Vinyl is Back! Well, BN Vinyl that is!

[+Wij Drie]

...and up 2 places to 38th on the Geocaching top 40 this week, The Atwell Family with Cache Every Mountain.

And still steady on 30th place: Wij Drie with a song no American understands...

 

tot cache,

team Wij Drie

[+AtwellFamily]

...and up 2 places to 38th on the Geocaching top 40 this week, The Atwell Family with Cache Every Mountain.

And still steady on 30th place: Wij Drie with a song no American understands...

 

tot cache,

team Wij Drie

Dead?

[+crazycavelover]

I am willing to keep a list of names of those who want all 40 and put the information together. Send me an email if you want all 40 (the complete set). I will compile the list and send out to everyone.

 

Is there anyone that does not want to trade to those people who would like the complete set, if so please post and post if you are willing to sell them your coin so they can complete the set.

 

OOOHHHH, kinda over looked this.... I will email you sometime tonight..

[+GPX Navigators]

1. Fluttershy ~ *****album Done and artwork approved for Oakcoins

 

2. AtlantaGal ~ *****album Done and artwork approved for Oakcoins

 

3. Team Macha ~ *****album Done and artwork approved for Oakcoins

 

4. PARENTOFSAM ~ *****album Done and artwork approved for Oakcoins

 

5. SILLYGIRL & JRR~ *****album Done and artwork approved for Oakcoins

 

6. GPX NAVIGATORS ~ NEED TO CONFIRM ART

 

7. DAMENACE ~ *****album Done and artwork approved for Oakcoins

 

8. CACH-U-NUTS ~ NEED TO CONFIRM ART

 

9. TEAM HIGH POINT ~ *****album Done and artwork approved for Oakcoins

 

10. NIELSENC ~ NEED TO CONFIRM ART

 

11. 57 CHEVY ~ *****album Done and artwork approved for Oakcoins

 

12. GO JAYBEE ~ *****album Done and artwork approved for Oakcoins

 

13. UO TRACKERS ~ NEED TO CONFIRM ART

 

14. DRESSELDRAGONS ~ *****album Done and artwork approved for Oakcoins

 

15. OSHNDOC ~ *****album Done and artwork approved for Oakcoins

 

16. CRAZYCAVELOVER ~ *****album Done and artwork approved for Oakcoins

 

17. JEVANS7 ~ *****album Done and artwork approved for Oakcoins

 

18. ~TASIA~ *****album Done and artwork approved for Oakcoins

 

19. PENNYPACKER ~ *****album Done and artwork approved for Oakcoins

 

20. THE 4 F'S ~ NEED TO CONFIRM ART

 

21. SUMMERANDNANA ~ NEED TO CONFIRM ART

 

All set now. #6 confirming art. Thanks!

Edited January 9, 2007 by GPX Navigators

[+Vegas Gamblers]

It does appear that group two is better prepared than group one with the art confermation. Maybe we should flip flop the group.

[+The 4 F's]

Logo was cleaned up and everything is set with our coin (#20)! Email sent. Thanks Jamie and Allie!

[+DresselDragons]

It does appear that group two is better prepared than group one with the art confermation. Maybe we should flip flop the group.

That's because you guys starting comfirming artwork before us

[+Fluttershy]

Group 1 Approvals Needed:

 

 

CACH-U-NUTS

 

UOTRACKERS

 

SUMMERANDNANA

 

Please email me ASAP!

 

Thank you!

 

~Allie

[+Fluttershy]

Upon receiving an Oakcoins 42mm sample, I am considering upgrading our coin to a 42mm.

 

I think the Oakcoins Blue area would be perfect for our interior designs,

leaving a smaller area for "Vinyl" however, this would make the whole interior more legible.

 

There would be room for groove work, and the interior would be legible.

 

 

How does this affect you? Ten Cents a coin. I think it is well worth it, considering we would have a

more legible coin.

 

Please email me. I realize this is a major change, but I feel it would make everyone more happy

to be able to see the interior with more detail.

 

Allie

[+Fluttershy]

How many times can I say legible?

 

Am I selling a Car?

[+OshnDoc]

You are a good car sales lady Ally. I am in for an upgrade. I upgraded my personal coin as well from my original 1.75" to 2". Have a look in the forum

 

So I am fine with a 10-c/coin up in price.

Edited January 9, 2007 by OshnDoc

[+Cach-U-Nuts]

Upon receiving an Oakcoins 42mm sample, I am considering upgrading our coin to a 42mm.

 

I think the Oakcoins Blue area would be perfect for our interior designs,

leaving a smaller area for "Vinyl" however, this would make the whole interior more legible.

