Unlikely...Unless he finally got his new PC with a fixed keyboard. >>
+++ It truly appears that comedians exist in this forum, and are not at all interested in numismatics. Maybe, the need to communicate, as to berate someone, may fill your need. The only thing that shall be a continuum is your lonliness. There is nothing wrong with humor, but you, nor anyone else know all things. Why create an aura, or infuse something which is non existent? This would be to obtain attention. We do not really follow this type of presentation, but just consider it "lacking" sound wisdom.
+++ We can identify that there are many knowledgable people here, some with humor;which is fine, others with interests as to our posts, possibly some with wonder, or confusion to comprehend our words. Each has been made different, each has their own thoughts and principles, as to the many with wisdom, there seem to be few. Then again, wisdom would really not live in such a place would it? For this reason have we also fallen short in, and of our weakness. We are not perfect, as no other is, but we continue with our faith. This is the true key to life.
To answer the first question asked and risk taking this thread off it's current path, I guess you can put me in a canoe. I've bought stuff from the mint in the past, and I made money on both the 20th and 25th Anniv. sets, and I like the ASE design well enough to have kept some and have a little over half of the proofs going back to '86. The $20 UHR a couple years ago was brilliantly executed, and I really like the one I have, and not just because it's worth a lot more than I paid for it (although that helps, too). I have a bunch of proof sets bought for myself, possibly out of habit, and the kids like the ones I've given them each year. The mint can't be blamed for the choice of what goes on the coins they make and things like maximum mintages, as those are Congress' decisions, and the only things they can produce autonomously is medals.
However...
My gripes with the mint are many, and all seem to have to do with creation and execution of designs. Things like spaghetti hair, ultra low relief, and sterile computer fonts and clip-art designs floating in space on a vast field of empty are not things I really want to collect. With few exceptions, the modern commemorative issues fall into this category. I have to wonder how Gobrecht, Longacre, Morgan, VDB, Weinman, or Fraser would have executed the shield reverse of the cent. My current biggest turn-off as a potential customer is the manner in which the dies are frosted for proof strikes. While the coarse frosting produces a high contrast cameo appearance and allows for things like the "reverse proof" finishes, it effectively adds a strong noise signal to the design, hiding the actual design elements and reminding me of the days of squinting at the TV to watch Gilligan's Island reruns on a low power station 25 miles from my antenna. Hopefully, they either advance this technology to take about 30 dB off the noise signal (i.e., make it much finer so that the actual design can be seen) or abandon it altogether in favor of the 2005 method of frosting a die.
Hopefully this thread didn't go "poof" while I was typing.
<< <i>To answer the first question asked and risk taking this thread off it's current path, I guess you can put me in a canoe. I've bought stuff from the mint in the past, and I made money on both the 20th and 25th Anniv. sets, and I like the ASE design well enough to have kept some and have a little over half of the proofs going back to '86. The $20 UHR a couple years ago was brilliantly executed, and I really like the one I have, and not just because it's worth a lot more than I paid for it (although that helps, too). I have a bunch of proof sets bought for myself, possibly out of habit, and the kids like the ones I've given them each year. The mint can't be blamed for the choice of what goes on the coins they make and things like maximum mintages, as those are Congress' decisions, and the only things they can produce autonomously is medals.
However...
My gripes with the mint are many, and all seem to have to do with creation and execution of designs. Things like spaghetti hair, ultra low relief, and sterile computer fonts and clip-art designs floating in space on a vast field of empty are not things I really want to collect. With few exceptions, the modern commemorative issues fall into this category. I have to wonder how Gobrecht, Longacre, Morgan, VDB, Weinman, or Fraser would have executed the shield reverse of the cent. My current biggest turn-off as a potential customer is the manner in which the dies are frosted for proof strikes. While the coarse frosting produces a high contrast cameo appearance and allows for things like the "reverse proof" finishes, it effectively adds a strong noise signal to the design, hiding the actual design elements and reminding me of the days of squinting at the TV to watch Gilligan's Island reruns on a low power station 25 miles from my antenna. Hopefully, they either advance this technology to take about 30 dB off the noise signal (i.e., make it much finer so that the actual design can be seen) or abandon it altogether in favor of the 2005 method of frosting a die.
