Because of the expected overwhelming response, dialog with our customers and many others interested in the 50th Anniversary Kennedy Half-Dollar Gold Proof Coin, the United States Mint is reducing the over-the-counter purchase limit to one unit per customer.
This change in the purchase limit will give more members of the public an opportunity to purchase this popular coin, essentially doubling the number of customers able to purchase it. The number of units available at each retail location (Philadelphia and Denver facilities, Washington, D.C., headquarters and Chicago ANA World’s Fair of Money) will remain the same. There will be 500 units available initially at each United States Mint location (Philadelphia, Denver and Washington) and an additional 100 units per day for the first three days after the product launch. There will be 2,500 at the ANA, 500 available per day of the convention.
The household ordering limit of five will remain the same.
UPDATE: The price effective for the August 5 opening day of sales for the 2014 50th Anniversary Kennedy Half-Dollar Gold Proof is $1,240. See the U.S. Mint’s online catalog for more information.
NOTE: Usually I do not post press releases directly since there are many other places to see these announcements. Since there has been a lot of interest in these coins, I am posting this as a service to my readers.
Proposed reverse for the 2015 Ultra High Relief gold coin
Since my post about the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee meeting on Tuesday, July 22, 2014, I had a few readers suggest that my interpretation of the meeting may not be accurate. Several mentioned that the discussion was a follow up of the April meeting where these issues were initially discussed. It was also pointed out to me that as part of the meeting CCAC Chairman Gary Marks did try to explain the conversation in context.
These are fair criticisms. I did not attend the April meeting and Chairman Marks provided good introductory explanations prior to the discussion. Before commenting, I should have looked at the previous meeting’s notes which are available on the CCAC website. In retrospect, my criticism about the program was probably not fair. However, it is fair to question the direction the CCAC is proposing.
The other criticism that I will alter but not retract is the one when I said there was an “over-the-top cult-like patriotic gushing by some of the members over the proceedings.” Rather, what I should have said is that the CCAC was very full of themselves to the point of being too self-congratulatory and overblowing the self-perceived importance of what is being proposed.
What is being proposed is a medals program that Marks tentatively called an “American Liberty Silver Medal Program.” The purpose would be for the U.S. Mint to produce modern images of Liberty in medal form. Medals produced under this program would be dated silver proof medals on similar one-ounce planchets that are used for the American Silver Eagle program.
A second program would be a “freestyle medal of an American theme.” The U.S. Mint would solicit ideas from their artist/engravers to be reviewed by the CCAC. One freestyle medal would be produced each year. As part of the proposal, it was suggested that the medals also be produced in bronze to make them more accessible to the average collector.
What is important is that these are proposals for medals and not coins. Medals can be made of any metal and be dated but they will not bear a denomination and would not be legal tender.
2011 9/11 National Medal (obverse)
How would the U.S. Mint and the CCAC measure the success of these programs? Will collectors really accept these medals as numismatic collectibles? If the 2011 September 11 National Medal is used as a benchmark, the U.S. Mint sold 177,339 medals from a maximum mintage of 2 million over two years. Think about it: a national tragedy that is relatively recent in the memory of Americans with the proceeds going to construction of the 9/11 Memorial in New York sold less than 9-percent of its allowable mintage. In comparison, the legal tender 2012 Star-Spangled Banner Silver Commemorative silver dollar sold 210,751 from its release on March 5, 2012 through the end of the calendar year.
What prevented the sales of the September 11 National Medal? It cannot be the design because most people believe it is one of the best medals ever to be produced by the U.S. Mint. Could it be the price? The medal was priced at $66 with a $10 premium to be paid to the museum. This was $10 more than price for the proof American Silver Eagle coin.
Although the September 11 National Medal was a beautiful work of art the price was not too out of line for a silver medal, the fact that it was a medal and not a coin most likely prevented it from being purchased in greater numbers. Even though a commemorative coin will not enter circulation, there may be a psychological barrier from a medal being accepted by collectors because it is not a legal tender coin.
I did not purchase one of these medals. Even though $10 would go to the museum, I opted to write a check as a donation rather than pay for the medal. Even though I like the design, the medal is not something I feel is right for my collection. In writing a check I was also able to use the donation as a charitable tax deduction, which I would not be allowed to do if I purchased the medal. I also do not have this piece of metal that might not resell with a numismatic premium when it comes time to divest my collection.
