Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Troodon, post: 145498, member: 4626&quot;]Yeah guess SBA&#039;s have to be mentioned, lol, though had a great reverse... she&#039;s just not very photogenic (coin-agenic?).&nbsp; Probably in the minority here but never been a big fan of the Barber coins, the obverse portrait just looks very unattractive compared to other portraits of Liberty... can hardly tell if it&#039;s supposed to be a man or a woman, for one thing.</p><p><br /></p><p>Dumbest looking coin ever issued by the US Mint I&#039;d have to say would be the Korean War commemorative.&nbsp; It&#039;s just too much crammed on to a coin without any attempt to make it all fit together.&nbsp; You can put a lot of detail into a coin design and not have it look cluttered... just look at the reverse of the WWII half... but this one just looks sloppy.</p><p><br /></p><p>Honorable mention would be any of the British commonwealth coins with the portrat of Elizabeth II they&#039;re currently using... it&#039;s not a very flattering portrait and is downright ugly compared to the earlier ones they used.&nbsp; The fact she&#039;s 80 is no excuse; I&#039;ve seen the older portrait of Victoria and it was done much better than this one.&nbsp; I&#039;m suprised the queen hasn&#039;t complained about it, I certaintly would have if it was me.&nbsp; The only portrait I&#039;ve seen any worse on British coins was the later portrait of George III... guess the engraver had reasonable excuse, as he couldn&#039;t do the portrait for life.&nbsp; He can be excused for creating the great St. George and the Dragon reverse for the crowns and sovereigns though, one of my favorite designs I&#039;ve ever seen on a coin.[/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