Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;krispy, post: 2075439, member: 19065&quot;]Most certainly a suitable Director, who is not simply selected for the appointment to head the Mint as a public relations goon and padding their resume with a government appointed role, only to step down joining the board of a major corporation in a lucrative roll as an Advisor, is very much in need.</p><p><br /></p><p>However, I couldn&#039;t disagree more with the rest of this post!</p><p><br /></p><p>The problem is NOT technology and the solution is NOT in violently overthrowing it and reverting to former techniques to arrive at designs for the production of coins. What worked in the past (and is hailed today) was often what was the most technologically advanced method available <i>then</i> and suited <i>then</i> current costs of labor and production.</p><p><br /></p><p>The Mint has always sought and employed the best technology available to securely Mint coins combined with meeting the requests of banking and trade, which informs coins’ designs, in most cases, the flatter the better for how they operate in vending machines, stack, store, roll and can be counted, AND, not wear out from contact or be easily replicated (forged). They also seek the technology which is most cost effective in this pursuit, providing absolute security for our currency.</p><p><br /></p><p>The Mint should be seeking innovative equipment, engineers and software developers plus funding their further invention and refined proprietary equipment and software, as well as training and supporting those designers selected to work with coins’ designs. There seems to be missing, and critically ought to exist, mentoring and the guidance of outside designers (who are not minting crafts-persons and technicians) in realizing better results within the parameters of minting and technological limits, and to push those limits while optimizing designs.</p><p><br /></p><p>None of this is an aesthetic question to be solved. Designs will always be debated and never appeal one hundred percent to everyone. Everyone has their strongly different opinions on aesthetics and artist and designers cannot be blamed for what they deliver, especially within the realm of designs pressured by competing panels of influence (CACC), oversight (Treasury) and control (Congress). All design can and does suffer from this kind of bureaucracy. The designs of the past that so many today praise were imperfect and required a lot of noodling and came into creation after much debate and hard work, too. Certainly, much of the work today appears to suffer from such problems and appears to need more time to develop quality work. So yes, there is much lacking, yet. It should also be noted the amount of designs being annually produced compared to the past eras. The U.S. Mint for one has an enormous annual catalog of designs!</p><p><br /></p><p>I disagree that the past was better than the future or that talent and contemporary designs cannot compete at or achieve the same level of success. It can today, but there are obstacles and red tape like anything else in government. If people want better designs, then they need to make it their goal in supporting it, popularizing their ideas that will improve, fund and develop the kind of work they wish to see appear on coins. There are plenty of fantastically skilled crafts-persons, engineers, artists, machinist, software developers and others out there, but they are not found cheap. They are engaged in other fields, perhaps even in fields considered much more pressing to society than making pretty coins that collectors covet.</p><p><br /></p><p>There’s far more than technology to blame and just like when technology fails, it’s usually human error that is found as the root cause. The same may essentially be said about “banal cartoonish” coins. I disagree the blame falls on the designers and crafts people though. And don’t forget, that the “sensibilities of most seasoned numismatists” is the very last thing that the Mint is engaged in its charge to satisfy production of coins it is directed to mint. To advance that position, would require a more concerted effort amongst said group to affect the outcome of modern coinage, advising on the areas of weakness in design and production while understanding better the other side of the coin in what goes into demanding they exist in the first place.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in