Reflecting on the meeting and the proposal, those that I corresponded with and I expressed a lot of skepticism that this program would be a success. Regardless of how beautiful the artwork, many believe these medals will not be as popular with the public as portrayed by the CCAC during the meeting.
In fact, if you listened to what members of the CCAC said, you would think that these medals would be the best thing to come out of the U.S. Mint since President Theodore Roosevelt’s “pet crime.” While I really do not want to assail Gary Marks, his remarks at the end of the meeting exemplify this extreme self-ingratiation:
I believe that this is the single most impactful idea that the mint can pursue at this point in time in the United States. With a medals programs such as this, finally, we can have the freedom to have the art come forward. Finally, liberty will be liberated
The committee is energized.
Overall, the CCAC was overly self-congratulatory for doing something that will arguably have the least impact on the collecting community. It was these types of statements from the members of the CCAC that prompted my comments on Tuesday.
We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills; because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win…. It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency.
—President John F. Kennedy at Rice University in Houston on September 12, 1962
On July 20, 1969, just 45 years ago, Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the moon fulfilling President Kennedy’s dream. We have learned from those that were there that it was a hard and did require the best of our energies and skills. It was a challenge everyone accepted and made a success in seven years as the social and political turbulence of the 1960s were in high gear.
Space continues to be a fascinating topic as the “final frontier” of exploration. While there are areas of Earth’s oceans that remain unexplored, more people look to the stars as the next place for human exploration.
The politics and the politics of space have changed over the years but not the fascination of space exploration. One of the oldest science fiction franchises is based in space (Star Trek) and has been the inspiration for a lot of scientific development. While there were contractors building the parts NASA needed to fly into space, today there are companies that are building their own rockets and planning their own exploration.
Space has been a theme of coins, currency, and stamps around the world. An Internet search using the phrase “space themes on coins” can show a small sample of some of the coins that featured images commemorating space exploration. But the country that landed and walked on the moon first will not be amongst that list.
Although the United States has launched more rockets containing humans into space than any other nation and was the first to walk on the moon, the only tribute to space exploration was the use of the Apollo 11 insignia as the design by Frank Gasparo on the reverse of the Eisenhower and Susan B. Anthony dollars. For the Bicentennial issues in 1975 and 1976, an image of the Liberty Bell was superimposed over part of the image of the moon. This was the idea of Dennis R. Williams who won the design competition in 1974.
Eisenhower Dollar Obverse
Eisenhower Dollar Reverse
Eisenhower Dollar (Type 2) Bicentennial Reverse
Obverse of the Susan B. Anthony Dollar
Reverse of the Susan B. Anthony dollar
Given the remembrances of President Kennedy’s assassination and the celebration of the issuance of the half-dollar bearing his likeness, maybe it would be a nice idea to commemorate this achievement with a genuine United States commemorative coin.
John F. Kennedy speaking at Rice University where he gave his famous speech declaring the U.S. will land on the moon before the end of the decade.
Image of Kennedy speaking at Rice University courtesy of the JFK Library. All other images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
Proposed reverse for the 2015 Ultra High Relief gold coin
This afternoon, the Citizens Coin Advisory Committee approved a proposal by the U.S. Mint to produce an ultra-high relief or just a high relief gold coin whose design has not been determined. The coin will comply with all applicable design laws but the obverse will be a more modern interpretation of liberty and the reverse inspired by previous submissions to the committee. The CCAC recommended that the planchet be similar to that of the one-ounce gold coins and not smaller like the 2009 coin.
Along with the gold coin will be a companion silver coin struck on the one-ounce planchet that is used for the American Silver Eagle. Although it was not specifically addressed, it is assumed that silver coin will be of the same or similar relief of the gold coin.
This afternoon I was able to break away from my daily activities to attend the CCAC meeting via conference call. This is the first time I attended one of their meetings and came away a little surprised and a little appalled.
What surprised me with the meeting is how in lock-step the committee is on everything. There appears to be no disagreement or questioning of what the U.S. Mint had proposed. Granted the committee members may have history with the issues beyond this meeting, but I was surprised that alternatives were not recommended or discussed.
