Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;JBK, post: 15657, member: 1101&quot;]In my opinion, this is the real problem&nbsp; - what the Mint call &quot;coinability&quot;.&nbsp; Reliefs have been progressively lowered over the years, and then the designs altered to make up for the chnages.&nbsp; We now have what looks like spaghetti hair on the Presidents.&nbsp; Even the 1999 SBA was a redesign of the earlier versions, despote the fact that the 1999 version ws going to be a one-year piece from the start.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>If you look at an early (pre-70s or 80s) Jefferson nickel or even a Roosevelt dime, these designs were not really unattractive.&nbsp; The details were softer and had a much higher relief.&nbsp; Artisitically speaking, it may not have had the impact of a Walker or Buffalo, but these deigns were competently and expertly done. </p><p><br /></p><p>The Sacky is not too bad from my perspective, and the VERY shallow design relief (that eagle seems about .000000001 inch in depth, but looks OK nonetheless) works out OK since the coin was designed from the start with that in mind.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>The problem with the other coins is that they were designed in the old days when the mint would strike up a design.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I fear the good old days of artistic design and high relief are largely gone.[/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