Hopefully this thread didn't go "poof" while I was typing. >>
+++ Well, a most informative forensic breakdown of the state of affairs. We have spoken of your initial aspects of 'design', again going back to "committee", which you are surely aware of. We believe that the "committee" placed a death toll to artists and engravers alike, including Political Correctness; whatever that is. Laura Gardin Fraser was one on the very finest, most talented artist we have recognized till this day. Yes, there are many, but she had the talent of any master engraver, not with touches of feminity either. This, we believe is why she was so prominently known. We like the gain issue (30db), very nice equation to the summation. This would lead us to believe that you know more than what you may be saying. So, what shall we do? We believe that the knowledge of this field may be waning somewhat, and to infuse your ways, in which we wholeheardtly agree, appear to be following a dream that shall not materialize again. We certainly feel that it is about the money today, which we care not for. It is truly reftreshing to hear from someone with the knowledge and wisdom of how the foundation was constructed. We may never see this type of presentation ever again, for you have truly defined the true meaning of collecting. If you are in a canoe, we are with you. Again, we believe that the knowledge regarding such principles have been forgone for the sake of money: to conduct business. Thank you very much for the very fine article you have written.
<< <i>Mint's ok. They go over the top when they create their errors sometimes. Should be less predictable about them, IMO. >>
+++ Do you really think that the U.S. Mint "creates" errors knwowingly? We believe that there have been occassions in the past where the menu was most tempting. Your opinion?
<< <i>Overall I think the Mint does a fine job - in Numismatics, "fine" isn't the best grade, however. There have been a lot of speed bumps and gliches, but if they'd really TRY, maybe it would make a more pleasant experience for all. But over the years no one has seen them "trying" to fix anything, it just keeps repeating, like Groundhog Day.
As for the OP, your method of responding to nearly every post is obnoxious, and I will no longer be opening threads if I know you've taken them over. You just joined, and already have 80 posts? WE don't think it's cute. +++ >>
+++ We did not realize that this aspect was a detriment to any. Why does it concern you so? As to the word "obnoxious" which you define our responses, it truly is not called for. How, or in which way have our replies, (of any kind), been repulsive or offensive. These are feelings in which you have imprinted upon youself, as you try to define others, or as others have placed upon you. If you care not to share your theads, that is fine. No one is really asking you to chime in, especially when we are the originators of this post. Furthermore, we have not been given any indication as such from either moderator, or administrator. We urge that you remove the log out of your eye before you seek the speck in another.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>Bongo, izzat you? >>
Unlikely...Unless he finally got his new PC with a fixed keyboard.
+++ It truly appears that comedians exist in this forum, and are not at all interested in numismatics. Maybe, the need to communicate, as to berate someone, may fill your need. The only thing that shall be a continuum is your lonliness. There is nothing wrong with humor, but you, nor anyone else know all things. Why create an aura, or infuse something which is non existent? This would be to obtain attention. We do not really follow this type of presentation, but just consider it "lacking" sound wisdom.
<< <i>
<< <i>+++ We hope that we are not presenting an issue to you. >>
Nope, not at all. >>
+++ Thank you very much, a refreshing wind.
<< <i>What's the frequency???............do you know the secret handshake??.............pull down the cone of silence >>
+++ We believe your changing channels, and not adherring to the initial presentation; The United States Mint.
<< <i>+++ You have many miles to go my friend. Try pondering the thought of prayer. >>
I have prayed often that you would leave this unholy place and start posting on the Ruger Forum, instead
<< <i>
<< <i>+++ You have many miles to go my friend. Try pondering the thought of prayer. >>
I have prayed often that you would leave this unholy place and start posting on the Ruger Forum, instead >>
+++ All experts, are we?
<< <i>I currently live east of the mississippi, and have done for most of my life, except for a short stints in texas and nebraska. >>
+++ Most interesting post. How is the amplitude modulation these days? We have some knowledge in this area.
<< <i>
<< <i>+++ You have many miles to go my friend. Try pondering the thought of prayer. >>
I have prayed often that you would leave this unholy place and start posting on the Ruger Forum, instead >>
+++ Furthermore, we care not to hear of you praising yourself in your signature. We really do not care whom you are, for we respect no one but Elohim.
<< <i>I currently live east of the mississippi, and have done for most of my life, except for a short stints in texas and nebraska. >>
I'm from Texas.
<< <i>
<< <i>I currently live east of the mississippi, and have done for most of my life, except for a short stints in texas and nebraska. >>
I'm from Texas. >>
Sorry
If there is anything I can do to help, let me know.
However...
