olympicsos

This is a part of the subject as a "good" design that isn't tasteful from a 21st century perspective may not be seen as a "better" design. Or maybe the design is "not as good" because of how inappropriate the design will be in a 21st century context. There needs to be more discussion and more research about the classic coin artists that are popular.

Different eras have designers of different capabilities and different visions. The only modern outside artist I see that can make the most coin collectors happy is Cassie McFarland, she designed one side of a popular commemorative coin series in 2014 and she's cute. At the same time, hobbyists don't universally agree.

Here's how I see it, the US Mint is a business that needs to make money. American coin collectors generally are attracted to classic pre-1965 coins and many believe that pretty much all post-1964 coins are junk. When the US Mint comes out with a new design, it gets lamented as being modern computer generated junk; when the US Mint goes back and uses a classic design, there are too many classic designs and we need new designs. The US Mint isn't going to make the entire coin collecting hobby happy regardless of what it does.

Saint Gaudens designed an aesthetically pleasing double eagle, but it is important to note that Saint Gaudens is not without controversy. The Shaw monument he designed in Boston is criticized for having racial undertones and is frequently vandalized, and there are books and articles which mention that Saint Gaudens might have had racist views himself. Although at the same time, he was the first sculptor to portray the African Americans as actual human beings in the Shaw memorial rather than caricatures which were common portrayals of African Americans during Saint Gaudens time. But Saint Gaudens also attracted controversy for not using the actual soldiers from the 54th regiment as subjects for the monument. Also to his credit, he also used Hettie Anderson, a biracial woman, as a subject for his sculptures. It is also worth noting that the Saint Gaudens $10 Indian Head design can be seen as a cultural misappropriation of Native American culture by having a biracial lady liberty with Caucasian features wear an Indian war bonnet which is only worn by Natives who have earned the privilege to wear one. Although that instance of cultural misappropriation was TR's fault as he insisted on the war bonnet, and although TR did take some progressive strides during his presidency, TR saw Native Americans as inferior and as peoples that must be defeated as much as he respected them as warriors. This brings me to my next point, that James Fraser, the Buffalo Nickel and Oregon Trail Half designer may not have been a racist himself, but also was not without controversy as Fraser's monument of TR at the Museum of Natural History in NYC has also been interpreted as racist and portraying Native Americans and African Americans as beneath TR and whites, and also has been vandalized. Longacre's portrayal of lady liberty on the Indian Head Cent can also be seen as a cultural misappropriation of Native American culture for the same reasons Saint Gaudens $10 Indian Head eagle is one. Weinman would seem like the lesser controversial choice when viewing things from a 21st century prospective and in light of the national discussion on racism and cultural misappropriation we have been having recently; and even though this name never came up so far in this thread, Charles Barber can be seen as even less controversial than Saint Gaudens or Weinman despite having a bad rap by some in the hobby. I am not saying one shouldn't purchase a $10 Indian Head Eagle or a Buffalo Nickel or an Indian Head Cent, but in the 21st Century there must be more context given around these designs, the artists, and the prevalent attitudes at the time that these coins were designed and in use. This discussion should be had about Saint Gaudens, Fraser, Longacre, if we want to bring more collectors into the hobby other than older white men.