US Mint Donations of Pattern & Experimental Pieces to Smithsonian

RWB

I'd like to see what others think about this.

19Lyds

Sure! Why not?

MikeInFL

No brainer... YES!

Sadly, I don't think it will ever happen though.

micmt

Yes so I can have a chance to see them being that the smithsonian is a quick 45 minute metro ride

Hyperion

no way... coins that SHOULDN'T be (like the '64 peace dollar) shouldn't be. this would just encourage (or not discourage) the mint from doing oddball things, just for the heck of it.

coins are coin, otherwise, they're just IMHO fantasy pieces, which IMHO are different than Patterns... there's a subtle difference.

Barndog

if even a modicum of artistry were used on today's coins, then YES. But since today's coins are dumbed down and PC, no thanks

STONE

I said that it would be a good idea for them to do this, but I also agree with Hyperion's objection statement.

Either way, if the mint comes up with very serious design ideas, but decided not to use them, then they should be displayed as such.
Destroying the dies of Pattern/Fantasy pieces serves no serious purpose since the dies aren't overly expensive to make.



<< <i>no way... coins that SHOULDN'T be (like the '64 peace dollar) shouldn't be. this would just encourage (or not discourage) the mint from doing oddball things, just for the heck of it.

coins are coin, otherwise, they're just IMHO fantasy pieces, which IMHO are different than Patterns... there's a subtle difference. >>

Coinosaurus

I say yes - no brainer.

COALPORTER

Auction to collectors.
Most items donated to the Smithsonian go into giant whearhouses, never to be seen by the public.

fcloud

I say no. the mint has enough issues.

speety

<< <i>Auction to collectors.
Most items donated to the Smithsonian go into giant whearhouses, never to be seen by the public. >>




IMO this would be a bad decision. Patterns would be created just to be sold and would be minted (basically) to meet collectors demand for unique items. Seems like the mint of the 1800s.

On second thought, perhaps some artistry would be brought back and this may not be such a bad idea....

Quarternut

A resounding YES!!

Just think if they had been doing this all along...at least from 1836-1838 or so.

We would be able to see all of the beautiful design concepts and artistic handiwork of the many talented, and some not so talented, engravers. Perhaps something that was not used 100 years ago, but is a beautiful design, could then be chosen to grace a current coin.

At the very least we would be able to study the development of design concepts and changes in technologies.

If it wasn't for the temptation to re-use them to re-strike coins, an example of the dies would be nice to have as well.

Instead of destroying the older hubs and working dies from the early 1st mint (some as old as 1800) from the Mickley collection in the late 1878, we would have better served if they would have just cancelled them and put them in the mint collection, which wound up in the Smithsonian. That was a numismatic tragedy in my opinion.

QN

coindeuce

Ditto Barndog. Engravers with a foundation in neo-classical design are like dinosaurs. I've seen kindergarten fingerpaintings with more creativity than modern U.S. Mint engravers.

Swampboy

I don't feel informed enough to vote on this issue.
Are there any cons? It seems like a good idea.
I'll follow along with interest.

PerryHall

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TwoSides2aCoin

For reasons of historical significance, yes.
We might learn something.

Longacre

I voted no because it would simply be too hard to regulate (and you thought that Longacre was a big fan of governmental regulation ). I cannot see how the mint could decide which coins are experimental, which are patterns, which are test strikes, which are just creations in order to regulate striking pressures, which are artists' interpretations of coins in varying stages, etc., etc.

Am I being unreasonable, or is there an easier way to do this?

sumdunce

Yes.



S

jfoot13

first impression is yes... documentation and transparency is good.... 100 years from now it will make factual reasearch much easier with less speculation to fill in the blanks..