My gripes with the mint are many, and all seem to have to do with creation and execution of designs. Things like spaghetti hair, ultra low relief, and sterile computer fonts and clip-art designs floating in space on a vast field of empty are not things I really want to collect. With few exceptions, the modern commemorative issues fall into this category. I have to wonder how Gobrecht, Longacre, Morgan, VDB, Weinman, or Fraser would have executed the shield reverse of the cent. My current biggest turn-off as a potential customer is the manner in which the dies are frosted for proof strikes. While the coarse frosting produces a high contrast cameo appearance and allows for things like the "reverse proof" finishes, it effectively adds a strong noise signal to the design, hiding the actual design elements and reminding me of the days of squinting at the TV to watch Gilligan's Island reruns on a low power station 25 miles from my antenna. Hopefully, they either advance this technology to take about 30 dB off the noise signal (i.e., make it much finer so that the actual design can be seen) or abandon it altogether in favor of the 2005 method of frosting a die.
Hopefully this thread didn't go "poof" while I was typing.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>To answer the first question asked and risk taking this thread off it's current path, I guess you can put me in a canoe. I've bought stuff from the mint in the past, and I made money on both the 20th and 25th Anniv. sets, and I like the ASE design well enough to have kept some and have a little over half of the proofs going back to '86. The $20 UHR a couple years ago was brilliantly executed, and I really like the one I have, and not just because it's worth a lot more than I paid for it (although that helps, too). I have a bunch of proof sets bought for myself, possibly out of habit, and the kids like the ones I've given them each year. The mint can't be blamed for the choice of what goes on the coins they make and things like maximum mintages, as those are Congress' decisions, and the only things they can produce autonomously is medals.
However...
My gripes with the mint are many, and all seem to have to do with creation and execution of designs. Things like spaghetti hair, ultra low relief, and sterile computer fonts and clip-art designs floating in space on a vast field of empty are not things I really want to collect. With few exceptions, the modern commemorative issues fall into this category. I have to wonder how Gobrecht, Longacre, Morgan, VDB, Weinman, or Fraser would have executed the shield reverse of the cent. My current biggest turn-off as a potential customer is the manner in which the dies are frosted for proof strikes. While the coarse frosting produces a high contrast cameo appearance and allows for things like the "reverse proof" finishes, it effectively adds a strong noise signal to the design, hiding the actual design elements and reminding me of the days of squinting at the TV to watch Gilligan's Island reruns on a low power station 25 miles from my antenna. Hopefully, they either advance this technology to take about 30 dB off the noise signal (i.e., make it much finer so that the actual design can be seen) or abandon it altogether in favor of the 2005 method of frosting a die.
Hopefully this thread didn't go "poof" while I was typing. >>
+++ Well, a most informative forensic breakdown of the state of affairs. We have spoken of your initial aspects of 'design', again going back to "committee", which you are surely aware of. We believe that the "committee" placed a death toll to artists and engravers alike, including Political Correctness; whatever that is. Laura Gardin Fraser was one on the very finest, most talented artist we have recognized till this day. Yes, there are many, but she had the talent of any master engraver, not with touches of feminity either. This, we believe is why she was so prominently known. We like the gain issue (30db), very nice equation to the summation. This would lead us to believe that you know more than what you may be saying. So, what shall we do? We believe that the knowledge of this field may be waning somewhat, and to infuse your ways, in which we wholeheardtly agree, appear to be following a dream that shall not materialize again. We certainly feel that it is about the money today, which we care not for. It is truly reftreshing to hear from someone with the knowledge and wisdom of how the foundation was constructed. We may never see this type of presentation ever again, for you have truly defined the true meaning of collecting. If you are in a canoe, we are with you. Again, we believe that the knowledge regarding such principles have been forgone for the sake of money: to conduct business. Thank you very much for the very fine article you have written.
<< <i>Mint's ok. They go over the top when they create their errors sometimes. Should be less predictable about them, IMO. >>
+++ Do you really think that the U.S. Mint "creates" errors knwowingly? We believe that there have been occassions in the past where the menu was most tempting. Your opinion?
<< <i>Overall I think the Mint does a fine job - in Numismatics, "fine" isn't the best grade, however. There have been a lot of speed bumps and gliches, but if they'd really TRY, maybe it would make a more pleasant experience for all. But over the years no one has seen them "trying" to fix anything, it just keeps repeating, like Groundhog Day.
As for the OP, your method of responding to nearly every post is obnoxious, and I will no longer be opening threads if I know you've taken them over. You just joined, and already have 80 posts? WE don't think it's cute. +++ >>
+++ We did not realize that this aspect was a detriment to any. Why does it concern you so? As to the word "obnoxious" which you define our responses, it truly is not called for. How, or in which way have our replies, (of any kind), been repulsive or offensive. These are feelings in which you have imprinted upon youself, as you try to define others, or as others have placed upon you. If you care not to share your theads, that is fine. No one is really asking you to chime in, especially when we are the originators of this post. Furthermore, we have not been given any indication as such from either moderator, or administrator. We urge that you remove the log out of your eye before you seek the speck in another.