Discuss The Design Of The 2005 Washington Geocoin

7.4k · February 14, 2005

The decision has been made to make the 25th anniversary of the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens the subject of the 2005 Washington State Geocoin design. Now that that has been decided, let's hammer out the details of the design.

First, there is the question of which eruption image to use - the 1980 eruption (left) or a 2004/5 steam plume (right):

Here are some of the early (and serious! :lol: ) design mock-ups that have already been posted:

Post your thoughts here!

7.4k · February 14, 2005

I propose using the 1980 eruption blast, but making changes to make it as visually appealing as the 2004 photo and designs. By that I mean adding the hiker, adding snow to the mountain, adding a blue sky, etc. - i.e. making it colorful rather than drab gray.

2.5k · February 14, 2005

I would like to see a side by side comparison of the two views. Although I feel that the anniversary should feature the event from 1980, I wonder what it would look like on the coin. If it does not look that good, then we should go with the lava dome image. I just took a look at some photos available online and I don't know that any of them would translate will to a coin.

On another related issue, one outstanding impression of the original 1980 eruption was the complete lack of color. Video tape taken in Eastern Washington at the time and even days after were very much monochrome due to the gray ash covering everything. Color photography may as well have been black and white. That aspect should be shown in the coin by only using tones of black and white. The eruption was gray and so should the anniversary coin.

While I was composing the above MTB locked the thread and added this new one. I did look over the pictures shown above. I am not that happy with the 1980 versions as yet, although I have already stated that I think that is the view we should use. Of the ones presented I prefer the newer view over the older one.

1.5k · February 14, 2005

I would like to see a side by side comparison of the two views. Although I feel that the anniversary should feature the event from 1980, I wonder what it would look like on the coin. If it does not look that good, then we should go with the lava dome image. I just took a look at some photos available online and I don't know that any of them would translate will to a coin.

On another related issue, one outstanding impression of the original 1980 eruption was the complete lack of color. Video tape taken in Eastern Washington at the time and even days after were very much monochrome due to the gray ash covering everything. Color photography may as well have been black and white. That aspect should be shown in the coin by only using tones of black and white. The eruption was gray and so should the anniversary coin.

While I was composing the above MTB locked the thread and added this new one. I did look over the pictures shown above. I am not that happy with the 1980 versions as yet, although I have already stated that I think that is the view we should use. Of the ones presented I prefer the newer view over the older one.

I personally prefer the Lava Dome view, but either way I will be happy. I would have to wait until I see a couple designs before actually making up my mind.

On another matter.. and I'll probably draw fire for this but....

I mentioned this when doing the first coin and it didn't get any traction:

I suggest we DONT go with the 4-Color Groundspeak type thing. If you look at the Michigan coins, you will see that they used the Generic Gx logo instead of Groundspeak's.

Yes, I know Groundspeak is here in WA and the largest *(but NOT only)* cache listing service, and they are the site most people think of when they thing of Geocaching.... but this is a Washington coin, not a Groundspeak coin. If they were doing the tracking it for us it would be a different story.

2.6k · February 14, 2005

I personally prefer the Lava Dome view

I think the crater and the lahar are very important to identifying St Helens. Can some one combine the two images? The crater was created instantly at the time of the 1980 eruption. However there are no pictures from the north/crater side of the mountain during the eruption. I'm sure that was due to safety concerns.

.....also how about "25 years ACTIVE." instead of "25 years later." OR 25th anniversary.

Paste a full size plume on this crater. :lol:

1.4k · February 15, 2005

I like the skull and bones at the bottm of the coin. Is that Harry Truman?

1.5k · February 15, 2005

I agree with Weightman on the color issue. The images of absolutely everything covered in gray ash is an impression that has stayed with me since the original eruption. Putting snow on the mountain for that timeframe would be... weird.

If a colorful coin is desired, the newer image with the lava dome and steam poof would be a better choice.

Edit: spelling

Edited February 15, 2005 by Phil & Cathy

February 15, 2005

Here's a thought. Why not put both volcano images on the coin. One on each face. 25 years ago, ... and still active. My 1/2 cent.

2.8k · February 15, 2005

Here's a thought. Why not put both volcano images on the coin. One on each face. 25 years ago, ... and still active. My 1/2 cent.

Well now...that's thinking out of the box...interesting idea...

February 15, 2005

I'll reiterate what I suggested before about why I would suggest the "lava dome" version. This is a geocoin, not a memorial coin. It needs to have elements that cachers can relate to about geocaching today. If someone just wanted a coin about Mt. St. Helen's, I'm sure they could find one on line somewhere. The "lava dome" version commemorates the 25th anniversary while putting a current perspective to the design.

