Nov 8 Coin World letter on the Lincoln Cent

[GarryN]

Oh man, has anyone seen Tom DeLorey's letter in the Nov 8 Coin World issue on page 11? It is titled "Butchered designs". Tom, of course, is an employee of Harlan J. Berk in Chicago and a well known and respected numismatic researcher.

He is responding to another article which appeared in the Oct 25 issue that was titled "Extreme makeover" and the subhead "Presidential Portraits receive Enhancements." Tom said "Although the 1969 remodeling of the Lincoln cent hub was a distinct improvement over the deteriorated hub of 1968, the work merely brought the design nearly to where it was in 1909. As such it was not an enhancement but rather a restoration" He then goes on to describe what the definition of "enhancement" is. He closes his letter as follows:

"'Bludgeoned' does strike me as a more fitting description of the changes wrought upon Mr. Brenner's elegant design."

[coppercoins]

He's right. The designs we use currently are abhorrant excuses for coin designs, and are insulting to the original designer's work. That goes for all the designs on our current coinage.

[JRocco]

I agree. When you look at some of the beautiful world coinage in current production, out designs pale in comparison. We can, and should, do much better.

[Robert]

A side by side comparison of a 1909 and a 1999 cent shows just how far things have gone, I admit.

My opinion is that many of the changes in detail have to do with production concerns rather than aesthetics. The change in Lincoln's hair, to name one change, seems to be part of an effort to prolong die life. I imagine the Mint, like any government department, is under constant pressure to reduce costs. Extending die life is a logical way to reduce costs so the decision to flatten Lincoln's hair is made. You the taxpayer saved a certain amount of money due to that change. While a "thank you" may actually be in order for whoever saved you that money, you (and I) aren't happy with the (lack of) aesthetics of the modified design.

Another cost saving move by the Mint was to go to zinc planchets. Not only is zinc less expensive and physically "softer" than copper/bronze (so die life is extended even more), zinc is also lighter. That means transportation costs are less (more cents per truck, less fuel per cent, fewer trucks needed, etc). There are other considerations/reasons to switch to zinc. The decision was made for reasons very much like that. And as a taxpayer I applaud the effort of government people to save money whenever they can. But on the other hand, an unforseen drawback for zinc cents is that ZINC CORRODES VERY EASILY, as most of us on this board have noticed. (If you doubt me, just look up the value of a spotless, unc roll of 1982-83 cents.) Again, the aesthetic considerations of cent production hardly enter to the decision making process.

Unfortunately I think we would probably be in the minority if the topic of aesthetics of US coins vs. cost savings ever was put to a referendum.

[coppercoins]

I wonder why, then, it has been proven that average die life is currently much lower than it was back in the late 70s and early 80s when coin production was at its peak? Actually, I don't have to wonder....I can tell you.

In 1982 the average cent die minted 700,000-1,000,000 coins (source, Delma K. Romines, "Die Life Study," 1985). That number is currently roughly 250,000 coins (source, Dave Camire, director of NCS, and his personal interviews with Mint workers, and my subsequent conversation with him in 2004).

The "die life" excuse is just that...an excuse. The REAL reason for the lower relief is so that the new hubbing method (single squeeze) can muster the full design. The designs of old were just too detailed and too high in relief to squeeze in one drop of a hub. Basically, the new hubbing presses cost a bundle to develop, test, and produce. Going back to multiple hubbing would be an admittance of a mistake, something the government refuses to do.

As it stands, all coinage dies are created with the single squeeze hubbing presses (source, again, Dave Camire). Whether one wants to believe it or not, all of the modern doubled dies being produced are done so with a single squeeze. The mint denies that their new technology can create such "problems", but the proof is so obvious their blatant lies and deceit simply don't work on people who bother to educate themselves in die varieties and find that such "problems" still exist. Billy Crawford, James Wiles, Ken Potter, and myself all agree that these coins are indeed doubled dies.

The Mint wasted billions of dollars and ended countless jobs changing our cent into a slug of crap metal that oxidizes and wastes away with time, and further insulted President Lincoln and Victor Brenner (as well as Frank Gasparro, John Sinnock, and others) by changing over to a "utilitarian" production model of what should be an artistic venture, creating coinage.

The crap metal and lowered relief has made a joke of what our government used to spend big dollars to produce...nice coins. If anyone doubts that, just go back to the early 20th century and find out how much the government paid to commssion Augustus Saint Gaudens to create the absolutely stunning works of art he produced into U.S. coinage. In reality, if you add everything up (even the secret budgets to ensure we don't know the truth, source unnamed) our new "utilitarian" money that supposedly saves us bundles actually costs more than if they had left well enough alone and continued to produce acceptable designs on real metal.

So...doubled dies have not been eliminated, as proven by coins found by collectors. Die life was shortened drastically, proven by the much larger number of dies required to produce the same number of coins. Coin life was shortened drastically by producing coins out of metal that reacts harshly to oxygen. The designs are pathetic, lowered in relief just so the cheasy machines they wasted our money on could sink the design properly. Single squeeze die making is a HUGE mistake the government refuses to back out on because they would have to "go back" to a "primitive method" they have "solved" their way out of. Creating cents from zinc was another HUGE mistake evidenced by coins less than five years old rotting into oblivion - copper alloy cents typically lasted 25-30 years in use. It's all typical government BS and cover-ups by lying to make up excuses that sound realistic.

Nothing has changed, except the new constipated expressions on our Presidents' faces on slugs that might as well be minted from lead. Perhaps they are disgruntled at the "modernization" at our U.S. Mint.

Chew on that one for a while...End of story.

[Robert]

Touche'

I guess I could be wrong.


Is this "60 Minutes" material?

[coppercoins]

Nobody can fault you for being wrong, it's exactly what the government would have everyone believe. They turn our coins into crap so we can afford to have them. Everyone is happy to some degree...it just ain't so.

[JRocco]

WOW- This is a powerful thread. Chuck, you laid out your case very well. Our current coinage is a disgrace. Looking at large coppers or our bust coinage and comparing that to today's is embarrassing. Even our commemorative coinage is a joke. I would love to see one of the news shows, or maybe A&E, take on this topic.

[Bob P]

It is real difficult to argue with anyone's point of view on this subject. Needless to say, I totally agree with your sentiments, and I like seeing Mr. Chuck and others get all fired up over something that should be a source of pride for our country. I guess the only modern coinage I like is the obverse of the Silver Eagle. Even that one had to use an old but gorgeous design. It's too bad the mint and the government has allowed it to get so out of hand. They can redeem themselves, one coin design at a time, but I just don't ever see that happening. Such a pity