Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by Collecting Nut, Oct 24, 2021.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
It’s actually a set you can put together at a reasonable price, with the exception of one coin.
Yep. Pretty sure they would have gotten a lower bacterial count from a random $2.50 Indian than a random $2 horse blanket and a fifty-cent piece. But, hey, scientific evidence wasn't any more respected then than it is now.
I didn't like that incuse design at all when I first saw it. It's grown on me, but not enough to make me think it was ever a good idea.
I do like the design on both sides. Certainly better than today’s coinage.
gotta love old gold.
Isn't it ironic? Often times the flaws behind an otherwise great idea don't show until it's put into practice. The incused design is less susceptible to wear and will remain sharp longer. Yet it didn't work out. I remember reading an article from John Milton. Aside from the germs, the fields (being higher than the devices) got all scratched up and made the coins look bad.
Yes, I do to.
There was an article published in The Numismatist soon after the incuse designs were introduced which stated that the recessed ares in the design would dirt traps that would spread disease.
that that repeated in the press or by mint officals?
It didn’t come from mint officials. As I remember it, it was some guy’s opinion. I will have to look it up in the old book, Selections from The Numismatist, U.S. Coins.
I’ve seen articles so much its become common source to me.
Separate names with a comma.