If you prefer the designs of older coins - is it because of the designs, themselves, or something el
coinguy1
Posts: 13,484 ✭✭✭
I much prefer older designs, such as (1807) Draped Bust and earlier. In particular, the 1796 Dimes and Quarters are among my favorites, but, generally speaking, I greatly appreciate most older designs.
I admit, though, that I'm not sure if it's because of the artistic merits of the designs and whatever history I might associate with those times, or whether I like them better, merely because I see far fewer of them.
If, for example, I saw thousands of 1796 dimes, would I still be so enamored with the beauty and "coolness" of the design, or would it suddenly mean the same to me as a Roosevelt dime does?
Your thoughts?
I admit, though, that I'm not sure if it's because of the artistic merits of the designs and whatever history I might associate with those times, or whether I like them better, merely because I see far fewer of them.
If, for example, I saw thousands of 1796 dimes, would I still be so enamored with the beauty and "coolness" of the design, or would it suddenly mean the same to me as a Roosevelt dime does?
Your thoughts?
0
Comments
I am an Artist in my other life (non-professional, although went to college on an art scholarship)
Artistically, a lot of the older coins have various "design"problems, from the text book sense. Yet, they have character, and the relief is more appealing, especially compared to todays coins.
Look at the Barber coinage, no human head would have those proportions, yet is is a fairly handsome coin, and it stood up to circulation better than any silver coin I can think of.
And of course, I have to bring up the Franklin Half. It's appeal, to me, is in it's simplicity; something that artists are trained to explore and master. Always pushing the limits.
I think it's a combination of the factors that make us each an individual, our genes, our experiences, and our futures.
<< <i>If, for example, I saw thousands of 1796 dimes, would I still be so enamored with the beauty and "coolness" of the design, or would it suddenly mean the same to me as a Roosevelt dime does?
Well - how could I possibly let this blatant affront go without giving my two cents worth!
I think that regardless of age or time - there are certain coins that look pretty regardless of the design because you are seeing the fruits of the minter's art at it's most pristine. Yes I enjoy collecting moderns, but I like them because I find them pleasing. I also appreciate Walkers, SLQ's, Indian golds, Saints, and many other varieties.
I can't say that nickel trimes, John Reich bust halves, or lincoln cents do a lot for me. I've seen wonderful examples of each, but on the whole they just don't interest me.
So to answer your question - oh Mr. Mean Mean Man - it doesn't really boil down to just the design - it's also the condition, the toning, the overall appeal that gets to me
For myself, I think it is a combination of the metal used, age of the coin, the design and the history with that era. There is a unique aspect to collecting the classics and early 1900s that I don't feel with some of the moderns. Look at the winged liberty, a great design spanning WWI to WWII. The incuse design of the quarter eagle and half eagle (no more circulating gold coins an end of an era).
I think our coinage has gone through several distinct phases i.e. The liberty phase, the seated phase, the native american phase, the Greek phase and the modern phase (to name a few). Maybe it just takes time to warm up to new ideas.
Rich
Added:
But, believe me...if I won the lottery tonight, I could quite quickly "get into" the designs of the 1800's, and the history as well. So, I guess cash is the X factor. I don't even want to tantalize myself with interest in coins that I can't currently collect in the way I would want to.
Sorry MadMonk, I've never been a Barber coinage fan. I think the designs are boring and sterile. I agree with Theodore Roosevelt, who called the Barber coinage and other pieces of the period “atrociously hideous.” The only the reverse of the quarter and half dollar pleased me at all, and even with that the coin has to be at least a PR or MS 63 or better to really please my eye.
As for the modern period, I think that the best designs were during the period from 1913 to just after the Second World War when the Standing Liberty Quarter and Walking Liberty Half Dollar were in circulation. The Standing Liberty Quarter was overly ambitious, but we should remember that the Type I pieces that were minted in 1917 were quite well made. The trouble started when the design was “censored” to meet the tastes of a prudish treasury secretary, who was offended by the sight of the human body, even when it was depicted in a tiny motif.
