New Innovation Dollars proposed designs...

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Wait, is there something wrong with video games? Also, the coin features pong as a significant innovation, which it is. This game led to real time interactive simulations; a significant step in modern computing for many industries.

 

Oh, my.

 

I don't have a problem with the topic. I just think the designs are really awful.

 

Seriously! With all of the innovation in this country...The Wright brothers, Henry Ford, Albert Einstein, etc. I'm not sold on the video game thing either.

 

I am embarrassed for the U.S. Mint. A once proud organization lowering themselves to this cr*p, and all for the almighty buck!
I guess we should really blame Congress primarily and the CCAC as well.

DO NOT PURCHASE THIS JUNK. It will just encourage them to produce more.

 

@quartertapper the various governors were supposed to submit ideas based on famous inventors from their state. I guess this is the best that New Hampshire could come up with but oh my...

@Bill H. can you imagine what the implementation would have looked like if they didn't have the AIP program?

 

Who is it that comes up with these ugglesome designs?

 

You have to admit, if the NH Governor want his states dollar to honor the innovation of Pong, the designers really don't have a lot to work with.

 

With each new series and/or design the US Mint comes across as trying way too hard.

We went from depictions of Liberty and bald eagles to basketball coins and pong.

 

Maybe he (NH gov) made a type and it was supposed to be bong?

 

Looking at Wikipedia, Rudolph Baer was born in Germany, his family moved to New York in 1938 and thus avoided Nazi Germany, he became a US citizen later and died in New Hampshire in 2014 at the age of 92. President George W. Bush presented him with the National Medal of Technology in 2006 and Manchester, NH created "Baer Square" in his honor, complete with a statue.

Many call him the "Father of Video Games" and he also developed the electronic game "Simon." His home video game design was licensed to Magnavox for their 1972 Odyssey home system. I've seen online demonstrations of this early system and it's pretty crude, but it apparently sold decently at the time.

The Mint may be trying to reach out to younger audiences with this nod to video games. Given that theory, how video game fans would even hear about this coin, whether they would even know the name Ralph Baer, and assuming that they would care about it at all, are other questions.

Sadly, the entire "Innovation" series seems like an extreme case of creating collectibles for the sake of creating collectibles. In and of itself it isn't very innovative. Thankfully, the individual coins don't cost much, but that doesn't really bode well for future interest or value, either. If they were actually circulating dollar coins, that would make them far more interesting. Oh well.

 

While many here aren't the audience, video games were actually a HUGE innovation. Today the video game industry is worth over a 100 billion dollars and has been responsible for a lot of technology advances that apply far past video games.

 

People keep saying "the mint" chose this or that. It's NOT the mint.

https://www.fosters.com/news/20190704/input-sought-for-nh-1-coin-program

 

Being a computer programmer, I completely agree. I was also raised on video games and consider them an amazing innovation in many ways. Though they can appear juvenile and sometimes trite, even simple video games aren't nearly as easy to create as people may think. They involve math, logic, electronics, often knowledge of physics, etc. Even the 1972 system mentioned that now appears crude was quite an engineering feat. I actually don't have a problem with putting Ralph Baer on a coin (though I admit that I had never heard of him prior), I'm just not a particular fan of the "Innovation" series, which the Mint at least oversees.

 

My mistake.

They'll only be making the awful coins, but it wasn't their idea. That makes things a little better I suppose.

 

Completely agree. I was excited for it but overall it has been very disappointing with the designs which I believe is the fault of the CCAC. Even when good topics are picked the best designs even just from what was submitted are rarely chosen and that's not to say a lot of the designs were even good in the first place.

 

As I understand it, it works something like this:

The state's governor submits suggested designs - ranging from ideas to sketches.

The Mint's designers - supplemented by the AIP (Artist Infusion Program) turn those into refined sketches.

The two review bodies - CCAC and CFA(?) review and provide a suggestion.

The Secretary of the Treasury (the guy who can't write his name) makes the decision.

Once a design is chosen the engraver turns it into a master hub.


My beef with the process - besides the insipid designs - is that lots of things look good in shaded "pencil" drawings but do not translate well to circulation quality coins.

 

True, but the collectors aren't that interested, and the coins are made for circulation so they are pretty much a flop as a coin or a "collectible".

 

Massachusetts thinks basketball is an innovation.