The Reagan Dollar nicely illustrates a coin design principal.

keets

It is a bad idea to use a facing forward portrait on a coin.



Al H.

The Federalist

I agree wholeheartedly. The appeal just doesn't seem to be there and it doesn't look as professional to me.

Jinx86

Due to the lack of relief that the US mint has show on current releases, I think a forward facing portrait would look flat and out of proportion.

I think a 3/4 side view would be best to show dept and not require a change in relief.

The drawing proposed for the Reagan dollar is great and shows him at his finest, on a coin it doesn't do much for me.

SamByrd

I think he Reagan dollar was one of the worst coins I have seen. The design implementation is a horrible rendition. I would of bought several hundred and used them as change in a retail setting but the coin was just so bad.

It is a terrible dishonor to a great man , at least in my opinion. The US mint puts this tripe out and seems clueless as far as designs on the modern series for the most part.

The op's point is a valid one , profiles seem to better on coins in general.

keets

there are several which aren't profiles, where the portrait is closer to 3/4 view. the one that stands out for me is one of the Grover Cleveland issues, it looks pretty nice. with the Reagan coin what stands out is the eye sockets and the teeth, not very appealing at all. looking at the coins as I 2x2 them it looks somewhere between a skeleton and one of the primate stars of "Planet of The Apes" fame.



I think RR deserved better.

ricko

I agree... the 'face forward' designs look weird and not really a good representation of the individual. Profile is best... although the 3/4 Jefferson is not too bad... Cheers, RickO

koynekwest

I tend to prefer the 3/4 profile if it's well done.

dcarr

Originally posted by: keets
It is a bad idea to use a facing forward portrait on a coin.

Al H.

I generally disagree that it is necessarily a "bad idea", although the Reagan Dollar does leave something to be desired.

It has been noted that there is only so much you can do aesthetically with the portrait of an "old man". This is true. But a skilled sculptor can still create a frontal portrait which works on a coin.

The US Mint's best sculptor is probably Phoebe Hemphill. Her frontal portrait of Van Buren (for example) is perhaps the best that could have been achieved of this face from any angle:

WillieBoyd2

Lots of Byzantine coins have facing portraits which usually don't wear well.

keets

Dan, a frontal portrait looks OK when the finish is matte or frosted. when it is brilliant the deep recesses for the eyes and mouth areas are bad in normal lighting. with the Van Buren design, I can hold it at the perfect angle and the appearance is nice. at the wrong angle it is a dark forehead and cheeks, lighter eyes and mouth. I don't think there's any way around that.



as your picture shows, though, straight on light with a matte finish is a pleasing design.

dcarr

I have not done many frontal portraits (half a dozen or so).
This one is probably the best and it looks reasonably good from most lighting angles:

BStrauss3

There is a lesson that the mint has NOT learned, which is that larger than life black & white drawings with fine shadings do not accurately convey the look of the actual coin.

1Mike1

not sure who designed this medal but not so bad.

DBSTrader2

The Reagan coin doesn't bode well for the future.........I have to wonder how the Mint will manage to accurately portray "The Donald's" subtle orange-tone skin shading & white "raccoon eyes", as well as fit his wind-blown yellow pompadour, on the dollar coin - - if and when his time comes!

BillJones

The Lincoln coin suffers from the same problem. That thing looks like it goes with Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter after Abe went over to the other side and became "a good vampire" who was out killing bad vampires.

BillJones

Originally posted by: 1Mike1
not sure who designed this medal but not so bad.

That is the 1981 official Reagan inaugural medal. I suppose it's okay, but I think that it could have been better. Reagan was a movie actor and was photogenic even in his later years.

Here is the 1985 Reagan - Bush medal which I think looks a bit better.

FaberCastell

Originally posted by: keets
Dan, a frontal portrait looks OK when the finish is matte or frosted. when it is brilliant the deep recesses for the eyes and mouth areas are bad in normal lighting. with the Van Buren design, I can hold it at the perfect angle and the appearance is nice. at the wrong angle it is a dark forehead and cheeks, lighter eyes and mouth. I don't think there's any way around that.

as your picture shows, though, straight on light with a matte finish is a pleasing design.

I pretty much thought the same thing when I first saw the Mint's picture of the Reagan coin. However, I recently picked up a Reagan coin and medal set and the coin in hand isn't nearly as bad as the "official" Mint picture. In fact, I would say it's about average as presidential dollars go.

In my experience, this has happened with other modern issues. The picture looks bad, but the coin in hand looks much better. Something tells me the Mint should look more closely at whoever they are outsourcing this work to (assuming they are). Hard to believe such an important marketing tool is being overlooked.

Edited to read: My point is that criticizing pictures of coins can be risky... much better to have the coin in hand before passing judgment.

keets

my assessment is based on holding the coin(s) discussed here at my desk at work under typical lighting. also, customers have tended to say the same thing. the entire series is sort of peculiar to me because I like the depictions of the earlier Presidents more than the later ones.

dcarr

Originally posted by: BStrauss3
There is a lesson that the mint has NOT learned, which is that larger than life black & white drawings with fine shadings do not accurately convey the look of the actual coin.

I agree. It is ridiculous to take a photograph of a modern president, do a pencil drawing of it with shading under the nose, chin, etc., review and choose designs based on such drawings, and then digitally sculpt from such a drawing. There are too many losses in translation.

For the pending WW1 commemorative dollar, however, the US Mint is taking a different approach. Designs will be submitted and reviewed in 3-D sculpted form.

keets

I think the process of using design by committee is a failure and has hurt the programs where it is used. there is hope, though, since several of the most recent Commemorative issues have been very appealing with traditional leaning designs. overall, the artists and the designers involved aren't bad, it's the selection process which needs improvement.