 

There would be room for groove work, and the interior would be legible.

 

 

How does this affect you? Ten Cents a coin. I think it is well worth it, considering we would have a

more legible coin.

 

Please email me. I realize this is a major change, but I feel it would make everyone more happy

to be able to see the interior with more detail.

 

Allie

 

We agree!!! This is absolutely the BEST decision!! The label is the important part!!

[+AtwellFamily]

Upon receiving an Oakcoins 42mm sample, I am considering upgrading our coin to a 42mm.

 

I think the Oakcoins Blue area would be perfect for our interior designs,

leaving a smaller area for "Vinyl" however, this would make the whole interior more legible.

 

There would be room for groove work, and the interior would be legible.

 

 

How does this affect you? Ten Cents a coin. I think it is well worth it, considering we would have a

more legible coin.

 

Please email me. I realize this is a major change, but I feel it would make everyone more happy

to be able to see the interior with more detail.

 

Allie

Won't the artwork have to be all redo? A lot of work for Jamie

[ParentsofSAM]

I am in for a coin upgrade, the bigger label size will look really nice.

 

Good thinking there Allie!

[+Snowwolf75]

Count me in for the upgrade!!

[+501_Gang]

Upon receiving an Oakcoins 42mm sample, I am considering upgrading our coin to a 42mm.

 

I think the Oakcoins Blue area would be perfect for our interior designs,

leaving a smaller area for "Vinyl" however, this would make the whole interior more legible.

 

There would be room for groove work, and the interior would be legible.

 

 

How does this affect you? Ten Cents a coin. I think it is well worth it, considering we would have a

more legible coin.

 

Please email me. I realize this is a major change, but I feel it would make everyone more happy

to be able to see the interior with more detail.

 

Allie

Won't the artwork have to be all redo? A lot of work for Jamie

 

And what does that do to the artwork fees?

[+Fluttershy]

If there are artwork fees, I will take care of that, myself.

 

You just have to pay the .10 per coin.

[+GBOTS]

Upon receiving an Oakcoins 42mm sample, I am considering upgrading our coin to a 42mm.

 

I think the Oakcoins Blue area would be perfect for our interior designs,

leaving a smaller area for "Vinyl" however, this would make the whole interior more legible.

 

There would be room for groove work, and the interior would be legible.

 

 

How does this affect you? Ten Cents a coin. I think it is well worth it, considering we would have a

more legible coin.

 

Please email me. I realize this is a major change, but I feel it would make everyone more happy

to be able to see the interior with more detail.

 

Allie

 

Sounds good

[+Nero]

haven't dies already been made?

 

I say if theres still time go for it, otherwise stick with what we have already.

[+501_Gang]

Looking at the coin shown, it looks like it will be out of proportion compared to a real 45 though.

 

The original layout looks more 'realistic'. IMHO

 

Bigger is not always better.

Edited January 9, 2007 by 501_Gang

[+The 4 F's]

That sounds like a good idea, but we should just make sure that it won't lose the "record" look. Wouldn't want it to end up looking like a regular coin with a ridged black border.

[+DresselDragons]

Okay, call it a blonde moment, but I'm confused. Are we talking an overall increase in diameter of the coin or just a change in the layout to have more label area, or both? Although I am a fan of having a more legible label, I am not totally sold on the idea of taking that extra area away from the grooves. It would look a lot less like a record; the proportions would be off.

[+Fluttershy]

a 1 1/8 inch center, such as the Blue area inside the Oakcoins would be ideal for our center as well.

 

We could make it more realistic if we englarged the coin to 1 3/4" or a 2" coin, but that would get pricey.

 

That's why I only am proposing we enlarge it to 1 5/8" and have a .10 rise (per coin) to our fee.

 

 

I realize this does take away from the Record, making the center larger, however

I think it would be nicer to be able to read your personalized area than have more BN ridges.

Until I received the Oakcoins 1 5/8" (42mm) coin, I had not realized how small of an area

we were actually working with.

 

I value your opinions...

Edited January 9, 2007 by Fluttershy

[+sillygirl & jrr]

The increase in size would be fine with us.

[+The 4 F's]

For me, a big part of the appeal of this series is that the coins look like tiny records. If we increase the label, I believe they'll lose the vinyl record look. As long as the label is legible, I vote to keep it as is - even if we have to look a little closer to read it.

[+crazycavelover]

It does appear that group two is better prepared than group one with the art confermation. Maybe we should flip flop the group.

That's because you guys starting comfirming artwork before us

 

OMG! LOL! ~ I really pushed group 2 to be ready. I didn't want group 1 waiting for group 2...