The committee was excited because the proposal was somewhat in alignment with a motion they passed last April to create a Liberty Medal series. According to Gary Marks, chairman of the CCAC, the Liberty Medal Series would be an arts medal produced by the U.S. Mint to foster new design and innovation. It is to encourage the artists to have artistic impression beyond what they are allowed to do as part of the coin programs.
I do not know if it was previously discussed but according to the authorizing law for the American Silver Eagle bullion program (31 U.S.C. § 5112(e)(3)) the coins must have a design “symbolic of Liberty on the obverse side” and “of an eagle on the reverse side.” The law does not say that the obverse must be Adolph Weinman’s Walking Liberty design and it does not say that the reverse must be a heraldic eagle. Why has the committee not considered using the existing American Silver Eagle program to create a Liberty design program?
In discussing the overall medallic arts program, the CCAC decided to create a study group to come up with a plan to recommend to the U.S. Mint. Aside from the “American Liberty Silver Medal Program,” as described by Marks, he also proposed Freestyle Medal of an American theme. This would be one medal per year that would be artistic representations.
CCAC Member Heidi Wastweet said that the arts medal will allow for experimenting; allow the artist and designers to “expanding our wings” for future projects. As a result, it will let future stakeholders know what is possible so that it would inspire better designs.
While a medals program is a good idea, what seems to be missing is the subject matter. If the Liberty design can be leverage through the American Eagle bullion program, why not have medals used to honor history? Why is it when nations around the world issued commemorative coins honoring D-Day, the United States, whose mint is overly regulated by intransigent politicians, did not issue any commemorative item on the 70th anniversary of an event that changed world history?
Expanding the medals program in this manner would be the perfect way to honor history when congress has failed to remember they represent a country rather their owners… I mean donors!
Where I was appalled was what I saw as over-the-top cult-like patriotic gushing by some of the members over the proceedings. I thought the CCAC was supposed to be an oversight organization; at least that is how it appears to be described in the authorizing law (31 U.S. Code § 5135). There should not be a problem with supporting the work of the U.S. Mint and support the artists whom everyone agrees should be treated better. However, there were some comments that sounded more like members were wrapping themselves in the flag rather than working on an oversight committee.
As part of his closing remarks, Chairman Marks said, “I believe that this is the single most impactful idea that the Mint can pursue at this point in time in the United States.” Unfortunately, I wish this was the case. It appears to be another missed opportunity by the CCAC similar to previous missed opportunities by this committee.
I will have more commentary in the coming days.
Background from the U.S. Mint
Potential Products
2015 24-karat Gold Ultra High Relief Coin 2015 Silver Medal
Background
As a result of the success and popularity of the 2009 Ultra High Relief Double Eagle Gold Coin, the United States Mint (Mint) is considering producing a 2015 24-karat Gold Ultra High Relief (UHR) Coin.
The CCAC recommended a new eagle design for the reverse of the American Eagle Silver One Ounce Coin, a change the Mint is not pursuing, opting instead to consider showcasing the beauty and intricacies of the recommended design on a 2015 24k Gold UHR Coin.
To compliment such a reverse, the Mint would consider featuring a new, modern rendition of Liberty on the obverse of the 2015 24k Gold UHR Coin.
If developed, a 2015 24k Gold UHR Coin would be comparable to the 2009 Ultra High Relief Double Eagle Gold Coin, in that it would also be one troy ounce. The denomination would also have to be determined.
To make such a design accessible to various ranges of collectors, the Mint is considering the possibility of producing a medal, struck in silver, bearing the same design as a 2015 24k Gold UHR Coin. Striking these medals in silver would provide an additional opportunity to showcase the intricacy of the design features and the beauty of the artwork.
If this concept is pursued, the United States Mint would seek Secretary of the Treasury approval to strike this gold coin under authority of 31 U.S.C. § 5112(i)(4)(C).
If this concept is pursued, the United States Mint would seek Secretary of the Treasury approval to strike this silver medal under authority of 31 U.S.C. § 5111 (a)(2).
