Frosting?
Bruce Remick
Mint. IMO, they have gone *way* overboard in producing the frosted
appearance to the point that little detail is left on the raised features
after the apparent "sandblasting". The business strike quarters will
surely look much better than the proofs.
sgt23
It doesn't surprise me, it seem Moy only likes cartoons on anything
the mint makes now.
Bruce Remick
"sgt23" <bravesfa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:adfd4d9a-66e2-4212...@q8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
+++++++++++++++++++++++
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
"business" side of the ATB quarters.
http://i626.photobucket.com/albums/tt342/134grommet/1999CT.jpg
http://i626.photobucket.com/albums/tt342/134grommet/1frost2010.jpg
Wm Hopkins
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:yHcLn.13304$yx....@newsfe13.iad...
Are all in the set like this? Perhaps First Strike candidates if you're into
such designations.
Bruce Remick
"Wm Hopkins" <whopkins65 at mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:VZCdnZRupqX04mDW...@mchsi.com...
Yes, all the 2010 proof ATB quarters (obverse) in the set look like this.
If these are "first strikes", this may reverse the pricing premiums in favor
of "last strikes". Or business circulation strikes.
Reid Goldsborough
> 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.
--
Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos
Bruce Remick
"Reid Goldsborough" <reidgol...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3pglo3....@news.alt.net...
> 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>
sgt23
> "sgt23" <bravesfandevo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Just terrible!