| Welcome to a stroll down memory lane...
Looks a lot different, HUH?
Title: always Adolph A. Weinman what about Longacre Post by: nohope587 on January 07, 2008, 08:22:43 AM Look back in time for some really nice US coins.
Yes I agree Weinman made some really nice coins but so did Longacre (http://www.mycoins.us/USA/2Cent/1866%20KF-1-DDR/DSC02674.JPG) (http://www.mycoins.us/USA/2Cent/1866%20KF-1-DDR/DSC02675.JPG) Title: Re: always Adolph A. Weinman what about Longacre Post by: triggersmob on January 07, 2008, 04:52:42 PM The 2 cent coins are nice, I must get one one day.
Title: Re: always Adolph A. Weinman what about Longacre Post by: AdamL on January 08, 2008, 02:48:25 AM I gotta get one of those too. I think Longacre did his best work on gold though.
Title: Re: always Adolph A. Weinman what about Longacre Post by: Twoshadows on January 08, 2008, 05:55:15 AM It is hard to imagine the 2 cent piece as a "work horse" of its time but their average condition shows that they indeed were used and used heavily. Be prepared to pay a premium for those, such as longnine's, as the high grade coins show the beauty and craftsmanship of Longarcre.
I will go on to say, in my collecting opinion, no coin is more butt ugly than the silver 3 cent piece. What were they thinking at the time of its design? Title: Re: always Adolph A. Weinman what about Longacre Post by: AdamL on January 08, 2008, 08:44:56 AM LOL. I'm glad you said it. I agree. I think those 3-cent peices are the most dull coins of the 19th century. From any country
Title: Re: always Adolph A. Weinman what about Longacre Post by: longnine009 on January 10, 2008, 07:57:51 AM When Longacre's Shield Nickel came out he was accused of designing a cryptogram of the CSA battle flag--"Stars and bars."
Title: Re: always Adolph A. Weinman what about Longacre Post by: longnine009 on January 10, 2008, 10:04:00 AM Shouldn't the Eras that these two existed in be considered? Weinman had it made. He had the artsy Era and a prez directive to be artsy starring him in the face. Longacre wasn't so lucky. His Era, especially the Civil War and Reconstruction, was probably less about art and more about practical necessity and utility. Wasn't practical necessity the whole point with the 3c piece and $3 gold? So people could buy a postage stamp or businesses could buy a hundred?
Weinman's coins are beautiful for sure, but utility is important too for circulating coins. Title: Re: always Adolph A. Weinman what about Longacre Post by: ElleKitty on January 10, 2008, 04:28:35 PM Utility is extremely important when considering our circulating money, but there's no reason that such can't be beautiful at the same time. Shouldn't cost any more to mint coins that are aesthetic when we're already minting them, period. Don't we always complain that our US currency at current isn't that attractive?
Title: Re: always Adolph A. Weinman what about Longacre Post by: longnine009 on January 11, 2008, 06:34:15 AM I absolutely agree that they can be both; Weinman and MacNeil have proved it. But the 70 million dollar sales of Andy Warhol junk has proven his own statement: "Art is what you can get away with."
Longacre lived through some very troubling decades in U.S history. People were probably happy to just get their hands on a federal coin let alone be concerned about how pretty it was. "If you can get away with it" the mint saves money. The less complicated the design the less stress there is on dies, equipment, parts, etc. Less time engraving, less complaints from banks that coins won't stack. And the less complicated Longacre's designs were the less stress on him. As a mint engraver, he may have actually been called upon to produce a die from his own design. A thought that must've kept him awake at night. :D |