Furthermore, Part of group 2 was fighting for the last few spots. So basically, group 2 was in a huge hurry to begin with.

[+501_Gang]

For me, a big part of the appeal of this series is that the coins look like tiny records. If we increase the label, I believe they'll lose the vinyl record look. As long as the label is legible, I vote to keep it as is - even if we have to look a little closer to read it.

 

My thoughts too. I want it to look like a record, not a BN border.

[+Fluttershy]

Someone just proposed by email that we go with the 1 1/8" Center like the Oakcoins and push up the Size of our coin to 1 3/4"

 

Which would be around $12.00/per 50 coins.

 

This would be the medium of having A larger center, and still having a bigger border around it.

 

If there were a handful of people who couldn't pay extra, I could try to pay for them, myself.

I just couldn't pay $500.00 out of pocket.

[+OshnDoc]

are we talking an additional $12 for the set of 50 coins above and beyond the privately quoted coin price?

 

If so, I am fine with that. I like the porportions of the original setup., so increasing the inner diameter and thus proportionally increasing the outer ring would be nice.

 

Very nice. I am glad everyone is on their heels for this project.

[+crazycavelover]

are we talking an additional $12 for the set of 50 coins above and beyond the privately quoted coin price?

 

If so, I am fine with that. I like the porportions of the original setup., so increasing the inner diameter and thus proportionally increasing the outer ring would be nice.

 

Very nice. I am glad everyone is on their heels for this project.

 

 

I agree with the size change. But, I really hope Allie doesn't have to absorb all the extra fees....

Edited January 9, 2007 by crazycavelover

[+OshnDoc]

Neither would I.

How about that polling feature?

 

are we talking an additional $12 for the set of 50 coins above and beyond the privately quoted coin price?

 

If so, I am fine with that. I like the porportions of the original setup., so increasing the inner diameter and thus proportionally increasing the outer ring would be nice.

 

Very nice. I am glad everyone is on their heels for this project.

 

 

I agree with the size change. But, I really hope Allie doesn't have to absorb all the extra fees....

[ParentsofSAM]

$12 is good for me.....really whatever is decided is good with me......well unless it is going to double the price.....then I may have to take a minute.

 

[+rivercity]

I think it's important that the label be legible, and I like the idea of increasing the coin size to keep the proportions of the record. The $12 is fine with me.

[+creacher]

$12 is fine with me...

[+Fluttershy]

$12.00 is an approximation, I'll find out from Oakcoins hopefully soon.

 

Thanks for your input, and support. I am not trying to disrupt our process, I just want

the best possible outcome.

[+crazycavelover]

I'm not sure... I think the OP is able to add a poll to the thread. ( I could be wrong, I should say, "IDK about that." LOL.

 

However, Here is a post to keep track of votes so far:

 

This is a vote tally to see who wants to change the size of the coin to 1 3/4" at a cost increase of approx. $12.00

 

 

FOR

 

OshnDoc

Crazycavelover

ParentofSAM

RiverCity

creacher

 

AGAINST

Edited January 9, 2007 by crazycavelover

[+PennyPacker]

a 1 1/8 inch center, such as the Blue area inside the Oakcoins would be ideal for our center as well.

 

We could make it more realistic if we englarged the coin to 1 3/4" or a 2" coin, but that would get pricey.

 

That's why I only am proposing we enlarge it to 1 5/8" and have a .10 rise (per coin) to our fee.

 

 

I realize this does take away from the Record, making the center larger, however

I think it would be nicer to be able to read your personalized area than have more BN ridges.

Until I received the Oakcoins 1 5/8" (42mm) coin, I had not realized how small of an area

we were actually working with.

 

I value your opinions...

 

So long as everything remains proportional, the bigger size is fine with me.

 

$12, okay by me.

 

<edited to add $12 approval>

Edited January 9, 2007 by PennyPacker

[+501_Gang]

I just think we will start nickle - diming ourselves to death here. Eariler we added something like .05 per coin for, I think adding the hole, now another .10± per coin, then the thought of adding hard enamel to it for .10± a coin was thrown around and will probably be thrown around some more, unless I missed it and it has already been added, extra art fees are possible and that wouldn't be fair if Flutterfly had to pay those all by herself so that will add ?? to the cost....

 

I will go with the majority but just worried where this is heading.

[+wsgaskins]

I'm not sure... I think the OP is able to add a poll to the thread. ( I could be wrong, I should say, "IDK about that." LOL.

 

However, Here is a post to keep track of votes so far:

 

This is a vote tally to see who wants to change the size of the coin to 1 3/4" at a cost increase of approx. $12.00

 

 

Now to be clear... there were 2 things proposed by FlutterShy.