Having spent untold back and forth emails with the manufacturer of the first coin about the design, I learned alot about how to layer the coin to bring out the depth you see in the 2004 coin. If you look closely at the 2004 coin, you will see the mountain and sky are on one layer and the hiker and trees are on an upper layer. This is what give the 3D effect to the coin. I wouldn't suggest using the trees in this version as it would be too similar to the 2004 coin. Having the text in place of the trees balances the design on the left lower portion. Including a full plume as in the 1980 eruption would leave little room for any blue sky. Plus, I think it would be hard to really show the detail of the full plume and differentiate the mountain from the plume itself.

Using the "lava dome" version allows for the ability to create more detail in the mountainwith the lava dome and the plume, as well as giving more room for the blue sky to wrap around the top of the coin.

The "evergreen state" text on the lower part of the could be changed to something else while still keeping the text on the lower left part of the inside of the coin.

February 15, 2005

I agree with Navdog.

February 15, 2005

I agree with Stump.

1.6k · February 15, 2005

I agree with joinsmith97

February 15, 2005

I prefer the 3rd from the bottom....

February 15, 2005

I prefer the 3rd from the bottom....

Ditto.

February 15, 2005

I .... I forgot

February 15, 2005

This post by Jeremy yesterday states that gc.com will be allowing tracking of coins in the near future that have alpha numeric numbering. Is this something worth considering?

Not true. We're working with some orgs to allow trackable coins. However the coins will need to have alphanumeric tracking numbers which is unavailable from most coin manufacturers. They seem to only be able to do sequential numbers. If anyone knows of a coin maker that can provide this service, I'd love to hear about it.

2.5k · February 15, 2005

If it can be done then we should consider it. Will our supplier be able to handle the requirement?

I will defer to Nav Dog on the image. I guess I will go along with the current image with the lava dome. I do think it should all be in gray to remind us all of the 1980 eruption. With what Nav Dog had to say I don't think we want an image of the mountain on each side. I like the original idea of keeping one side the same from year to year.

1.3k · February 15, 2005

This post by Jeremy yesterday states that gc.com will be allowing tracking of coins in the near future that have alpha numeric numbering. Is this something worth considering?

That's a 180 from Groundspeak's position when we wanted to do that for the 2004 coins.

February 15, 2005

I vote (early and often if possible) for a coin based on this picture.

With no enhanced ash cloud - just the way it is.

With this color scheme or alternatively with the blue sky.

I agree with leatherman about the caption.

"25th anniversary" or "25 years", NOT 25 "years later"

Say, What's supposed to be on the reverse?

February 15, 2005

Decidedly rough, very quick 'n dirty - but at least a visual of what M10B seems to have in mind:

I'm on the fence between the 1980 version vs. the recent, but in any case, I do favor color over drab gray as most all agree that it is the glistening color of the 2004s that make folks go WOW! the moment they lay eyes on them.

And speaking of color - as for the Groundspeak four, I can only emphatically echo RWWacko's wise remarks on the subject. I mean - even if the WA coins somehow manage to get tracked here (no doubt along with most every other state coin as well) - why would we want to brand our coin with a corporate website? If so, why not the blues and grays of Garmin, or the turquoise of Magellan? Groundspeak's no doubt a fine website, but it's surely not our high school people.

February 15, 2005

The problem with the image above that globalgirl tweaked is that you can only have color elements that are divided by a raised ridge. The ash and blue sky can't be done that way. Please look at the 2004 coin to understand the limitations with colors and detail.

Also, why would a hiker and be standing there with a GPS. There wasn't handheld GPS units in 1980.

Edited February 15, 2005 by Navdog

February 15, 2005

At this point my only comment (yet) is that I don't like the green around the edge. I much prefer the uncolored edge (like the 2004 coin) and any color in the middle of the coin.

1.5k · February 15, 2005

If we want color I think we should do a coin based on this image. It's the most attractive one I've seen so far, and seems like it would work well with the limitations that go along with color. I like the balanced form of the plume and the visible lava dome inside.

February 15, 2005

I like the first (non-coin) image. Initially I wanted the 1980 eruption - but it doesn't seem to lend itself well to the coin. The newer plume/dome sets up much nicer and it represents the 25th anniversary with an image of what's happening now. I agree on the 'no geo-colors' part too, but don't really like the green border either. Hmm - so much to ponder.

February 15, 2005

The problem with the image above that globalgirl tweaked is that you can only have color elements that are divided by a raised ridge. The ash and blue sky can't be done that way. Please look at the 2004 coin to understand the limitations with colors and detail.

Also, why would a hiker and be standing there with a GPS. There wasn't handheld GPS units in 1980.

