Should the mint reissue the MCMVII $20, dated MMVII ?

[RWB]

September 2007 will mark the 100th anniversary of the first production of the Saint-Gaudens high relief double eagle. Do you think the US Mint should reissue the coin in satin surface high relief, made from the original VHR models? No alterations, including omission of the religious motto as Theodore Roosevelt and S-G agreed, except the date change.

 

The resulting gold coin would likely be much sharper and more detailed than the MCMVII version due to improvements in die making and production presses.

 

If this were done, should it's price include a donation to the SGNHS in Cornish, NH?

[pendragon1998]

Be nice, but probably wouldn't happen.

[zrlevin]

Be nice, but probably wouldn't happen.

 

Ditto.

[MAULEMALL]

You know what....I wouldn't be able to afford one but I think It's an OUTSTANDING idea.

 

I could think of no better way to honor the coin that moved this country in so many ways.

 

How does the process start.

[RWB]

The easiest way to start this kind of project is to let the members of Congress from New Hampshire think it is their idea. (ANR and Littleton Coin Co, to mention a couple of numismatic business, are located in NH, and might have some connections.)

 

You could also write to the ANA and make the suggestion; and to the coin hobby publications.

 

It would be nice to honor one of the past's finest American artists by finally producing his coin's design the way he intended.

[crazyboutcoins-migration]

I think it's a great idea too. Sure would look better than a lot of commems (and circulating) recently issued. I'd love to have one.

 

Might have a hard time getting IGWT removed (I think it's law right now??)

 

But who's to say that if this went through, an exception couldn't be made.

[Hoot]

September 2007 will mark the 100th anniversary of the first production of the Saint-Gaudens high relief double eagle. Do you think the US Mint should reissue the coin in satin surface high relief, made from the original VHR models? No alterations, including omission of the religious motto as Theodore Roosevelt and S-G agreed, except the date change.

 

These conditions are all too overt for the Mint to submit to. Just like they can't leave the IGWT motto off of the modern buffalo nickel (dollar and upcoming half union) designs, they could not get away with the recreation of classic numismatic art, even if the conditions demanded it or were ripe for it. It's a sad remark on how evidently the ignorance and persuasion of politics affects coinage. Tyrranical requisites in their most subtle form.

 

Hoot

[cpm9ball]

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know squat about gold, but it seems to me there is a work-around solution to the motto problem. Why can't they put IGWT on the edge and keep the original designs of the obverse and reverse unchanged?

 

Chris

[jtryka]

Personnally I think it's a great idea, one which I've suggested on these boards numerous times previously. I doubt though that the mint is capable of it, not technolgically that is, but beaurocratically. It seems they can never do a modern rendition of a classic design without mucking it up. Take the gold bullion coins and their bastardization of ASG's obverse, or the new first spouse coin for Thos. Jefferson. It's too much to ask the geniuses at the Mint.

 

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know squat about gold, but it seems to me there is a work-around solution to the motto problem. Why can't they put IGWT on the edge and keep the original designs of the obverse and reverse unchanged?

 

Chris

 

This can't work since the edge should already be engraved with "E Pluribus Unum."

 

Just like they can't leave the IGWT motto off of the modern buffalo nickel (dollar and upcoming half union) designs,

 

Hoot, for a man so dedicated to historical design accuracy, I am apalled at your improper use of the term "Half Union" as the new buffalo coin is merely a bullion coin with a nominal $50 denomination. A true half union would have 2.41875 oz of pure gold, not an ounce (no matter how pure). The old terms based on the eagle ($10) including the double eagle, union, half union, half eagle and quarter eagle should just not be applied to modern bullion coins of such inferior standards. By rights, the only time those terms should be used to describe modern coins are those commemoratives struck to the same standards used up until 1933 (i.e. the Wright Bros. eagle or the Statue of Liberty half eagle). Sorry to be so nitpicky, but applying those great historical terms to modern coins that are not even a shadow of the classic denominations just chaps my hide!

[Hoot]

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know squat about gold, but it seems to me there is a work-around solution to the motto problem. Why can't they put IGWT on the edge and keep the original designs of the obverse and reverse unchanged?

