No full bands on 2016 Centennial Gold Mercury Dime?!?!

Here is the photo from the Mint website. There is practically no definition on any of the bands, let alone the central bands. What the heck? The obverse detail in the hair is also weak. I won't buy one if there is such poor detail. . . Wonder if there will become a market for fb versions . . . . Thoughts everyone?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Here is the link:
http://catalog.usmint.gov/mercury-dime-2016-centennial-gold-coin-16XB.html

 

Oh god, another freaking thread about this dime

Not a dig on you Ben. I just think it's crazy we have like 5 threads about this now

 

Yeah, probably shoulda put it into an existing thread. I haven't seen any comments on the bands yet.

 

I'm not a buyer of modern "stuff" from the mint these days but it is sad that in the year 2016 they are unable/unwilling to create a product that truly replicates the intent of the original designer and mint workers that produced the coin for the first time in 1916, thereby turning it into just a pile of

Further, to not make it full band is a disgrace. It would have been nice to see a 2016 version in silver high relief like that of 1916 and part of 1917. Even though I am not a buyer of modern "stuff" from the mint, I may have
actually jumped all over that one since I am such a fan of Mercury Dimes. Oh well.

 

I actually noticed that this past weekend at the Baltimore show from the coin on display. Thought I didn't see it correctly,but the bands aren't as pronounced on the rear.

 

Are we really sure this is what it is going to look like or is this just a early press release that does not really show all of the details of this coin?

 

It looks like a computer generated image . I sure hope they get the details right .

 

Folks won't really know until that thing gets released and grades start showing up.

 

Check out the early mockups. They have the splits...

http://www.coinnews.net/2015/06/19/us-mint-2016-centennial-gold-coin-mock-ups/

 

That isn't a photo of an actual coin, it is an artists rendition.

 

Coin of the century!

 

What was supposed to be a Centennial celebration of great coin designs is degenerating into a mess.

 

Those aren't mockups, they are colorized old coins with the date changed in Photoshop.

The thing is, it's a rendering of the coin that was designed with CAD software. Whether the finished CAD drawing is rendered as a simulated photograph or a master hub is simply a matter of which output device is selected -- image file or CNC machine.

 

I hate to break it to you, but this is what the actual coin looks like. The mint had a couple on display at the Whitman Expo. From seeing the coin first hand, my impression is that it's intended to look this way. The planchet is thinner than the original due to it being 1/10th oz of gold, so they may have lost the split bands to lower the relief and help with the strike on the obverse.

 

The Mint illustrations show what looks like a failed attempt to create the bands - they're there, but faint. And full bands would actually help the obverse, albeit by a very tiny amount via displacing metal not filling where the band cuts would be, but not in the area where help will be needed the most. I think the back and bottom of the cap, and the large area of leaves northeast of ONE, will be where the striking problems play out.

For crying out loud, if you can't get FB into something as soft as gold, what are you doing striking stuff? They managed full strikes on smaller Seated Half Dimes, using harder metal.

 

Just my 10c but that's why it was STUPID to make this out of gold. 1oz silver would have struck up gorgeously and shown the beauty of the design, plus being more affordable to consumers.

 

That's what my 2 cents says.

 

Then we wouldn't pay as many dollars over cost per unit. Margin dollars are more important than margin percentage.