Design History
In 2009, the United States Mint fulfilled the original vision of Augustus Saint-Gaudens with the release of the 2009 Ultra High Relief Double Eagle Gold Coin; closing one chapter of American coin design and beginning a new one.
If produced, 2015 24k Gold UHR Coins could be viewed as a follow up to the 2009 Double Eagle UHR, contrasting classic American coin design with modern American coin design.
Last week, the U.S. Mint sent a notice on its press list to announce the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee meeting on Tuesday, July 22 at 3 PM. As usual, the meeting will be held at the U.S. Mint Headquarters located at 801 Ninth St. NW, in Washington, DC. What caused a buzz amongst the numismatic press was the agenda:
“Discussion of a potential 2015 24K Gold Ultra-High Relief Coin and accompanying silver medal.”
In 2008, it became then Mint Director Edmund Moy’s “pet project” to create the ultra-high relief Augustus Saint-Gaudens double eagle design in a manner that Saint-Gaudens originally envisioned. The result was the 2009 Ultra High Relief Gold Coin. The design was based on the plaster casts originally made by Saint-Gaudens that was digitized and the equipment purchased that would be able to strike the coin.
Moy is no longer Director but the U.S. Mint still has the equipment used to strike the coin. The question is what does the U.S. Mint have in mind for creating a high-relief coin?
Also, what do they have in mind for an accompanying silver medal and how do they justify creating a medal? While the U.S. Mint can use the same law that authorizes the 24-Karat Gold Buffalo coin (31 U.S.C. § 5112(q)), it is uncertain what can be leverage for the silver medal. It is possible that the U.S. Mint might be leveraging 31 U.S.C. § 5111(a)(2) that says The Secretary of the Treasury “may prepare national medal dies and strike national and other medals if it does not interfere with regular minting operations but may not prepare private medal dies.” Before we pass further judgement we will wait to hear what the U.S. Mint says.
As for the subject, since they Saint-Gaudens double eagle design as been used, what other high-relief design has issues? The only design that comes to mind is the Anthony de Francisci Peace dollar. But not just the Peace dollar, but the original design with the broken sword.
The broken sword was not well received. According to numismatic researcher Roger Burdette, he discovered a editorial that appeared in the New York Herald that summarized the feeling about the broken sword:
A sword is broken when its owner has disgraced himself. It is broken when a battle is lost and breaking is the alternative to surrendering. A sword is broken when the man who wears it can no longer render allegiance to his sovereign. But America has not broken its sword. It has not been cashiered or beaten; it has not lost allegiance to itself. The blade is bright and keen and wholly dependable. It is regrettable that the artist should have made such an error in symbolism. The sword is emblematic of Justice as well as of Strength. Let not the world be deceived by this new dollar. The American effort to limit armament and to prevent war or at least reduce its horror does not mean that our sword is broken.
1921-D Peace Dollar
Aside from being too high of a relief for efficient striking, U.S. Mint Chief Engraver George Morgan modified the models using fine engraving tools under extreme magnification at the last moment to remove the broken sword. De Francisci was asked to be in Philadelphia as Morgan made the modifications to ensure the work met with his approval. As part of the modification, Morgan extended the olive branch and removed some of its parts to make it look as if it was de Francisci’s original work. Morgan also sharpened some of the details, strengthened the sun’s rays and straightened the eagle’s leg to give it a better appearance. The work was done so well that nobody realized that Morgan made these changes until Burdette uncovered the details in his research.
Although struck in Denver in late December 1921, the 1921-D Peace dollar was released into circulation on January 3, 1922.
Later that year it was determined that the high-relief design was causing dies to break at a faster pace than planned. The Mint then lowered the relief in order to keep striking coins at the rate required by law. This became the second type of the Peace dollar series.
Because 2015 will be 95 years since the first Peace dollar, I suspect that the high-relief gold coin will be a 2015 tribute to that first Peace dollar.
Artist’s conception of a 1964-D Peace dollar.
As for a companion silver, there is an interesting story about an attempt to produce the Peace dollar in 1964. In 1964 the price of silver rose to new heights that it made the value of ordinary circulating coins worth more for their metals than their face value. Because of this, silver coins were being hoarded by the public and becoming scarce in circulation. Western states that relied on hard currency including the gaming areas of Nevada needed the U.S. Mint to strike additional coins for circulation.
