Tribal art and extinct civilisations

[<k>]

This coin, on the other hand, is a design masterpiece--at least I've never heard a word uttered against it, and that's something. The liberty cap, the sun-rays and the numerical denomination are perfect complements to one another.

The Mexican pyramid 20 centavos - yes, it certainly is beautiful, right down to the cacti in the desert.

[<k>]

An example of how the visual aspect of a number spoils the impact of a coin design. Of course a coin is a tool to be used rather than artwork for mere appreciation or display, but I do think this piece is a good example of the havoc a numerically-represented denomination can play with design.

Re. the Australian 2 dollar - that's one way of looking at it. I like the variety that comes with the artist being allowed to choose words or numerals, though possibly in most cases it's a policy decision that is outside the artist's hands.

[villa66]

...I like the variety that comes with the artist being allowed to choose words or numerals....

I completely agree, and don't for a second believe that one or the other is intrinsically inferior. But I do think numerals have a visual impact--and therefore an emotional affect--that verbally-expressed numbers rarely do. For me, numerically-expressed numbers can really make a coin's design something wonderful--and very often do--but their visual power is such that they have to be handled with care, otherwise they can have a really unhappy effect.

Another note on coin design, since you've been thinking some on it. When it comes to uniformity especially, I wonder if what can and can't be done depends on the type of government issuing the coin series. (Republics, for instance, often being so much sloppier creature than monarchies?)

v.

[<k>]

Another note on coin design, since you've been thinking some on it. When it comes to uniformity especially, I wonder if what can and can't be done depends on the type of government issuing the coin series. (Republics, for instance, often being so much sloppier creature than monarchies?)

v.

You would need to give some examples. There are far fewer monarchies than republics these days, and 16 monarchies have QEII as the head of state. Bear in mind that the Royal Mint, the RCM and RAM produce a lot of designs for the Commonwealth. It then comes down to the quality of the artists, of the staff supervising them, and of those in charge of design policy, and what their opinions are, and their views on modernity, etc. I think it's far too complex a matter to put all the blame on republics, but you may be able to persuade me otherwise.

[villa66]

I wasn't thinking anything too involved. Mainly just the obvious stuff like the unifying presence of a monarch's portrait or other regal paraphernalia within a coin series, along with the way it further unifies a series by defining its several obverses. And then there are the built-in opportunities for reviewing an entire coinage precipitated by changes in monarchs. (That sort of watershed is, I think, a bit more difficult to find in a republic.)

Monarchical portraits are also the portraits of heads of state, and in most modern settings, anyway, they lack the residue of political back-and-forth that accompanies the images of heads of government--which are often the portraits used by republics. (Which means the coinage design of a republic--even if it's a seemingly unified all-portrait series--is often is a patchwork thing forced by compromises between various political factions. Or by various political needs.) And etc., etc.

v.

[<k>]

There are pros and cons. Our UK coins always show the Queen, and the reverses of our current series make a jigsaw puzzle of the Royal shield. However, a minority of the population favours a republic, so you can't please all the people all the time. Despite the fact that English is widely spoken around the world, either as a first or second language, some of the coin legends still appear in Latin: FID DEF, DEI GRATIA, etc. And I imagine that few Britons nowadays believe that the Queen is queen by the grace of God - though she apparently believes it. I am an atheist and do not, but I don't get upset about the legend.

So everything is politics, ultimately, and I am sure there are things that are expressly forbidden on our UK coinage. QEII is now onto her fourth portrait on the standard circulation coins, and the Royal Mint has a rule that the reverse designs of our coinage should be reviewed every forty years: they were duly changed in 2008, and the lack of the Queen's demise did not prevent this.

Republics have a coat of arms or other recognisable symbols, and these do not really either help or hinder good design or continuity. The USA is one of a select few countries that use a different obverse and reverse design for each and every coin, which makes things more interesting. Some republics, with their own mints, have had consistently good design: I think of Indonesia in this respect, most of whose coins have a very high standard of design.

[<k>]

Canada, $1, 1958.

100th anniversary of British Columbia. 

Native American totem pole.

[<k>]

Guatemala, 10 centavos, 1994.

The Quirigua Monolith.

[<k>]

Colombia, 10 centavos, 1966.

Chief Calarcá of the Pijao Indian tribe, who fought the Conquistadors.

[<k>]

Vanuatu, 100 vatu, 2002.

Vanuatu, native on coat of arms.

[<k>]

Suriname, 5 cents, 1988.

[<k>]

Jamaica, 25 cents, 1992.

[<k>]

British North Borneo, 1 cent, 1859.

[<k>]

Fiji, $1, 1969.

Natives of Fiji.

[<k>]

Sudan, 10 piastres, 2006.

Nubian pyramid.