My mind is not easily boggled, but...

Jud wrote:
mazorj wrote:

While we're at it, throw in a high-relief Mae West commem. Show a
lifelike bust depiction on the obverse, with the reverse inscription
"Is that a roll of quarters in your pocket or are you just happy to
see me?".

Won't happen, for the reason that they won't stack well. 8-)

When I saw them they were quite well-stacked.

James the Lecher

Mr. Jaggers wrote:

When I saw them they were quite well-stacked.

James the Lecher

::::::::: *Rim Shot* 8-)

On Mar 15, 10:28*am, "mazorj" wrote:
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message

...

I've been having an email exchange with some fellow
numismatists, and one of them sent me this link:

http://www.archive.org:80/details/am...nalo11ameruoft

You may not be interested in the subject matter, but once
you get to that site, click on "flip book" over to the
left, then use the arrows to turn the pages. *Somebody had
to spend a lot of time at low or no wages to make that
happen.

The Internet never ceases to bring forth new wonders.

Your loyal correspondent, having downloaded forthwith the
referenced journal in text form, humbly offers for your
attention the following items that were of particular
interest. *oly, see No. 4. *All, see the commentary at the
end on numismatic esthetics in 1877:

1. The mildly charming story of the lost and returned silver
quarter-dollar piece. The heretofore inexplicable practice
of reporting the felicitous reuniting with their owners of
various precious articles - not to mention various pet
animals - appears to be an irresistible and time-honored
staple of journals and journalism.

2. Various indications that the composition and proceedings
of coin clubs has changed little since 1877.

3. The peeved admission that the French commemorative issue
for America's first bicentennial is of better quality than
the artistry of our domestic offerings.

4. N.B. for oly - search for the term "real money". *You
will find particular delight upon seeing your very own pet
screeds anent the sensory pleasure of silver specie and the
repulsiveness of fiat money reproduced there 132 years ahead
of your time. *If I had the stamps, I would increase my
holdings in said specie.

As yet I have only skimmed less than ten per centum of the
contents of this amazing chronicle, but cannot resist
closing with a lengthy but instructive declamation in the
artistic merit (or perceived lack thereof) of U.S. coinage
in the year 1877. *Any relation to similar screeds in this
newsgroup must certainly be coincidental, because the
following was written during what most would consider part
of the "golden age" of U.S. coin design. *Remember, this is
in 1877:

"Why is it that we have the ugliest money of all civilized
nations?
For such undoubtedly our silver coinage is. The design is
poor,
commonplace, tasteless, characterless, and the execution is
like
thereunto. Our silver coins do not even look like money.
They
have rather the appearance of tokens or mean medals. One
reason of this is that the design is so inartistic and so
insignificant.
That young woman sitting on nothing in particular, wearing
nothing
to speak of, looking over her shoulder at nothing
imaginable, and
bearing in her left hand something that looks like a
broomstick
with a woolen nightcap on it what is she doing there? What
is the
meaning of her? She is Liberty, we are told, and there is a
label to
that effect across a shield at her right, her need of which
is not in
any way manifest. But she might as well be anything else as
Liberty;
and at the first glance she looks much more like a spinster
in her
smock, with a distaff in her hand.

"Such a figure has no proper place upon a coin. On the
reverse
the eagle has the contrary fault of being too natural, too
much like
a real eagle. In numismatic art animals have conventional
forms,
which are far more pleasing and effective than the most
careful and
exact imitation of nature can be. Compare one of our silver
coins
with those of Great Britain, France or Germany, and see how
mean,
slight, flimsy, inartistic and unmoneylike it looks. Our
coins of forty
or fifty years ago were much better in every respect, and
looked
much more like money, the reason being that they bore a head
of
Liberty which was bold, clear, and well defined in
comparison with
the weak thing that the Mint has given us for the last
thirty years
or so. The eagle too, although erring on the side of
naturalness,
was more suited in design to coinage.

"But still better were the coins struck at the end of the
last century
and the beginning of this one. The eagle was a real heraldic
eagle,
the head of Liberty had more character, and the whole work
was
bolder and better in every way. But even they had the great
defect

*fell asleep, woke up, and trimmed some text*


be the most beautiful and the most fraught with associations
of historic interest
and national pride. We commend the subject to the attention
of the House, and
hope that some member may be found who will take it up and
bring it before
the people."

Plus ça change, plus ça le même chose.

Conclusion: Oly is a tired, old blowhard.