IMO three of the finest designs in all of US coin history were minted in the 20'th century. These are the Saint Gaudens double eagle, the Walking Liberty half and the Buffalo nickel.
<< <i>Sorry MadMonk, I've never been a Barber coinage fan. I think the designs are boring and sterile. I agree with Theodore Roosevelt, who called the Barber coinage and other pieces of the period “atrociously hideous.” The only the reverse of the quarter and half dollar pleased me at all, and even with that the coin has to be at least a PR or MS 63 or better to really please my eye. . >>
Bill Jones,
Oh, don't get me wrong...I said "fairly handsome" Versus pretty or beautiful. But my poorly made point was the differance between a lean towards art, or engraving, or a coin that holds up to circulation. Quite a balancing act.
And I would have to agree, for me it has to be an AU-58, or a 63 or up.
Oh, and I'll add that the Type 1 Standing Liberty is on my top 5 favorite list...
My favorite designs are the Robert Scot capped bust right (see my icon), Indian $10, and draped bust. Someday, I would like to get a worthy representative of the latter, preferably a dollar.
I'm disgusted with the hero worship of modern coinage. People do Washington no honor, for example, by putting him on a coin when his opinions about "real world leaders" on coins was, and is, very clearly opposed to it.
That's what commemoratives should be for.
09/07/2006
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Jeremy
I beautiful flowing hair coin, or a state quarter with the outline of the state and its flower and bird on the back?
Tyler
For the last 25 years or so, the relief is too " flat " for my liking. The designs of today lack imagination in my eyes too. Like with Trade Dollars, the design tells a story of intention and purpose. To me it says that we desire and patiently waiting for a responce that we want to interact and trade outside out borders. So, the design tells a story of intent and how we perceive ourselves. The coins of today tells a story/biography of a singular person. Once you find out about them, the mystery is gone as the days of those persons lives are too fresh in our minds. So, it doesn`t tell me about ourselves and how we perceive ourselves. So, I guess I have a " artistic merits of the designs " bent.
The new ones are designed by committees and must pass several tests to make sure that they don't offend or inspire even ONE possible voter.
Give me Liberty or give me a pension.
It's too bad we can't have some good commems for stuff like trade with China or famous Walmart greeters.
trades
walkers
franklins
capped bust
mass half cents those you got to take a look at nothing better design wise then these coins
seated
barbers
indian cents
saints
lib quarter eagles they seem to fit well with the design moreso than the lib being on the 5 and 10 and 20 dollar gold dollar pieces
fish scales trimes
three cent nicks
two cent pieces
lib nicks
classic head anything
braided hair half and large cents
classic coronet head cents
and even moreso anything in the above in proof
with great toning
and great eye appeal
the pre 1807 stuff is older snobbish clickish and an old boys group you need to be a member of the club or you are considered crap even to ibd in one of their auctions you need to bow down and join their elite group
and way too expensive in decent eye appealling grades for the majority of collectors and in general is way overpriced at the current market levels
by many people in their day and this has been true to one degree or another for most coins through-
out history.
For the main part it is not beauty of design that is the biggest attractant to a coin for me. It is rarity,
history, value, utility and importance. It is about whether the coin was actually used and the era in
which it was used. It is about how many are in existence and how many other collectors are in com-
petition for the coin. It is about what the cost of a set is today compared to what it may be at some
point in the future.
Not all the moderns have bad designs and eventually some will be considered quite competent if not
high art. The Ike dollar is really an attractive design of an "unatttractive" subject. The typical XF exa-
mple holds little interest to me and the design is hardly best shown on such an example. The coin ex-
ists in the multimillion and can be found anywhere. This hardly is the stuff of which a collectors dreams
might be made. However a gem is a scarce and beautiful coin even if it is "new" and generally percieved
to be common. It can be found for a few dollars with luck and persistence which is not true of a draped
bust coin. There are many other moderns which will eventually be seen to be attractive coins and there
are even more which are currently vastly underappreciated.