Royal Mint (Gazette Proclamation) - The Lion and the Eagle

[westminstrel]

Love the design (except for the lion’s paw poking out randomly; ofc I had to nitpick!) 😊

[Paul]

[Paul]

M'ah I'm out.

Not for me this release 

[Upsidedown]

I reckon that lion could take that eagle.

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

[Upsidedown]

But yeah. Not for me either. I know they like to do a paw sticking out on designs but why so damn far

[westminstrel]

4 hours ago, Upsidedown said:

But yeah. Not for me either. I know they like to do a paw sticking out on designs but why so damn far

Exactly what I said too.

For a design by one of the US’s “most esteemed engravers”, that’s a rather juvenile tactic to make the design pop. 

Not to mention it’s anatomically messing with one’s head. 

[Upsidedown]

7 minutes ago, westminstrel said:

Exactly what I said too.

For a design by one of the US’s “most esteemed engravers”, that’s a rather juvenile tactic to make the design pop. 

Not to mention it’s anatomically messing with one’s head. 

The design is otherwise quite nice, but all I can see is that massive paw. Really draws the eye

[westminstrel]

4 hours ago, Upsidedown said:

The design is otherwise quite nice, but all I can see is that massive paw. Really draws the eye

Yes. ☹️ It’s actually a really strong design; the paw just brings it down a notch.

[paulmerton]

16 minutes ago, westminstrel said:

Yes. ☹️ It’s actually a really strong design; the paw just brings it down a notch.

I don't get it... Lions do have massive paws!

[westminstrel]

44 minutes ago, paulmerton said:

I don't get it... Lions do have massive paws!

This is just my personal opinion on the design…

While lions do have massive paws, I was saying that in the context of the design, it feels like a forced inclusion just to have a point of interest, i.e., paw sticking outside the circle.

Worse still, it looks like the paw is resting / hanging on the circle, making its inclusion feel even more artificial.

But, once again, this is just me being extra nitpicky. 🙂

[paulmerton]

1 minute ago, westminstrel said:

This is just my personal opinion on the design…

While lions do have massive paws, I was saying that in the context of the design, it feels like a forced inclusion just to have a point of interest, i.e., paw sticking outside the circle.

Worse still, it looks like the paw is resting / hanging on the circle, making its inclusion feel even more artificial.

But, once again, this is just me being extra nitpicky. 🙂

Spoiler: dragons don't exist at all! 😃

[westminstrel]

I know you’re being facetious, but my opinions stem from having a complementary background in design, and one of the fundamental principles of design is internal consistency, which refers to consistency of elements, and their interaction with each other, within a system.

As examples of other “Lion” themed coins, these are good candidates to explain the concept of internal consistency.

In the coin on the left, the primary focus is on the lion and it respects its boundaries, despite other elements encroaching upon its space, but they too respect their boundaries.

To your point about Dragons not existing, the coin on the right does not depict a realistic scene even though lions are real. And although this is not a mirror image of the same lion (there are variances in the mane and whiskers, for example), the overall sense of consistency is respected.

Both coins have immediate eye appeal at first glance. And their designs stand up even under more detailed scrutiny.

In essence, it is not about whether a subject is realistic, fictional, fantastical, or a juxtaposition of several of these themes. By following certain principles, it always leads to better overall design.

[paulmerton]

Queue has gone live btw!

[westminstrel]

Oh gee it released today. 🙂

https://www.royalmint.com/shop/limited-editions/the-lion-and-eagle/

[paulmerton]

 

 

[westminstrel]

The description says it is produced in collaboration with GovMint.com, which most likely means they’ll be selling PF70s directly (though this is just a supposition).

[Simmoleon]

Just not feeling RM designs at the moment. The current animals look like they are extras from the Lion King. Also, not sure they had to write down what the animals are on the coin either.

It may just be me but the Great Engravers have me craving traditional designs again. I struggle with the modern takes that RM seem to be fascinated with at present.

[SilverPlatinum]

Yeah...Not a sharp design in my opinion, I will pass this time saving my money for something really hot......

