1804 Silver Dollar Gold Coin pictures finally up
HalfDime
Posts: 921 ✭✭✭✭✭
The mint finally posted the pictures for the 1804 Silver Dollar Gold Coin:
This is the silver medal
The only other information is there is a HHL of 1 at this time.
12
Comments
Actually these coin designs look quite nice to me. Hate to say it but a lot of what I’ve seen coming out lately looks like kids that weren’t doing well in art class.
I think I'll pass
Those are computer renderings. It will be interesting to see what actual images of actual coins or medals will look like.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Looks so AI generated to me. So sterile. Where’s the artistic expression there.
No thanks. For the bucks they’re going to change, I’ll take a hard pass.
Art class yes, pottery class 👎
Op could've said images instead of pictures. May be saying "you know what I mean, so lay off".
Artistic expression? - lol. These are exacting replica designs dating back to that period. So the artistic expression starts there.
The renderings are always off from the actual in-hand product. These will be struck in an UNC/MS finish and I'm looking forward to getting the set.
Love the raised edge lettering & collar die seams included in the images.
Lol Does the mint ever put up actual photographs of coins this early?
With the other Best of the Mint I would like to get, I may be stretching the budget REAL TIGHT before I get to this or the 1907 St. Gaudens. I may have to choose 1 and I have no idea which at this point
.
What I could do without are the silver medals they are including, dont like any of them.
The Mint never, ever uses "actual photography" for the products that they sell on their website.
All of it is Rendered/Morphed/Ai generated imagery - even the Mint OGP, Mint sets, & canvas bags of quarters, etc...
All rendered images.
Gack!
It’s a facsimile of the original. Given the price of gold and the mint’s outrageous mark-ups, most collectors won’t be able to afford it anyway.
Extremely hard pass!
Really? Would you take an oath under the penalty of ten years in prison if this photo is not an actual photograph of the product?
Yes, Really... ⇈... That is a 100% fake/rendered image ⇈ - NOT a real photograph of the Sup OGP.
But this one is a real photo...⇊... (with Wonder Woman in place of Sup)...
.
.
Take a good look at the Mint's fake rendition of the "Rigid" Medal support apparatus - the one you posted ⇈...
Now take a look at a real photo of the Medal support apparatus below.
It is so thin and cheap that the 2.5 oz Medal collapses and bows the entire assembly.
The 2.5 oz Medal support contraption is the weakest link within the Comic art OGP.⇊...
This looks like a flying head. 😯
Just another overpriced gimmick from the US Mint. For what that will cost, I'd rather buy a high-grade slabbed double eagle.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Absolutely not a photograph. Look at the finish on the medal and the dull finish on the glossy box.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
What's with the Habsburg jaw?
Keira Knightley sat for the engraver
Nobody said it was an unfiltered photograph, as though a mint employee is carrying a digital camera and snapping it in the product warehouse. It is professionally done and they adjust it to be as impressive as possible.
"The U.S. Mint does use professionally produced and digitally processed photographs for the product images on its website and in its marketing materials.
What “processed photographs” means here
The Mint has undertaken large imaging projects where documents and photos are scanned or photographed and then adjusted for brightness, contrast, and other qualities to create accurate yet visually optimized images.
Imaging work for Mint materials has involved software such as Photoshop, with operators specifically adjusting contrast and brightness and establishing benchmarks for different types of images to get the closest possible reproduction.
Photographs of U.S. coins used by or for the Mint can be taken by contractors (for example, Burwell and Burwell), and the Mint reserves rights in those images, indicating that these are custom, professionally crafted photos rather than unprocessed snapshots."
So they sometimes take photographs and process them digitally, them upload them as product photos.
I like all of the SesquiQ designs. I may have to sell a kidney for the $20k the whole shebang will cost, though
@HalfDime
They are not photographs that've been processed/enhanced digitally or otherwise - they are NOT photographs
They haven't even begun to strike the 1804 Gold. The image that you posted is not a photograph - it is a rendered image
.
Gee, no kidding on the 1804 coin? Nobody said ALL the images are photographs. It's kind of hard to photograph something that doesn't exist yet. You claimed they never photographed anything, and that is what I responded to.
I like it. This may be an expensive year
It would be nice if they made a clad version of the 1804 dollar for us budget-minded folks.
Or even a silver version, which would make sense since it's based on a famous silver dollar.
Let’s go back to having the sculptors create instead of what we are seeing now.
Great looking coin but the year 1804 has nothing to do with the 250th birthday of the US so I suggest that they just change the date to "1776-2026".
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Their product catalog has NO actual photographs of which I'm aware. I don't know why they do it that way, but they do. The Superman photograph is not a digitally processed photo, it's an artist's rendering.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
But you responded with the Superman artist rendering which is also not a photograph. It's been years since I've seen an actual photograph in the product catalog. Go look at EVERY proof coin in the catalog. None of them are photographs, which is obvious from the lack of any mirrors. And they have proof coins going back to 2018.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
You mean the mint hasn't taken a digital camera and gone into the product warehouse to put up photos on the website? I never could have guessed that, lol. The mint marketing department is happy to know you think there are no photos taken of any products.
