Can't do the box of cookies without designing a matching 40 inch waist variety Lady Liberty Obverse. It will be "huge" seller!
Whereas the obverse is a shining example of Socialist Realism, hmm? http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/commemoratives/?action=2013GirlScouts Design wise the reverse looks OK in my opinion, except that I find it sad when a coin design merely repeats the logo of an organization that it celebrates ... Christian
Right, but that would be beyond the scope of this topic. The Mark Twain coin should come in 2016 ... Christian
I'm waiting for the Mike Mezack commemorative. It will only be sold in an ANACS 70 slab and will be offered at 5 times its actual value.
I say put the coin in a box of cookies, ala Cheerios dollar! Don't forget some obscure design flaw to make it really worth it!
MacArthur wins gold, what a sham. I guess they figured Eisenhower also has the dollar coin so they'll give the gold to someone else but still, what a sham.
They've also announced a March of Dimes commemorative to be issued in 2015 (to mark its 75th anniversary).
Wow - the Generals are the best of a bad lot. I have no interest in the others, as worthy as their causes may be, but I'll take anything with IKE on it. Girl Scouts = like - the coin = ugh. I'd rather buy more cookies. A LOT more. Baseball? Really? Those will probably be worth more down the road, like the hideous Olympic coins, just because they were so hard to look at that no-one bought them. I collect modern commems but some are just so bad that so matter how low the mintage I just can't see owning one. Braille, Police Officers, etc. these were all great ideas that were poorly executed (i.e. ugly). They could have been done much better and were a dis-service to the charities they were supposed to be supporting. IMHO.
Forgive the mini rant here but I want to know why there are no 'guys' featured on the Girl Scout commemorative. There was a gal featured on the Boy Scout commemorative (http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/commemoratives/?action=2010BoyScouts) in 2010. It was said that the depiction of a female visage (on the '10) was to keep things politically correct, however, I'm more concerned with anatomically correct.........:devil: Girls is girls and guys is guys.........I think....