The Reagan Dollar nicely illustrates a coin design principal.
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
It is a bad idea to use a facing forward portrait on a coin.
Al H.
Al H.
0
Comments
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.
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.
I think RR deserved better.
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:
The Mysterious Egyptian Magic Coin
Coins in Movies
Coins on Television
as your picture shows, though, straight on light with a matte finish is a pleasing design.
This one is probably the best and it looks reasonably good from most lighting angles:
ANA 50+ year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Author: 3rd Edition of the SampleSlabs book, https://sampleslabs.info/
"A dog breaks your heart only one time and that is when they pass on". Unknown
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.
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.
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.