Cartoonish modern Lincolns

Higashiyama

After staring at my computer screen in awe at the 1919 Lincoln photographed by Shylock, I pulled up some images of modern Lincolns.

Can someone explain the remarkably poor workmanship on the modern Lincoln? Presumably it is related to the zinc composition, huge number minted, need to keep costs down.

But why the cartoonish portrait, the ridiculous strands of 2-dimension hair, the total lack of depth in the portrait? Surely we could do better???

cladking

It's only been in very recent years that the relief of the Lincoln has differed
a great deal from the original. Just as a 1919 is quite scarce in MS-69 so are
the later date Lincolns. There are nice 1984 zinc cents and these look quite
a lot like the '19.

dddangerousdan

I think the reason is that the mint is trying to get the most coine out of each die. The lower relief enables the dies to last longer on the high speed presses. It all equals less cost for them and crappy looking coins for us.

DAN

indianabyron

Thats the motto of the whole American economy... Faster Cheeper and More of them. Which equates into crapper, junker, and the worst quality we can make.



Byron

coppercoins

Actually the first wide diversion from the original design was in 1969 when they dramatically lowered the relief and stepped up the detail - a decent move, but it began a long journey downhill to what we have today. If you view a Lincoln from the past ten years or so under a stereomicroscope you will notice that Lincoln's shoulder is actually concave and quite extremely un-artistic. Hi face is haggard, not proud, and he suffers (albeit less than Washington) from "spaghetti hair".

Most of this change has come about because the mint refuses to spent any more than they absolutely have to in mass manufacturing coins, and every micron of relief costs a little more. Years and years of continuously flattening the design a little more each time they came up with a new galvano has resulted in the insulting imitation coins we have now. None of the current designs bear any resemblance to the already boring original series designs we've been using for a number of years. They are all cheasy, ugly copies of what once was rather nice, crafted by a cheasy, cheap government.

A senate banking committee meeting was held at one time to discuss what needs to be done to liven up our coinage. I read every report I could find on the event, and it seems that not only are they aware of the entire situation and what has caused the insult to our intelligence they call "coins" but it seems they know what to do to fix it. Now we just need to see them get off their duffs and do it.

TomB

Washington is the worst of all portraits now. The poor guy is suffering from consumption!

airplanenut

I can explain it... our coins suck... we should replace them!

1907Quarter

the jefferson nickel actually doesn't look half bad. They actually have some nice flow lustre unlike the other coins, when they come straight from the mint and into the bank rolls. Has anyone ever observed this?

BNE

I agree wholeheartedly with the general disappointment over the reworked portraits. I just pulled out a 1995D cent and a 2002D cent from my pocket, and there's a noticeable difference just during that period. Apart from the relief, why the need to give Lincoln a Jimmy Durante honker? Why is his beard extra-pointed and flipped up? Why is the date teeny-tiny (with unartistic numerals), and why can't the "D" be centered? The aesthetics of the newest version absolutely stink. The sad part is, I doubt the Mint even views its "product" with an artistic eye. Certainly these aspects of the design are unrelated to costs savings. What a shame!

Edited to add: You're right about the concave shoulder, Coppercoins (since you da man, I had no doubt). It makes it look like his tailor did a lousy job.