The mint has butchered the Kennedy half and the Washington quarter
rlawsha
Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭
I was reading an article in Coin World last night that was talking about the Kennedy half and the Washington quarter redesigns over the years. They showed obverse pictures of a 1964 Kennedy and a 2004 Kennedy side by side so you could really see the differences. They did the same thing with an early Washington quarter and the obverse of a statehood quarter. The new designs look absolutely terrible compared to the old designs. They have turned Washington's hair into something that looks like spaghetti. As far as the Kennedy portrait goes, it looks like he has been given an overdose of Botox by removing wrinkles in his brow and sharpening his jaw line. I for one think the mint has butchered these coins in the interest of production efficiency.
0
Comments
Russ, NCNE
I really enjoy coins pre 1964.
You can spot them a mile away in the cashiers drawer at a fast food joint.
They did these new designs to make them last longer against wear and tear right?
MCDBA MCSD MCSA
http://www.sqlgeek.org
Joe
designset
Treasury Seals Type Set
I have felt this way a long time. I too watched the Washignton 25c morph over the years. The 25c from the 30's and 40's and 50's have an almost sculptural quality in comparison. Same with the Lincoln 1c. They bear little to no resemblance to the design as issued.
Best,
Billy
I never cared for the “bald look” that the modern, “dead presidents” (exception to Franklin) coins of the ‘40s, ‘50s and ‘60s looked. I kind of prefer the hairlines. When the designs of the teens and twenties got replaced, the whole thing starting going down hill with each replacement.
As for the Washington Quarter, it’s been an ugly coin since 1932. The wrong design was selected for it at the beginning, (Mrs. Fraser won the competition and her design should have been on the coin) and the mint has been tinkering with thing constantly since its introduction. So far as I’m concerned ALL of the state quarter designs are an improvement over the cramped boring eagle and lettering that was on the Washington Quarter. With any luck at all we won’t be seeing that reverse again.
<< <i>I concure!
I really enjoy coins pre 1964.
You can spot them a mile away in the cashiers drawer at a fast food joint.
They did these new designs to make them last longer against wear and tear right? >>
None of the '65 to '98 coins were high art, and I certainly agree with BillJones that
the Washington was ugly (especially the reverse), but there was no real change to
the designs in 1964. The quarter was tweeked to make it coin a little better in cu/ ni,
and the nickel had the initials added in '66. But the destruction of the relief on the
coins occurred mostly much later. Most of the changes in the way the coins look was
probably quite intentional to keep them looking modern and much was probably un-
intentional. The quarter for instance had always had a convex obverse before 1996.
The whole coin was slightly cone shaped to facilitate coining and this was reversed in
'96. The effect to most collectors was highly negative.
The relief has been lowered so they can be coined at higher speeds and cause less
wear and tear to the dies. The coins will actually wear out much faster since there is
less design to wear. It makes little diffference that they wear out faster since the at-
trition rates are so high that no coin will last in circulation long enough to wear out any-
way. They have started using thinner strip to make quarters which is probably mainly
so new coins aren't too much thicker than the worn coins in circulation. There was
starting to be a pretty big difference (as much as three coins per roll) in the thickness
of old and new quarters.
Do you want it good or do you want it fast?
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
<< <i>What a shame that the mint has has sacrificed beauty to save a buck. What's next, copper slugs with designs made from ink? >>
Your right except that it will be a zinc slug, and ink cost money so they will use dirt.