I got this from the u.s. mint would you buy or not ?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by harley newton on -
YES!
-
Permalink Reply by Bruce Wiseley on -
Me too. As a retired Army guy, it was nice to see this coin. I can't wait ti see what it looks like when I receive it next week.
Gary said:I am passing on this one. Looks like a nice coin though!
-
Permalink Reply by FiremanDev on -
With all due respect to our Veterans, disabled or otherwise, I'll be passing on this Mint offering. I believe a much better representation could have been offered on behalf of our disabled Vets...
-
Permalink Reply by george palmer on
-
I think you hit that on the head maybe i would buy if the money went to the vets i think that we owe them a lot more then we give them times 100 and there kids too have a nice day it is raining here :-)
FiremanDev said:With all due respect to our Veterans, disabled or otherwise, I'll be passing on this Mint offering. I believe a much better representation could have been offered on behalf of our disabled Vets...
-
Permalink Reply by Lureuin on -
I was trying to figure out what would have been a nicer, or more acceptable design. I decided that the one that was chosen is really the only way they could go. If you throw in the "PC" thing, that permeates everything in our society, the choices would be limited; and here's why.
Remember that a coin is only so big,and you can't have it all cluttered up or it wouldn't look good.
If you show a face; you have to show every type of face, or someone will say that they were left out.
If you show a military branch (by way of dress), you would have to show them all or there would be a protest.
Showing an armless person is hard to depict unless you have them holding the remaining part sticking straight out (imagine the uproar that image would have caused).
If you try to detail a head wound, or facial scars, you would have to be so close that you couldn't depict anything else on the coin (including the uniform); and people would say that there's more than just head wounds.
If you showed a person in a wheelchair, it would be hard to show that they are dressed as if in the service (which they can't be in if wheelchair bound).
You can't depict mental trauma, agent orange affects, wounds received in areas that would be covered when dressed (prosthetic devices, shrapnel scars, bullet hole scars, etc.).
So if you think about it; the design that they went with may have been the best, if not only choice. I'm guessing the other 2 (not on crutches) depict all the above.
-
Permalink Reply by Bruce Wiseley on
-
I have to agree with you Lureuin, there is no way to show every situation that a disabled Vet could or would have, but since you can't please everyone, the heck with it.
Lureuin said:I was trying to figure out what would have been a nicer, or more acceptable design. I decided that the one that was chosen is really the only way they could go. If you throw in the "PC" thing, that permeates everything in our society, the choices would be limited; and here's why.
Remember that a coin is only so big,and you can't have it all cluttered up or it wouldn't look good.
If you show a face; you have to show every type of face, or someone will say that they were left out.
If you show a military branch (by way of dress), you would have to show them all or there would be a protest.
Showing an armless person is hard to depict unless you have them holding the remaining part sticking straight out (imagine the uproar that image would have caused).
If you try to detail a head wound, or facial scars, you would have to be so close that you couldn't depict anything else on the coin (including the uniform); and people would say that there's more than just head wounds.
If you showed a person in a wheelchair, it would be hard to show that they are dressed as if in the service (which they can't be in if wheelchair bound).
You can't depict mental trauma, agent orange affects, wounds received in areas that would be covered when dressed (prosthetic devices, shrapnel scars, bullet hole scars, etc.).
So if you think about it; the design that they went with may have been the best, if not only choice. I'm guessing the other 2 (not on crutches) depict all the above.
-
Permalink Reply by Ike on -
Some of your comments made me look @ the coin with a different viewpoint. Instead of an "OK" coin, I now think it is a "good" coin. Thanks
Lureuin said:I was trying to figure out what would have been a nicer, or more acceptable design. I decided that the one that was chosen is really the only way they could go. If you throw in the "PC" thing, that permeates everything in our society, the choices would be limited; and here's why.
Remember that a coin is only so big,and you can't have it all cluttered up or it wouldn't look good.
If you show a face; you have to show every type of face, or someone will say that they were left out.
If you show a military branch (by way of dress), you would have to show them all or there would be a protest.
Showing an armless person is hard to depict unless you have them holding the remaining part sticking straight out (imagine the uproar that image would have caused).
If you try to detail a head wound, or facial scars, you would have to be so close that you couldn't depict anything else on the coin (including the uniform); and people would say that there's more than just head wounds.
If you showed a person in a wheelchair, it would be hard to show that they are dressed as if in the service (which they can't be in if wheelchair bound).
You can't depict mental trauma, agent orange affects, wounds received in areas that would be covered when dressed (prosthetic devices, shrapnel scars, bullet hole scars, etc.).
So if you think about it; the design that they went with may have been the best, if not only choice. I'm guessing the other 2 (not on crutches) depict all the above.
-
Permalink Reply by john manacia on -
I would nice coins
John
© 2012 Created by coinnetwork.
