"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 5/26/2010 1:16 PM, Bruce Remick wrote:
FWIW, here's a comparison with the obverse of a CAM 1999 quarter and one
of
the 2010 ATB quarters. You can hardly make out the details on the
reverse

I can definitely can see why you're so upset about this. Why, it's now
slightly more difficult to make out the individual strands of George
Washington's spaghetti hair. No wonder you emphasized "way" with asterisks
when you said that the Mint went way overboard. I think I would have used
both asterisks and capitals. Maybe even an exclamation point too. Like
this! I know, some might say that this differing treatment is the kind of
variety that creates visual interest. But I agree with you. The Mint went
*way* overboard. In an open forum like this, you have every right to use
those asterisks. Don't let anybody poke fun of you for this.


I've always been a little cautious to use caps for emphasis, even though I
suspect more readers know what that means than readers who see a couple
asterisks. I do still prefer caps. As for the coins themselves, based on
its first five proof quarters I believe that the Mint's (new?) artificial
cameo process will really make some of the subtle outdoor scenes near
impossible to appreciate.

But if I do encounter anyone poking fun at me because of my choice of
asterisks instead of caps and exclamation marks, I'll steer them to this
thread and your reasoned response.


g