The striking of a dollar coin had a powerful ally: Senator Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, Democrat from Montana, whose state would be directly affected by the new coins. Although the numismatic press was not in favor of the measure because of its limited ability to solve the coin shortage, Mansfield pushed a bill through congress to authorize the Mint to strike 45 million silver dollars.
After much discussion, the Mint looked for working dies but found that few survived a 1937 destruction order. Those that did survive were in poor condition. Mint Assistant Engraver Frank Gasparro, who would later become the Mint’s 10th Chief Engraver, was authorized to create new dies of the Peace dollar with the “D” mintmark. Since the coins would mostly circulate in the west it was logical to strike them closest to the area of interest.
When the coins were announced, coin dealers immediately offered $7.50 per coin which would ensure that they would not circulate as intended. Everyone saw this as a poor use of Mint resources during a time of severe coin shortages. Adams announced that the pieces were trial strikes never intended for circulation and were later melted under reportedly heavy security.
There have been reports that some Peace dollars were struck using base metals (copper-nickel clad) as experimental pieces in 1970 in anticipation of the approval of the Eisenhower dollar. The same reports also presume these coins have been destroyed.
While we are speculating, the companion silver medal could be a modern tribute to the 1964-D Peace dollar by minting a 1915-D silver medal with the same design but without a denomination. It would be the same design but with out “ONE DOLLAR” struck on the reverse.
A high-relief 24-karat gold Peace dollar design and a silver version without the denomination. That’s my prediction, what’s yours?
2009 Ultra-High Relief image courtesy of the U.S. Mint 1921-D Peace dollar courtesy of the author. Artists conception of the 1964-D Peace dollar courtesy of PCGS.
This 1878 eight tail feathers Morgan dollar, graded PCGS PO-1 (none worse!), is from the End of the Trail VIII Collection of Low Ball Morgan dollars that will be exhibited for the first time during the 2014 ANA World’s Fair of Money.
There was an interesting buzz around the numismatic world when it was announced that Professional Coin Grading Service was going to display the “End of the Trail” Morgan dollars registry, the lowest graded basic set of Morgan Dollars. The End of the Trail registry set is the finest set in the PCGS Registry of “Low Ball” coins.
In 2009, PCGS began to offer rewards for what they called and “everyman” or second tier registry competition. Apparently, it became a race to the bottom. While people are looking for the best coins their money can buy, someone went quite the opposite and set out to find the worst of the worst.
“It is the all-time finest, or in this case, the worst-of-the-worst basic Morgan dollar set in the Low Ball category. While collectors have a lot of fun with the Low Ball sets, remember that it often is just as difficult and exciting to build a low grade set as it is to assemble a high grade collection,” said PCGS President Don Willis.
Who am I to argue. After all, someone put together a set of PO-1 and FR-2 coins, many marked “None Worse,” and probably cost more to have them graded than the coins cost to purchase. Then who is to say that some did not find their way into a pocket or two before being submitted?
Cynicism aside, there is something ironic about putting together a set like this and it has to do with just having fun. It had to be a lot of fun to go around and search through junk boxes or ask dealers for their worst coins. It must have been interesting seeing the face of some of the dealers when they hand over their worst Morgan dollars only to be told they were not bad enough.
Think about it for a moment. Dealers are looking for the best, most pristine inventory to sell to eager buyers who walk by their cases looking at the pretty and shiny coins. When coins are not good enough to make the inventory, they are thrown into junk boxes for people to pick through. Larger coins, like Morgan dollars, would be sold for a price around their melt value since there would not be much of a numismatic premium.
The adventure had to be a lot of fun for the person assembling the set.
That what this is all about, having fun! If you are stressing out about the worth of your set, are you really having fun? Are you having fun worrying about the plastic entombing the coin or whether someone placed a sticker on that plastic or is the coin the most important part of your collection?
I know the registry sets exist for the third-party grading services to promote their products and get people to submit coins. I know putting together a top set can be gratifying. But is it fun? Are you putting together that set for the fun or the profit?
There are a lot of people who collect coins in some form. Some collect high grade Morgan dollars while others collect varieties or VAMs. Some pursue the best and most rare coins while you find many digging through junk boxes at the shows looking for that one small gem to fill the hole in their collection. You may like high-grade Buffalo nickels while others are searching half-dollar rolls they pick up at their local bank.
Regardless of how you collect, what you collect, and where you find your collection, if you are not having fun then maybe you should rethink what you are doing.
Just for kicks, here are three of my “low ball” coins:
This 1794 Liberty Cap Head Right Large Cent has been around since the time of George Washington and looks the part. This coin has been cleaned making it a candidate for a no-grade if I should submit it to a grading service.
A very worn flat 1798 Draped Bust Large Cent. It took a lot of light and a 16x loupe to determine the date!
Another worn flat Draped Bust Large Cent. This one is from 1803 and just has a lot of character.
Now if you would excuse me, there are some tokens and medals from my hometown of New York I bought at the Whitman show I need to add to my collection.
During a time where disinformation is a product of hyper-partisanship, it is difficult to write about issues without feeding into the conspiracy theories of the day. The problem with conspiracy theories is that there are so many moving parts and so many people who would have to cooperate that when you really think about their content beyond the headline, you understand how difficult it would be for conspiracies to exist on the scale many suggest.
Conspiracy theories are not a new phenomenon. What is new is how fast they can spread and how the extremes on both side of the aisle can see the same circumstances are come up with radically different conclusions.
Rather than talk about conspiracies, we should look at the issues as more of the result of unintended consequences.
1933 Saint Gaudens Double Eagle is an example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
The story of 1933 Saint Gaudens double eagle is truly an example of the law of unintended consequences. In an effort to rescue the economy, the cascading series of events that took the United States off the gold standard turned what was supposed to be an ordinary coin into one of the most intriguing stories of the last 80 years. If President Franklin D. Roosevelt or William Woodin, his Secretary of the Treasury, did things differently, would there be such as story? If not, then what would explain the 1804 dollar, a coin that was not produced in 1804 but reproduced by the U.S. Mint in many forms in later years?
EID·MAR Silver Coin commemorating the death of Cæsar on March 15
Ideally, it is a good idea to allow the countries where these artifacts are found to preserve their history, but where does it end? Does the country have to save every piece of pottery, nail, scrap of fabric, or coin that is removed from the ground? Does the country need to keep eight versions of the tool to maintain its history or can they share those tools with other countries so that they can share in your history?
Although this may sound reasonable, Article 1 paragraph (e) of the treaty defines a category of cultural property as “antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals.” This means that any coin minted before 1914 can be considered cultural property and not only be subject to restrictions but confiscated if it cannot be proven that it was found or purchased legally prior to the convention.
With the different rules and laws around the world that has different documentation requirements that were more lax prior to the convention, how does the collector of ancient coins prove the coin that was bought in good faith from a dealer or another collector is not a country’s cultural property? A coin that could have changed hands hundreds of times since it arrived in the United States and enjoyed by its collectors may have had its more modern provenance lost to time and be subject to confiscation by the State Department and returned to the country of origin.
Although the CPAC tries to make the Memoranda of Understanding between the foreign country and the United States simple, the law and convention has a number of problems that have not been addressed in the 40 years it has been in existence. One problem is the existence of ancient Roman coins all over Europe. While the coins were minted in Rome, they were carried throughout the empire by the military, business people, and travelers that were eventually left behind. Since the coins were struck in Rome does it mean that the coins are the property of Italy or the country where they were found? If they country where they were found follows the convention to its letter, since the coins were not manufactured there are they really cultural objects and subject to these export and trade restrictions?
While those of us in the United States have been captivated by the Saddle Ridge Hoard of gold coins, people in the United Kingdom have been buying metal detectors in record number to scour the countryside looking for ancient coins left behind by their ancestors. Recently, someone found four coins dating back to the Iron Age that sparked an archeological search. The find included Roman coins that were not made in England or the land that would become England. Are these British artifacts?
As an aside, British law allows the finders to keep the coins. But since the full archeological search was managed by a British university in conjunction with the military, subsequent finds are the property of the crown since both are paid using public tax money. However, based on the wording of the 1970 UNESCO Convention, does Italy have a claim if they want to pursue those coins?