But of course ND, AIS, my (admittedly lame) pixelated contribution is but a rough q 'n d job to give folks a rough visual on what M10B seemed to have in mind (i.e. hiker, blue sky, 1980 version). Of course there are limitations in the enameling process, but lots can be done with simple shading via laying down darker enamel in the "valleys" of the design - as evidenced in the 2004 coin.

That said, like P&C, I really like the blue-toned lava dome pic. Would be super as is (though I do think we need a hiker and/or something in the foreground to add some depth perception, not to mention - differentiate the coin from a mere st. helen's commemorative) but... as you say ND, that's even more graduated shading than mine and thus I wonder how much allure the image would lose in the enameling process.

Oh, and as for the hiker with gps? Well first of all, question is - is it a garmin or a maggie?

And secondly - I believe it's likely inevitabe that a modicum of reality must necessarily be suspended when creating symbolic icons 'n such like this. While I suppose we could nix teeny details like the gps, this IS a "geo" coin after all (i.e. not a mere hiker, birdwatcher, etc. coin), so it would seem an important element to include - despite the startling notion that some fool (shoot, with or w/o a gps or a pair of binocs for that matter) would be... calmly standing that close to a seriously angry volcano!

February 15, 2005

I liked the mock-up. Ok, the hiker can hold something else. The color's worth the effort (over non-color). I'm not sure about the green band, unless maybe a darker green. The current eruption is "cute", but not as impressive. Just opinions, naturally.

February 15, 2005

What I'd like to see is a half/half on the same face of the coin where 1980 is on the left and 2005 is on the right. The right side, 2005, can then have the hiker with a GPS, small plume, white snow, blue sky, even a red lava dome. The left, 1980 eruption, can be devoid of color.

February 16, 2005

I think the smart money at this point is to let Navdog design it.

9.5k · February 16, 2005

Agreed.

Although I am in favor of a darker green band, I say if we're going to commemorate the mountain for it's explosive 25th anniversary, commemorate the mountain with the way it looks today. Not yesteryear. There are enough tokens out there that do that already.

I mean - even if the WA coins somehow manage to get tracked here (no doubt along with most every other state coin as well) - why would we want to brand our coin with a corporate website? If so, why not the blues and grays of Garmin, or the turquoise of Magellan? Groundspeak's no doubt a fine website, but it's surely not our high school people.

With the 2004 coin, it wasn't about branding it with a corporate website, it was about being the home of Geocaching HQ. With the 2005 and subsequent series, by only changing the design of one side of the coin and not go with another totally new design we accomplish two goals:

1. Reduce our setup costs.

2. Provide continuity and recognition easily identifiable by one side remaining constant.

February 16, 2005

What about the year? Will they change that on the map side for free?

Edited February 16, 2005 by Stump

1.5k · February 16, 2005

The hiker with the GPSr off to the side would be a nice constant too, give or take a ponytail. :mad:

February 16, 2005

I mean - even if the WA coins somehow manage to get tracked here (no doubt along with most every other state coin as well) - why would we want to brand our coin with a corporate website? If so, why not the blues and grays of Garmin, or the turquoise of Magellan? Groundspeak's no doubt a fine website, but it's surely not our high school people.

With the 2004 coin, it wasn't about branding it with a corporate website, it was about being the home of Geocaching HQ. With the 2005 and subsequent series, by only changing the design of one side of the coin and not go with another totally new design we accomplish two goals:

1. Reduce our setup costs.

2. Provide continuity and recognition easily identifiable by one side remaining constant.

I think you misunderstood TL - AIS in my note, I was simply agreeing with RWW regarding the dubious wisdom of branding our state coin with the 4 Groundspeak corporate colors (blue, green, yellow, orange) on - the SIDE THAT WE'RE CHANGING. Nobody's talking here about the other side of the coin (with the www.geocaching.com, etc.) I believe we all agree - that side should remain the same.

9.5k · February 16, 2005

My mistake. (Which isn't all that uncommon.) :mad:

1.4k · February 16, 2005

At this point my only comment (yet) is that I don't like the green around the edge. I much prefer the uncolored edge (like the 2004 coin) and any color in the middle of the coin.

I agree with this 100%

1.5k · February 16, 2005

I mean - even if the WA coins somehow manage to get tracked here (no doubt along with most every other state coin as well) - why would we want to brand our coin with a corporate website? If so, why not the blues and grays of Garmin, or the turquoise of Magellan? Groundspeak's no doubt a fine website, but it's surely not our high school people.