1) increase the coin size to 1 3/4" (1.75")

2) increase the inner label area to 1 1/8" (1.125")

 

As long as the center 'spindle adapter' stays at a proportinal size, and we still get the inner flat black 'record end landing' area then this is fine with me.

 

Here is a picture that shows the dimensions and how the label would grow if the coin size grows.

 

This means that there would be somewhat less black nickel 'groove' area, but not too much.

Of course, "too much" is subjective. But a change of the inner label area to 1 1/8" is *not* keeping everything proportional. It is definitely an increase in the label size relative to the groove area.

 

Personally, I will not approve any change to my "approved" artwork, unless I get new artwork drawings that show the new dimensions and proportions.

 

So (for the time being), I have to vote "against".

[+Go JayBee]

The small additional cost would be fine with me in order to get a more legible size coin. I hope that the overall size vs. label size will be proportional to an actual "45"...otherwise it won't look right. Does anyone have an old 45 to measure for proportions?

 

I see that wsgaskins has already addressed this issue while I was writing...

Edited January 9, 2007 by Go JayBee

[+Fluttershy]

I've asked Jamie if he will produce an Art Sample.

 

He's working on it for us now so everyone can get a better idea of what it would look like.

 

Thanks!

[+GBOTS]

I'm in favor of making them more legible...

[+501_Gang]

 

Personally, I will not approve any change to my "approved" artwork, unless I get new artwork drawings that show the new dimensions and proportions.

 

So (for the time being), I have to vote "against".

 

Ditto

[+Nero]

i'll ask this again, are dies already made for the sample(s)?

 

if not, then i would say bigger coin not just bigger inner label.

[+wsgaskins]

The small additional cost would be fine with me in order to get a more legible size coin. I hope that the overall size vs. label size will be proportional to an actual "45"...otherwise it won't look right. Does anyone have an old 45 to measure for proportions?

 

I see that wsgaskins has already addressed this issue while I was writing...

 

Not completely... you asked the original 45rpm single album dimensions.

 

A quick googlresearch turned up:

 

"That's why a 7-inch single has a label 3 1/2 inches in diameter."

and "1 1/2", plastic-capped center spindle"

 

And a whole wheelbarrow full of info here:

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/recording/speed45.html

 

So the proportions are

Diameter: 7.0"

Label: 3.5"

Spindle: 1.5"

 

Diameter to Label Ratio: 7 : 3.5 = 2:1

Diameter to Spindle Ratio: 7 : 1.5 = 14:3

 

So to keep it totally proportional, a 1.75" coin would have to have a label area that was exactly

7/8" (0.875") in diameter.

 

But that said, everyone who has approved their artwork already has done so with a slightly off proportion of 1.8:1 so we are already not strictly proportional, but we are definitely in spirit, artistically speaking.

 

If we strictly scale the coin up in size to 1.75" such that the artwork doesn't change, but just goes on a bigger coin, then the center label area would be 0.950" according to my measurements.

[+Fluttershy]

i'll ask this again, are dies already made for the sample(s)?

 

if not, then i would say bigger coin not just bigger inner label.

 

No, dies aren't made yet. They're using 1 coin for a Sample at this moment

while we get our Artwork Finalized... and sent to Oakcoins.

[+AtwellFamily]

Based on fluttershy suggestions the coins would look like Vinyl Sizes, the first is currect size, the second just being current artwork at 1.75 and the third being 1.75 and bigger inside demensions. If viewed at 100%. This is rough scale and proportion.

 

I like the currect scale but would pay extra for the larger coin. Artwork should not need to change.

[+DresselDragons]

 

So the proportions are

Diameter: 7.0"

Label: 3.5"

Spindle: 1.5"

 

Diameter to Label Ratio: 7 : 3.5 = 2:1

Diameter to Spindle Ratio: 7 : 1.5 = 14:3

 

So to keep it totally proportional, a 1.75" coin would have to have a label area that was exactly

7/8" (0.875") in diameter.

 

But that said, everyone who has approved their artwork already has done so with a slightly off proportion of 1.8:1 so we are already not strictly proportional, but we are definitely in spirit, artistically speaking.

 

 

LOL...this reminds me of college. My friend wanted a beer can Halloween costume. So, he was measuring all parts of the label so it would have the right proportions. There probably was beer consumed during this venture, so I am sure that his measurements were just a little off, too.

[+Wij Drie]

Against. We are making a 'Single', not a 'LangspeelPlaat'.

 

tot cache,

team Wij Drie

[+GeoSmurfz]

Right now I don't know where I stand for or against . I will have to see what the artwork will look like and also the increase in price amount. More of the artwork than the price. I will wait til I give my vote.