it clear 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8, 2 seems to imply it was for the electric light and 5,7, and 8 just show a bunch of gears. I guess they are supposed to be symbolic of innovation.

 

Let's face facts. The US Mint is out of touch with America coin collectors and users. In other words, they don't have a clue what Americans want in coins.

 

I agree none of the obverse designs are very impressive and certainly don't break any new ground.

As for the reverse, I'm not sure how well the gears will translate to a coin.

I'll give the designer of R-14 props for at least researching and understanding what the first patent involved. Although I still wouldn't choose a man stirring a large 2-legged pot. (Come to think of it, instead of George Washington's signature, why not commemorate inventor Samuel Hopkins on the coin?)



And finally, we can probably be thankful the "Space Cowboy" motif was not chosen (although I find the combination of a cowboy hat, an astronaut, and George Washington intriguing )

 

So are they still planning on making that “intro coin” this year? Seems like they are on a bit of a time crunch here, considering there is still a lot of work to be done and, they have more to make in 2019 so they can’t run into next year very much...

 

Because that one is supposed to be an "introductory" coin. So it makes sense to not honor any particular innovation/innovator. Now whether the 2018 intro piece should be issued at all, weeelll ...

Christian

 

Yes, it brings up the question of "Why does this new coin series NEED an introduction"?

 

Marketing? These coins will not really circulate, so something must be done to make them known among (future?) collectors. Starting with something that involves George Washington may not be such a bad idea. But I still think it is superfluous - simply advertising the Innovators series should get the job done.

Christian

 

Anything new with this series? Especially the introductory coin? It's getting late in the year!!!!

 

Yes the CACC met again and have selected the design they would like for it to be.
Obverse

Reverse

 

Obverse seems empty....needs some stars in the upper right quadrant, maybe around the edge from 12 oclock to 5 oclock.

The reverse isn't awful....

 

Now that the Mint has taken over sales for the BEP, I doubt they'll have time to put out a new coin by the end of 2018.

 

Wow when and where do I put my order in?

 

Just a waste , they should return to silver for collectors.These SBA SAC. They stamp out millions and they sit in vaults someplace. If your looking and lucky maybe you could find a Cheerios SAC. from 2000

 

Actually, in accepting that obverse design, the CCAC recommended that the "$1" be moved behind Liberty and the position of "In God We Trust" be changed.

"CCAC members concurred with member Donald Scarinci’s suggestion that the motto be reduced in size and moved slightly lower in the field and that the denomination $1 be moved to the field behind Liberty’s head."

https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/2018/09/american-innovation-design-picks-by-ccac.html


The image below shows the CCAC choice for the coin on the left and the CFA choice on the right. I personally prefer the CFA choice. The CCAC obverse has too much empty space and the reverse looks too cluttered for such a small coin.

 

No Thank You !

 

I agree with @ThomasW, I prefer the CFA choice for Obverse... I think I still like the CCAC choice for Reverse though....

 

Aside from the designs, I agree the coin itself should be innovative. Or at least different, unique, interesting... something collectible.

But sadly, the American Innovation Coin Act "...requires the coins use the same Manganese-Brass composition as all dollar coins struck since 2000..."
http://coinsblog.ws/2018/06/are-you-ready-for-a-new-dollar-series.html

 

To have a complete set I'd have to live to age 93 if I was to start buying them which I have no intention of doing. I've given up on products from the US Mint except one example of each Proof SAE. I'm sticking to 19th century type coins.