With the 2004 coin, it wasn't about branding it with a corporate website, it was about being the home of Geocaching HQ. With the 2005 and subsequent series, by only changing the design of one side of the coin and not go with another totally new design we accomplish two goals:

1. Reduce our setup costs.

2. Provide continuity and recognition easily identifiable by one side remaining constant.

I think you misunderstood TL - AIS in my note, I was simply agreeing with RWW regarding the dubious wisdom of branding our state coin with the 4 Groundspeak corporate colors (blue, green, yellow, orange) on - the SIDE THAT WE'RE CHANGING. Nobody's talking here about the other side of the coin (with the www.geocaching.com, etc.) I believe we all agree - that side should remain the same.

As it turns out, it's not going to save us any money on the second side by not changing it. We put the year on there, so to change from 2004 to 2005, a new die will have to be made.

2.8k · February 16, 2005

As it turns out, it's not going to save us any money on the second side by not changing it. We put the year on there, so to change from 2004 to 2005, a new die will have to be made.

This might be something to consider not only for this year, but for the future as well...

Does it make sense to move the 'year' to the side of the coin that will change every year so there are not 2 die fees each year (unless we want to change the 'front' as well as the back)?

edit for icky grammar... :mad:

Edited February 16, 2005 by Allanon

9.5k · February 16, 2005

As it turns out, it's not going to save us any money on the second side by not changing it. We put the year on there, so to change from 2004 to 2005, a new die will have to be made.

This might be something to consider not only for this year, but for the future as well...

Does it make sense to move the 'year' to the side of the coin that will change every year so there are not 2 die fees each year (unless we want to change the 'front' as well as the back)?

edit for icky grammar...

My thoughts exactly.

February 16, 2005

Allanon wrote:

edit for icky grammar...

Totemlake responded with:

My thoughts exactly.

I agree, too. :mad:

February 16, 2005

My initial vote was for the 1980 version. I now agree with Navdog, I don’t think it will make as good a coin as the current version. I still don’t like the lettering on the inside of the coin; I think all the lettering should stay on the outside edge of the coin. Do we have enough suggestions to make a couple of designs, and take a vote yet?

February 17, 2005

Does it make sense to move the 'year' to the side of the coin that will change every year so there are not 2 die fees each year (unless we want to change the 'front' as well as the back)?

I believe the die fee was only $50 for each side, so it really won't have an impact spread out over 1,000+ coins.

edit: Putting the year on the other side may hinder future design ideas.

Edited February 17, 2005 by Navdog

3.8k · February 17, 2005

OK, here's my vote.

2004 Eruption, small plume, as in the photo.

Hiker.

No letters in the image, only on the outer ring. To be limited to "Washington The Evergreen State".

Personally, I prefer the second, all gray mock-up, but can be persuaded to go with mock-up #4, with no color in the outer ring. Keep the color, if any, in the center section.

No GC.com colors. It ain't their coin.

Keep the back as a constant, with only the date changing.

There.

Now, I'm gonna work on my taxes. :rolleyes:

February 17, 2005

I like the coin third from the bottom: 2004 eruption, 25th anniversary text on the picture, hiker, blue sky, green rim <-- can the text in the rim be raised metal in the color so it's not "washed out" like the mockups?

Thanks!

1.1k · February 20, 2005

I like the recent view with the real steam plume shape.

The recent view allows for colors and the hiker which wouldn't make sense on the 1980 eruption.

It hasn't been brought up yet but the previous GC thinking on tracking was that in addtion to the random alpha numeric numbering they wanted one side standardized. That may mean both sides need to change anyway. However, it would reduce die setup charges for new state coins. I am not sure if they're still heading that direction though.

3.8k · February 20, 2005

We can track them on the WSGA site, so do we really need to be able to track them on GC.com?

Or is it more of a "GC is headquartered in Washington, so Washington coins should be tracked" thing?

February 20, 2005

I like the First one. With the guy standing looking at the mountain. Thanks Robin Andrew7

February 20, 2005

Just wanted to toss in an idea.

What do you think about a "WA" coin that, when turned upside down, looks like an erupting volcano?

1.1k · February 21, 2005

We can track them on the WSGA site, so do we really need to be able to track them on GC.com?

Or is it more of a "GC is headquartered in Washington, so Washington coins should be tracked" thing?

I know that a lot of work went into the WSGA tracking site, but it isn't quite the same as CG.com tracking. With GC you get the icons and travel history and it's a lot easier to use.

Of course some people think coin tracking is a waste of energy anyway.

February 22, 2005

Just wanted to toss in an idea.
What do you think about a "WA" coin that, when turned upside down, looks like an erupting volcano?

Kfam, thats pretty cool.

Even though I see you're about as artistic as I am.

February 22, 2005

Thanks Slinger

That was just a very rough idea in an attempt to get something that will have the volcano theme without looking like a spewing version of our '04 coin.

Anyone with skills and talent is welcome to pretty it up.

Discuss The Design Of The 2005 Washington Geocoin

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment