Options
Let's talk about "artistic license" on a coin. Does it matter to portray actual structures, etc.?
Insider2
Posts: 14,452 ✭✭✭✭✭
I'm grading an Eisenhower dollar and decided to look up the Eisenhower home that is the major feature of the reverse. Guess what, not even a close match. Perhaps the image is another place he lived in after he was President.
0
Comments
Which Eisenhower dollar are you looking at? The reverses were not houses on the one's I have.... Cheers, RickO
Ike lived on the moon?
Lance.
I see Earth. Plenty of homes on Earth.
Edit:
The 1990 commem is what @Insider2 is referencing, I think:
Not this:
Nor this:
If you are referring to the reverse of the 1990 Eisenhower commemorative dollar, it shows Eisenhower’s home in Gettysburg, which he purchased in 1950.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_National_Historic_Site
Thanks, I saw the images of his homes including at Gettysburg. No Match! That's what got me thinking about artistic license.
The term itself can be used on the most ... ... that you’d not want your kids... ... ... ... or grandma... ... ... to read, hear, see, touch, or smell... ... ... and would be illegal... ... ... ... .... but slap “artistic license” on it and here we are now.
Here is a view of the back of the house showing that ell with the large fireplace brickwork on the outside.
Seems to be the view on the coin.
Thanks! Ike had a golf green and a sand trap out back!
When we went to Gettysburg, my Mother (born 1934) was more interested in seeing Eisenhower's Home than the Battlefield.
I've always thought that this double portrait of Eisenhower was one of the very least successful of all U.S. coin designs. Yet they sold 1.2 million pieces.
Reminds me of the time we were going to Virginia Beach but spent the entire first day at Williamsburg!
If an image of a real structure is used on a coin - something which is a bad idea under any circumstances - then the image should be as accurate as possible within limits imposed by coin size and minting technology.
That seems to be the case here.
They're all employing artistic license, from the first time they put Presidents on coins, or other artistic images. Columbus looked nothing like the image we have on the half dollar.
RE: "Columbus looked nothing like the image we have on the half dollar."
True ! He was much taller.
"At the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition, 71 alleged portraits of Columbus were displayed; most did not match contemporary descriptions.[172] These writings describe him as having reddish or blond hair, which turned to white early in his life, light colored eyes,[173] as well as being a lighter-skinned person with too much sun exposure turning his face red. Accounts consistently describe Columbus as a large and physically strong man of some six feet (1.83 metres) or more in height, easily taller than the average European of his day.[174]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus
A tall blond guy with psoriasis. There "perfect" hero figure. Or -- maybe he was really a Native American who discovered Europe and then got Isabella, the pious burner of non-catholics, to send him home...? Well -- it's late here and I should have been in bed by 01:00 UT
One reason I was drawn to collecting coins was due to the imagery, history and symbolism portrayed on coins. I think that coins have helped document our nations (same for other nations) history, past achievements, and national pride. Sometimes they can also remind us of the darker events and times, which also have to be remembered and learned from.
Today, history is being destroyed or rewritten across the world. Statues are being torn down, buildings are being destroyed and cultural traditions are being wiped away to appease "snowflakes" and their emotions. I don't see it changing anytime soon, so I think it DOES matter to portray actual structures, people and events on coins in a historically accurate way.
Here's another result for "eisenhower home gettysburg". Seems almost identical to the coin.