Recently, the CPAC held an open meeting to hear the new Egyptian government’s request to ban the import of artifacts dating through the time of the Ottoman Empire. Based on reporting by Richard Gierdroyc in Numismatic News, the questioning of the committee and the answers by those representing the archeological community not only would not grant an exemption for coins but would consider the confiscation of coins that could not be proven to have been legally purchased prior to the 1970 UNESCO Convention and have since fairly traded.
There is a very vocal crowd in the archeological community that would want to see everything dug up from the earth put into museums or otherwise locked away from the public. (Links to these people omitted on purpose) Using the pejorative “coinys” to describe collectors of ancient coins, these people have advocated for the confiscation of these coin so that they can be entombed behind display glass inside the state run museums of the world. They consider coinys profiteers who would rather trade in history than preserve history.
Collecting, in all of its forms, is a preservation of history. Whether you collect coins, stamps, political campaign buttons, old car emblems, license plates, old kitchen objects, books, toys, postcards, letters, and other ephemera, these items would be lost to time if people did not save them. Owning history helps connect us to our past and even helps us understand how the world has evolved.
History must be preserved and every country has the right to protect the property within its borders. If Egypt wants to protect its property and any future property that archeologists discover, then that should be their right. However, if Egypt wants to restrict United States collectors of coins or other artifacts that have been in circulation for many years, it is suggested that they end their hypocrisy by preying on the “we must do right by the world” policies of the United States and demand that the British Museum to return its holdings.
At the beginning of each month, I like to provide my readers with a progress with coin or coin industry-related legislation being considered in congress. For the third time this session, there were no new coin-related bills introduced and those that have been submitted have not seen any legislative action. Considering congress has begun their summer break, there will probably be nothing to report for this month.
In similar news, on September 12, 2014, Richard A. Peterson, Deputy Director of the United States Mint provided a status to the House Financial Services Committee about the Alternative Metals Study. The only news to come out of the hearing was the recommendation by Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH) to use steel as a coinage metal. Stivers was reported to have said, “Steel costs about $900 a ton versus some of the other metals that cost up to $5,000 a ton or $12,000 a ton.”
Prior to the hearing, the U.S. Mint extended the deadline for public comment on the Alternative Metals Study. Predictably, representatives for the vending and coin-operated machine industries called on the U.S. Mint and the congress to maintain the status quo.
Outside of Washington, there is an issue with the enforcement of a consumer protection law in Minnesota that requires dealers with more than $5,000 in sales of bullion coins to register in Minnesota. One of the problems with the definition is that the Minnesota law defines “Bullion Coin” as “any coin containing more than one percent by weight of silver, gold, platinum, or other precious metal.” (see Minnesota Stat. §80G.01 Subd. 2). This means that dealers selling more than $5,000 of Mercury dimes or Barber quarters are required to register the same way as those selling American Eagle coins.
To learn more about this issue, I recommend a reading “Dealers to reject Minnesota clients” by Pat Heller that was published in Numismatic News. There will be more on this and similar laws in other states in future posts.
In keeping with the legislative theme, the following is what has been considered by the 113th congress thus far:
Bills Signed into Law
The following has passed both the House of Representatives and Senate and has been signed by the President of the United States into law:
Public Law 113-10 (formerly H.R. 1071: To specify the size of the precious-metal blanks that will be used in the production of the National Baseball Hall of Fame commemorative coins.
