Coins, art and design
veryfine
Posts: 1,763 ✭✭✭
I've always been curious about coin collectors/dealer's knowledge and appreciation of art. I have an extensive understanding of art and art history and it greatly influences my coin collecting choices.
Are any of you drawn to certain coin series because it meets your own personal criteria for "great art?"
Are you examining the artist's flair for composition?
In terms of realism, are you keenly aware of anatomical accuracy and proportions?
When you examine a coin design, do you ask yourself whether parts or all of the design were intentionally stylized or a clumsy attempt that didn't quite work out right?
Is it ever obvious to you when an artist's original 2-D intentions do not translate well as a 3-D coin relief? In other words, the design looks great on paper, but unsuccessful as a minted coin.
Do you research a particular coin series and try to acquire knowledge pertaining to the artist's wishes and the mint's reworking of the original concept? Is the finished product an acceptable compromise?
Are any of you drawn to certain coin series because it meets your own personal criteria for "great art?"
Are you examining the artist's flair for composition?
In terms of realism, are you keenly aware of anatomical accuracy and proportions?
When you examine a coin design, do you ask yourself whether parts or all of the design were intentionally stylized or a clumsy attempt that didn't quite work out right?
Is it ever obvious to you when an artist's original 2-D intentions do not translate well as a 3-D coin relief? In other words, the design looks great on paper, but unsuccessful as a minted coin.
Do you research a particular coin series and try to acquire knowledge pertaining to the artist's wishes and the mint's reworking of the original concept? Is the finished product an acceptable compromise?
0
Comments
Having a BFA in commerical illustration (life took me on a very different path after college) most items are measured in terms of design and creativity in my eyes. Most modern US and world coin designs are very uninspired relecting societies that have lost a certain "drive" or spirit.
In fear of turning political I will leave that element alone.
There are very inspiring designs out there but often limited to one side of the coin, that have been produced in the last eighty odd years, but sadly they are few and far between.
Many see coins and currency being used less each year and feel this indicates the eventual demise of either attractive designs or these mediums all together. However, the way monetary systems have moved toward electronic transactions, presents coinage and currency an opportunity to move away from utilitarian and often solely functional design of the last eighty odd years.
Part of this opportunity is an economic response towards the collecting community. In terms of "marketing" an attractive product usually sells better, governments love "making" money.
Whereas ecomomics may play a part, this opportunity is mostly dependent on the spirit of the cultures producing these coins.
Although a bullion piece, I would love to see artistry such as this DCarr design brought back to our coinage. Of course, these particular designs were already used on circulating US coins but you get the idea. The artistry is evident.
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage.
ANA Member R-3147111
Hmmm…..I guess my “evident” part is not operating today. All I get from this imitation of James Longacre’s work, and, to be honest, of most of the others referred to, is old fashioned, incongruous, sloppily proportioned, inane drivel – as Charles Barber once said “Suitable for sale to ignorant masses.” Bad art comes in any style.
Can coinage be fixed? Sure – get a dozen of the nation’s very best sculptors (not flat art people and certainly not illustrators), give them the coin parameters, offer a meaningful commission such as $100,000 for the best design, and let them do their best. The best would then go to our finest mechanical engravers and diesinkers for production. Do this with each denomination.
(For those who think $100,000 is excessive, consider that Saint-Gaudens' Estate got $6,000 in 1908. Most other designs from the renaissance period were worth $1,000 to $1,500.)
Now that I’ve stepped on a bunch of toes, I’m going to a movie and vegetate with the Mongols.
As for art in coins. I think many collectors know good coin art when they see it.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Mira La Maja Desnuda en oro fino.
Notice how on the reverse of the piece, everything is proportional in relation to the rest of the elements of the design. A classically well designed commemorative.
I agree.
<< <i>I've long thought that the 1987 $5 gold commemorative was the best U.S. design of the last 20 years. >>
This is what it always reminded me of-
Edited to add: Artistic value is quite important in my collection. Accompanied by historic relevance, numismatic value, and affordability. There are many factors involved.
Artistic merit is very important
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>I've always been curious about coin collectors/dealer's knowledge and appreciation of art. I have an extensive understanding of art and art history and it greatly influences my coin collecting choices.
Are any of you drawn to certain coin series because it meets your own personal criteria for "great art?"
Are you examining the artist's flair for composition?
In terms of realism, are you keenly aware of anatomical accuracy and proportions?
When you examine a coin design, do you ask yourself whether parts or all of the design were intentionally stylized or a clumsy attempt that didn't quite work out right?
Is it ever obvious to you when an artist's original 2-D intentions do not translate well as a 3-D coin relief? In other words, the design looks great on paper, but unsuccessful as a minted coin.
Do you research a particular coin series and try to acquire knowledge pertaining to the artist's wishes and the mint's reworking of the original concept? Is the finished product an acceptable compromise? >>
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Sure, but its usually obvious.
Definitely, many state quarters come to mind.
If I can I will research it. The finished products can be acceptable, but one wonders what it would look like unchanged
<< <i>Artistic value is quite important in my collection. Accompanied by historic relevance, numismatic value, and affordability. There are many factors involved. >>
This is a good answer.
TR got Saint Gaudens and then Pratt to redesign the gold coins, but both efforts were met with resistance by the banks and the public.
The 1890 professional competition was a failure because the Sec of the Treasury wanted the best sculptors to work for next to nothing and do it in the blink of an eye. Once it was opened to anyone, the results were predictably awful.
Saint-Gaudens was given complete artistic freedom within confines of law. Pratt designed an obverse that TR’s friend, Bigelow, knew the President would like. The reverse was a rework of S-Gs $10 to correct problems of proportion and realism. Objections of bankers were after-the-fact and based mostly on changing designs, although the $5 and $2.5 did not stack will and wore quickly.
Re: converting 2D to 3D.
This is easy on a superficial level but not on one involving the best sculptors or medalists. An illustrator is not a sculptor by training, or in visualization, or in realization. The result is often something that looks more like a 6,000 year old Egyptian hieroglyph than a sculpted 3D design on a coin or medal. Even for an experienced sculptor, translation of their own paper sketches into 3D models is difficult and exacting work. New technology makes it easier to produce hubs and dies from flat art – but it doesn’t make it better.
(PS: The Mongols won 4-2. Kind of like 300 Spartans with more horses and flat sets.)