 

Chris

 

This is a reasonable idea, but it calls for defilement of Roosevelt's premise, which defaults to the underbelly of politically correct maneuveing. (I believe that's why the motto will be below the bison's nose on the new half union. Placing the motto on the edge of the coin was, I believe, suggested.) Even with IGWT on the edge, I think you'd have all kinds of objection from those ignorant of the history of the coin (and the motto).

 

Hoot

[IGWT]

Why can't they put IGWT on the edge . . . .

 

I'm already on the edge.

[MAULEMALL]

Why can't they put IGWT on the edge . . . .

 

I'm already on the edge.

[TomB]

It makes too much sense to expect out current government to embrace the idea.

[Hoot]

Hoot, for a man so dedicated to historical design accuracy, I am apalled at your improper use of the term "Half Union" as the new buffalo coin is merely a bullion coin with a nominal $50 denomination. A true half union would have 2.41875 oz of pure gold, not an ounce (no matter how pure). The old terms based on the eagle ($10) including the double eagle, union, half union, half eagle and quarter eagle should just not be applied to modern bullion coins of such inferior standards. By rights, the only time those terms should be used to describe modern coins are those commemoratives struck to the same standards used up until 1933 (i.e. the Wright Bros. eagle or the Statue of Liberty half eagle). Sorry to be so nitpicky, but applying those great historical terms to modern coins that are not even a shadow of the classic denominations just chaps my hide!

 

You're right, Jeff. My apologies. I was simply speaking on the denominational basis. And since the Mint has changed the weight standards of gold and silver coins so much through history, first purposefully debasing coinage in 1853 (1851 if you wish to include the trime), I guess I don't feel too sorry. For lack of a more useful term for the denomination, I reckon we could bat the ideas about quite a bit.

 

Hoot

[jtryka]

Remember Hoot, the gold was debased long before the silver was in 1853, namely in 1834 , but those standards were then retained for the next 99 years , until FDR launched the king of all debasement in 1933 .

 

We could debate it all we want, but I still can't see a 1-ounce platinum "union" and I still won't call Eisenhowers "silver dollars" either.

[Hoot]

Remember Hoot, the gold was debased long before the silver was in 1853, namely in 1834

 

I rather like to think of that as the U.S. adjusting to a gold standard (which was definitely not spoken at the time - forbid the thought!). But the Treasury had to do something to get small denomination gold to circulate and large denomination gold to stay in the country!

 

but those standards were then retained for the next 99 years , until FDR launched the king of all debasement in 1933 .

 

I think you understated this.

 

We could debate it all we want, but I still can't see a 1-ounce platinum "union" and I still won't call Eisenhowers "silver dollars" either.

 

Now, what's your beef with platinum? I can more readily call the platinum coins unions, half unions, and quarter unions than I can similarly refer to gold. At least it's a different metal. Not intended to circulate due to our paper economy, I admit, but can you imagine the chaos of trying to put the actual monetary value of our coinage on our coins???

 

As for Ikes, I prefer to think of them as excellent wrist-rocket projectiles and perfect album coins (cheap).

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Now, back to one other thing that RWB said - I believe that the money raised from a S-G commemoration should go to the SGNHS. More money should be spent on promoting great artists of this nation and the numismatic connection is just a bonus.

 

Hoot

[jtryka]

Well, I think we can agree on the use of proceeds of any such project, if it ever happens! I would personally be happy to pay $1,000 for such a coin with $100 or $200 going to Cornish.

[RWB]

For those who would like to mention this suggestion to the New Hampshire congressional delegation, here are their addresses and web sites. Email can be sent via the web sites.

 

Hon. Judd Gregg

SR 393

Washington, DC 20510-2904

www.greg.senate.gov

 

Hon. John E. Sununu

SR 111

Washington, DC 20510-2903

www.sununu.senate.gov

 

Hon. Jeb Bradley

1218 LHOB

Washington, DC 20515-2901

www.house.gov/bradley

 

Hon. Charles Bass

2421 RHOB

Washington, DC 20515-2902

www.house.gov/bass

[jtryka]

Of course the motto is just one issue, there are others as well, such as should we add the 4 additional stars on the obverse that were not there in 1907 (two were added in 1912 for Arizona and New Mexico, so there is precedent). I would be in favor of 50 stars on the obverse, but I am really ambivalent on the motto.