@jmlanzaf
"Their product catalog has NO actual photographs of which I'm aware. I don't know why they do it that way, but they do. The Superman photograph is not a digitally processed photo, it's an artist's rendering."
Bingo.
He stubbornly thinks that they are digitally enhanced photos.
They are not.
Yes. The Mint has not taken a digital camera and gone into the warehouse. I don't knew why they don't, but they don't. The images never change from before and after release.
Did you look at the 80+ proof listings going back to 2018? NONE of them are photographs. It is obvious based on the fields. So far, there is not a single actual photographic image (added: from the catalog) in this thread. If you find one, I would be intrigued.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Lol. Yes, they "enhanced" the mirrors right out of the proofs.
Admittedly, I've always found it odd. But it is their way.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I beg to differ with that quote above. That's a photo taken from my phone below ⇊
I'll add a couple of other "real photos" for posterity...
.
.
Note the damage to the Batman box - this is because the medal easily loosens from the flimsy holder, and bounces all around during shipping. 90% of my 2.5 medal OGP is damaged due to this weak support apparatus.
If they would place the 2.5 medal in a clamshell, - like they do with the gold, they wouldn't have the damage problem imo.
.
.
Yes, what a shame. What was the mint thinking? They should have photographed a warped box where the medal sags in the holder. That would have really sold a lot of product.
Sorry. I should have specified "catalog photos"
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I don't think that was ever the point. They don't photograph anything as the point.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
It’s a nice design. If gold goes back to $2k an ounce, I’d buy one closer to that point. There is no way I would pay $4k-$5k an ounce. The bullion market is far too speculative. I’d rather invest that money in stock of companies that will produce something more of value.
And you know this without citing any evidence at all. Only that you think this and nothing else.
This will be a very , very expensive year.
What a bummer, that with all the cool stuff coming out this year that gold has to be so unbelievably high.
Stocks could have quite a ways to fall as well, of course.
The evidence is that there are no photos on the Mint website. It would actually be easier for you to prove the opposite. Find ONE. You haven't been able to. I pointed you to the fact that all 86 proof items on the website are mirror-less artist renderings. Ieven posted some of the images. I provided evidence. You are the one who has not. Find me one photo. Should be easy if you think it's true.
Want some more evidence:
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
As a photographer, it is my opinion that those images are rendered by a computer. No cameras were involved in their creation.
Coin Photography
Thank you. I agree.
I don't know why the Mint doesn't use photos, but they just don't.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I'm going to guess that it's easier. They've already got 3d models that they can pose any way they want. For photos, you have to set up the lights, position the product, get bad reflections, redo, go into PS for some post processing, etc. As a photographer, I say "use renderings"
It's probably something like that. It definitely allows them to post "renderings" before they've actually made the product. But it does end up being less informative than it could for people who aren't regular Mint buyers. The proofs, for example, as I mentioned above, have no mirrors and look matte. The enhanced uncirculated looks the same as the uncirculated.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Nobody here has claimed every mint product is photographed for what is posted on the sales website, only that some are. Nobody has claimed the photos of the 1804 gold coin are real photographs.
What has been claimed is some of the product images are based on real photography. It is probably not many, but some are.
Nobody expects the mint to photograph a product like a coin which has not been struck yet.
The mint does do some early strikes though, they have admitted to already striking some dollar coins prior to them being finalized.
Getting information now out of the mint is like trying to find Jimmy Hoffa. So if anyone disputes what I posted here, you probably won't get an answer from the mint if they do or don't. But the odds are they do and that is all this is. A mole hill made into a mountain by a few posters..
"Nobody here has claimed every mint product is photographed for what is posted on the sales website, only that some are."
If memory serves, you claimed that some images are based on a photograph with no supporting evidence.
I have claimed that all images are not based on a photo, but instead rendered artificially, and I don't have supporting evidence either.
However, If you take a closer look, scale a rendered image(some are off) vs a real photo or an in-hand product, or perhaps even use some common sense, maybe you'll reconsider?
You seem to be the one making a mountain/hill to die on while simultaneously digging a hole to fall into.
But I could be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time
Agree. No one has yet found a SINGLE example of a real photograph and I've looked at well over 100 of them.
And I slightly resent the implication, not from you, that I've provided no evidence for my assertion. I've provided over 100 examples of renderings and have found no actual photos. Yet I'm told that my assertion has no evidence while the counter- assertion requires only a SINGLE example, and no one has found one. It is the counter- assertion that has zero evidence.
It would be very hard to definitively prove there are no photographs without reviewing all of them. Why Mr. Nickel has found none is either laziness or proof that photographs are a scarce as actual Bigfoot creatures.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.