New Reverse for the ASE program.

What do you think. The article says it's reverse #41, I really like 40.





http://www.coinweek.com/featured-ne...reverse-design-american-silver-eagle-program/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I like the pose in #40, but it's got a lot going on. I prefer #41, but I'd like to see arrows along with the olive branch (maybe because I'm retired military).

 

What they really ought to do is mint a series of different reverse types. That would broaden the customer base to those of us that like to collect by type as opposed to just date or bullion value. There are a number of very elegant designs among those proposals. Give me a dozen different reverse types, and I'll buy a dozen ASE's.

 

I like the 40 and 41. I prefer the 40 though

 

I don't care for changing the product mid-stream

 

Me neither. Stick with the Mercanti reverse. Is the reverse change set in stone?

 

this has been discussed at length in the U.S. Coins forum:

http://www.cointalk.com/threads/ase-reverse-redesign.245318/

This isn't a change mid-stream. Unless otherwise dictated by an act of congress (ie, Franklin half), U.S. coin designs can be changed every 25 years. It's been 29 years for the ASE. The fact that a new reverse is being proposed is no different than any other U.S. coin that has seen design changes.

 

I'd be pleased as punch with either 40 or 41. I agree that 40 is pretty busy, though.

I've never liked heraldic eagles one bit, and I really like the more naturalistic representations on the SLQ, Walker and St. Gaudens issues. 41 is a fitting successor in that tradition.

 

No it isn't. The CACC has voiced the opinion that the reverse should be changed, and they have selected the design they would like to see it changed to but the Secretary of the Treasury, whose decision it is to make, is under no obligation to accept the CACC's recommendations. He can chose to change it or leave it alone, and if he does decide to change it he can chose some other design. There is no legislation mandating that the design be changed, but the Sec has the power to change it if he so chooses. Most if not all of the Sec's of the Treasury for at least the past 64 years have been to timid to exercise that power.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think #40 is really nice, but I think it would be a nightmare trying to reproduce all of the folds and stars on the flag. I doubt that you would get the same appearance on the actual coin.

Chris

 

I vote for no change. The ASE is one of my favorite designs. Let's work on the nickel and dime first.

 

I like #41. From what I read, they will make some minor mods to the design: add arrows, tilt the eagle upward so it's rising, update the verbage.

 

No change before the 30th anniversary, then they can screw it up all they want.

 

I want them to stick with the current design, makes the coin more recognizable, less confusing to the general public.

 

Anyone know why they are all $5 and not $1? Also, I believe that #41 has been selected. TC

 

They just decided to change I guess? Silver Canadian maple leafs are $5 right now.

 

I would prefer $20 to make it more in line with spot silver.

 

They probably don't want people to actually end up spending them as currency, if silver fell below $15-$16 then people would start spending them.

 

I believe these were up for consideration for $5 gold coins. It said anytime one was presented it went into a folder for later consideration.

 

The silver eagle and dime are fine. It's that blasted nickel obverse that has got to go.