San Francisco Mint Commemorative Proposed...

FC57Coins

In the Dec. 10 issue of Numismatic News there is a front page article about a proposal to put forward a commemorative program to raise money to help fund the restoration of the San Francisco Mint. The article mentions that the proposed set would consist of possibly a $3 gold piece and a 20-Cent piece with both possibly having a rendition of the "Granite Lady" on the obverse. I think it'd be really cool if they considered having the original design of these two coins on the obverse and perhaps a rendition of the mint building on the reverse - what say ye??

Frank

kranky

I think both would be wildly popular, assuming they don't flatten the relief of the original designs in order to pound them out faster.

Therefore, I'm certain they will never do it.

flaminio

I'd love to see commemorative 20c and $3 coins -- but ixnay on the original designs. Leave the past in the past. Yes, the buffalo buck was well done and wildly popular, but I'd much rather see innovative new designs rather than a constant recycling of old ones.

LanLord

That would be way cool, I would buy a bunch just because it sounds so great.

FatMan

I like the idea of $3 and .20 peices.

The mint needs to shake the commem program up to keep it fresh. I am pleased that they are releasing only two per year and with some added creativity like this these may actually sell out. Could be another Buffalo.

gmarguli

The public doesn't want creative commems. The mint does NOT sell these coins to coin collectors. They sell them to Ma & Pa America. The same people who buy proof and mint sets are the ones that buy these commems. I doubt that most are real/serious coin collectors.

The last time the mint tried to get creative with teh bi-metallic coins, they failed horribly.

The public wants bland coins that they can understand. They cannot understand a 20¢ or a $3 coin. They can understand a denomination that is the same as a paper bill, but not something from 130 years ago.

CalGold

I like the idea, would like to see sometihng good done with the old building. However, buildings don't show well on coins, so I'd rather see a design that does not include a rendition of the building.

CG

Conder101

A building can look good on a coin if the artist is good and it is done right. The first rule, and the one most everyone breaks resulting in terrible building designs, is never show the building straight on! Use a perspective view.

flaminio

<< <i>A building can look good on a coin if the artist is good and it is done right. The first rule, and the one most everyone breaks resulting in terrible building designs, is never show the building straight on! Use a perspective view. >>



Compare, for example, Monticello on the nickel with Mount Vernon on the 1982-D Washington Half. Buildings can look good, if done right.

IrishMike

Oh no not another building, just don't put any steps on it. We don't need another step designation.

richbeat

The original Monticello design for the Jefferson nickel showed a three quarters view and did indeed look better. It was, of course, rejected. I have no problem with this proposal. gmarguli's argument against it could be valid. There should have been a commem back in 1992 to honor the 200th anniversary of the Philly mint, but they missed the boat, and there should be one in 2006 to honor the 100th anniversary of the Denver mint.