2017 225th anniversary American Liberty coin
0

27 posts in this topic

758 posts

I'm sure many of you have commented ats but I know not everyone here participates there. What are your thoughts? I'm not blown away but I do like the design. Congrats to the designer who is a fellow Utah resident. Linked is a nice article I found on my local news website. Sorry for the large pictures, not sure how to make them smaller.

 

Utah artist tapped for design as US Mint celebrates its 225th anniversary

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=42854835

 

image_zpsuuzshz2l.jpeg

 

image_zpswtrhxdh0.jpeg

 

image_zpsz1xvtpst.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts

I get (I think) the reason for the anniversary date, and it is not important, but the date that Congress voted on the resolution that the mint be established was on 3 March, 1791.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
758 posts
I get (I think) the reason for the anniversary date, and it is not important, but the date that Congress voted on the resolution that the mint be established was on 3 March, 1791.

 

The anniversary is of the coinage act of 1792 which congress passed on April 2 1792 and created the dollar as the standard unit of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts
I get (I think) the reason for the anniversary date, and it is not important, but the date that Congress voted on the resolution that the mint be established was on 3 March, 1791.

 

The anniversary is of the coinage act of 1792 which congress passed on April 2 1792 and created the dollar as the standard unit of money.

 

I am aware of that, of course, as I mentioned. But, since you bring it up, that is not the Act that established the Mint. Again, not a big deal, but it is not the 225th anniversary of the U.S. Mint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
758 posts
I get (I think) the reason for the anniversary date, and it is not important, but the date that Congress voted on the resolution that the mint be established was on 3 March, 1791.

 

The anniversary is of the coinage act of 1792 which congress passed on April 2 1792 and created the dollar as the standard unit of money.

 

I am aware of that, of course, as I mentioned. But, since you bring it up, that is not the Act that established the Mint. Again, not a big deal, but it is not the 225th anniversary of the U.S. Mint.

 

I figured you were aware of it, but you did say (I think) so I clarified just in case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts

If the establishment by law of the Mint was 1791, then the entire subject design of this piece is fundamentally incorrect, and if there was to be a commemoration piece of the Act that established the coinage value system, it should at least depict Alexander Hamilton in some manner. It has nothing to do with Liberty, except in the economic sense. So, for the 2 reasons I have mentioned, I consider the design a fail and the purpose of the design a fail. Just my opinion, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
758 posts
If the establishment by law of the Mint was 1791, then the entire subject design of this piece is fundamentally incorrect, and if there was to be a commemoration piece of the Act that established the coinage value system, it should at least depict Alexander Hamilton in some manner. It has nothing to do with Liberty, except in the economic sense. So, for the 2 reasons I have mentioned, I consider the design a fail and the purpose of the design a fail. Just my opinion, of course.

 

I think your date hang up is a tomato tomatoe. President Washington didn't act on congress' resolution until 1792. I think the lady liberty design is relevant, the act stated the obverse have an impression emblematic of liberty and the reverse to have a representation of an eagle. In my opinion I'm glad they didn't go with Hamilton or Jefferson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts
If the establishment by law of the Mint was 1791, then the entire subject design of this piece is fundamentally incorrect, and if there was to be a commemoration piece of the Act that established the coinage value system, it should at least depict Alexander Hamilton in some manner. It has nothing to do with Liberty, except in the economic sense. So, for the 2 reasons I have mentioned, I consider the design a fail and the purpose of the design a fail. Just my opinion, of course.

 

I think your date hang up is a tomato tomatoe. President Washington didn't act on congress' resolution until 1792. I think the lady liberty design is relevant, the act stated the obverse have an impression emblematic of liberty and the reverse to have a representation of an eagle. In my opinion I'm glad they didn't go with Hamilton or Jefferson.

 

OK. (thumbs u

 

I don't get hangups, just opinions. (thumbs u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,423 posts

I believe the 1791 resolution was that a mint BE established, the 1792 act did the actual establishment. I'd have to check the actual language to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts
I believe the 1791 resolution was that a mint BE established, the 1792 act did the actual establishment. I'd have to check the actual language to be sure.

 

Yes, it is always a good idea to check, using a correct source. (thumbs u up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,382 posts

I didn't like it much last year when the CCAC recommended this design, but it sort of growing on me. I would certainly like to see a better commemorative specific to the mint, perhaps with an old press or some older images of the first mint. Anyone know if those are authorized for this year? Plus 225 years isn't much of an anniversary, particularly since they completely blew off the bicentennial in 1992.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,382 posts
What is with that headband of stars? That looks pretty ridiculous.

 

It's supposed to hearken back to the Statue of Freedom on top of the capital building, though that statue is also wearing a hat that appears to be made out of a turkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,916 posts

The stars were ridiculous 150 years ago on Longacre's patterns, and they are ridiculous today. The outsize things belong on a bottle of "New and Improved Flea Spray" not an artistically-designed coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,734 posts

The headband looks goofy, like something to be worn at an elementary school play by whomever was best able to cut out giant stars with a rusty pair of left-handed scissors. You can almost see where the teacher stapled the ends of the construction paper band together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,045 posts

The stars were ridiculous 150 years ago on Longacre's patterns, and they are ridiculous today. The outsize things belong on a bottle of "New and Improved Flea Spray" not an artistically-designed coin.

 

 

The headband looks goofy, like something to be worn at an elementary school play by whomever was best able to cut out giant stars with a rusty pair of left-handed scissors. You can almost see where the teacher stapled the ends of the construction paper band together.

 

I agree . (thumbs u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,571 posts

That is one unattractive coin. Won't the mint be surprised when they sell only 6 of them.. ?

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts

The entire design looks cartoonish to me. I agree with the posters that said the headband looks goofy and like something a kindergarten class would make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
758 posts

The finished product looks much better than the rendering, IMO. Take a look at it here.

 

Edited by nk1nk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36,921 posts

Can someone explain why this is a $100 face instead of the usual $50 for a one ounce gold coin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,423 posts

Checked the March 3 1791 action on the establishment of the Mint and it is just a resolution that a mint be established.

 

"That a mint shall be established, under such regulations as shall be directed by law"

 

Source LOC A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 3rd Session Page 2027

 

That's the whole thing. The 1792 Act did the actual establishing of the mint and set forth the regulations etc.

Edited by Conder101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
165 posts

I think that both views, 1791 and 1792, are correct. It just depends

on the viewpoint. It is worth noting, however, that the 19th century

mint directors considered the Mint as having originated in 1791 and

kept a framed copy of that resolution hanging on the wall of the

director’s office.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0