 

[JeffM]

Here in the U.S., GovMint is marketing the heck out of these as the greatest ever.  Mercanti signs so many labels, even for coins he has nothing to do with.  GovMint is charging $495 (USD) for a 2 oz. silver and $295 for a 1 oz. silver.  Coins are NGC PF70 FDI.  I would get them from the Royal Mint.  Probably not PF70, but MUCH cheaper.  If I bought a 2 oz. silver from the RM, it would cost me about $215 including shipment to the U.S.

[Sc391]

I’m disappointed.  Both the RM and US mint are capable of more creative/inspiring designs.  I don’t know what was behind this design, but if you look at what both mints put out this year, this release is in the bottom 25%.

[Paul]

3 hours ago, westminstrel said:

Oh gee it released today. 🙂

https://www.royalmint.com/shop/limited-editions/the-lion-and-eagle/

m'ah  

i see the 2oz gold had sold out already - very small mintage.

I guess it will be nice enough in hand 

But let the Americans go for it, their $$ dollars are being devalued quicker than ours £££ 

 

[JeffM]

John Mercanti is a marketed creation.  He designs a lot of coins, but not many would be considered great IMO.  It’s all marketing.  Everywhere you turn here in the U.S., another Mercanti coin pops up.  He is saturating the market.  Just my opinion.

[Simmoleon]

25 minutes ago, JeffM said:

John Mercanti is a marketed creation.  He designs a lot of coins, but not many would be considered great IMO.  It’s all marketing.  Everywhere you turn here in the U.S., another Mercanti coin pops up.  He is saturating the market.  Just my opinion.

I think this is a very fair point, the design is just a bit meh. There needs to be movement when adding animals to a coin, also what they are meant to represent is completely missed by this design. If you want a coin of a lion sitting next to an eagle then this meets the remit - if you want a coin representing nationhood, alliance, friendship and joint venture then this isn’t it.  I mean the amazing historic coins with lions and eagles on should have acted as an inspiration.

[JamesH]

I think this one looks absolute gash. So basic in its design. Lacks any kind of creativity (in my personal opinion of course)

[SeverinDigsSovereigns]

7 minutes ago, JeffM said:

John Mercanti is a marketed creation.  He designs a lot of coins, but not many would be considered great IMO.  It’s all marketing.  Everywhere you turn here in the U.S., another Mercanti coin pops up.  He is saturating the market.  Just my opinion.

Too busy signing on small pieces of paper for NGC plastic capsules this guy. But I don't collect US coins and am no expert. Most of his designs don't look too bad either.

 

3 hours ago, Simmoleon said:

It may just be me but the Great Engravers have me craving traditional designs again. I struggle with the modern takes that RM seem to be fascinated with at present.

It's the same with all modern designs. Well not just coin designs, but intrinsic with all modern arts. Painting, music, architecture, poetry, etc. It's the consequence of a combination of the post-industrial modernist philosophy, wider (and therefore lower) audience, and slowing economy. These can be further elaborated as: relativist interpretation of beauty (that all things can be subjectively beautiful and equally so), new arts enthusiasts with lots of money but little heritage (consistent with the shift of wealth from the church and aristocracy to plebian industrialists), cost-saving in designing process.

You could write essays about why modern designs are mostly cr*p (and then get cancelled), but then there's the beauty of traditional designs. The symbolism behind Una & Lion, or 3G, is a pleasing one and is increasingly rejected by our contemporaries. The simplest design of coins, where you have kings and queens on one side and their coats-of-arms on the other, is reserved for a handful of nations with proud traditions and heritage. 

A design can mean everything or nothing. Most modern designs, in general not coins, have zero meaning and a string of progressive tags. There was an arts shed near where I lived with some modern arts with random pictures of fences and stuff, and a long description filled with the words like colonialism, class struggle, etc etc. There was an arts exhibition I went to a month ago with some women dancing and tried to establish links between witchery, feminism and Celt nationalism. And another paintings of parallel lines calling for abolition of national borders and their usual parroting of colonialism whatevers. Worse still you could see designs with some actual meaning, usually detestable ones, and those are conspicuously repulsive which I shan't even mention.

Bit off topic perhaps, but that's precisely why so many modern coin designs are disappointing. There are good ones like the QB, TB, jubilee shields, coronation 1oz, and so on, but those have strong traditional symbolism so here we are again.