Bills Passed in the House of Representatives
The following bill passed the House and is awaiting action in the Senate:
H.R. 2760: Panama Canal and Pan-Pacific Exhibition Centennial Celebration Act
H.R. 2932: United States Coast Guard Commemorative Coin Act
H.R. 3146: Savings, Accountability, Value, and Efficiency (SAVE) II Act
H.R. 3305: Currency Optimization, Innovation, and National Savings Act
H.R. 3680: Breast Cancer Awareness Commemorative Coin Act
H.R. 3729: Korean Immigration Commemorative Coin Act
Introduced in the Senate
Even though financial bills are constitutionally required to begin in the House of Representatives, it is not beneath the Senate to introduce their own legislation or concurrent bills with the House. Coin-related bills introduced in the Senate are usually referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. The bills introduced in the Senate are as follows:
S. 94: To terminate the $1 presidential coin program
S.203: Pro Football Hall of Fame Commemorative Coin Act
The Continental Congress met on July 1, 1776 to take up the resolution of Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia. Lee had brought with him a resolution from the Virginia Convention to “propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent states” that was first heard on June 7, 1776. The July 1 meeting was the culmination of the resolution being documented by John Adams (Massachusetts), Roger Sherman (Connecticut), Benjamin Franklin (Pennsylvania), Robert R. Livingston (New York), and Thomas Jefferson (Virginia). Although the document went through some editing by Franklin and Adams, it was still Jefferson’s words that rang forth:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Asserting their right of freedom from the “the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States” was a bold move of this body. One that could land every one of them in jail, ruined, tortured, or dead. But these men, some of great means, risked everything and pursued a path of freedom and justice.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Accusing the King of crimes against the colonies and using his whim, and not laws, to rule the colonies was as immoral as it was illegal. Taxation without representation, the right to govern oneself, housing militia without permission, restricting trade, and suspending trial by jury were some of the accusations levied against the crown.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Even as Benjamin Franklin sought to try to negotiate with the King and his representatives, Franklin toiled with the Continentals as he saw that the King’s court was not negotiating in good faith.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
With a final unanimous vote, Richard Henry Lee’s resolution was passed on July 4, 1776. Copies were engrossed over night and formally signed on July 5, 1776 before being dispatched to the colonies.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
On this, the 238 anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, may you revel in the accomplishment and pray for peace in our time.
John Trumbull’s Declaration of Independence hangs in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda. It was used as the model for the reverse of the $2 Federal Reserve Note.
Image of the Joe Fitzgerald autographed 2005 Jefferson Nickel is property of the author. John Adams $1 coin image courtesy of the U.S. Mint. All other images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
U.S. Mint mock-up of the 24 karat gold 50th anniversary Kennedy half dollar
Those waiting for the U.S. Mint to release the Kennedy Half-Dollar coin 50th Anniversary Products will be happy to learn that the U.S. Mint announced the products that will be available.
The coin that seems to be the most anticipated is the 50th Anniversary Kennedy Half-Dollar Gold Proof Coin (U.S. Mint product code K15) that will be struct at the West Point facility using three-quarters of a troy ounce of .9999 fine, 24-karat gold. The dual-dated coin will be encapsulated and issued in a wood box, probably similar to the wood boxes used for past special issue gold coins starting with the 2009 Ultra High Relief Gold Coin.
Sales of the gold coin will begin on August 5, 2014 at noon Eastern Daylight Time through the U.S. Mint’s online catalog or by phone. They will also sell the coin at the 2014 Chicago World’s Fair of Money in Rosemont. The price will be set based on the prevailing price of gold when the sale begins. If you want to anticipate the costs, you can see the U.S. Mint 2014 Pricing of Numismatic and Commemorative Gold and Platinum Products. [PDF]
Fans of silver coins and the variations on the silver design will have to wait until the Fall for the release of the 50th Anniversary Kennedy Half-Dollar Silver Coin Collection. The four coin set will include 90-percent silver coins from each of the U.S. Mint’s facilities in four different styles:
One reverse proof coin from West Point
One proof coin from Philadelphia
One enhanced uncirculated coin from San Francisco, and
One uncirculated coin from Denver.
The press release says that the “encapsulated coins are secured in coin wells within an embossed leatherette-type folder that includes the same image of John F. Kennedy that appears on the coins in this set, with patriotic imagery of stars and stripes.” Since this sounds like a new packaging style, we may have to wait until the set is released to truly understand the presentation.
Finally, for the budget conscious, the 50th Anniversary Kennedy Half-Dollar Uncirculated Coin Set will feature two uncirculated half-dollars from Philadelphia and Denver in a commemorative folder. Although the set will go on sale on July 24, 2014, the U.S. Mint has created a catalog page for the set.
50th Anniversary Kennedy Half-Dollar Uncirculated Coin Set
Are you going to buy any of the 50th Anniversary Kennedy Half-Dollar tribute coins?
Yes, I am buying all three sets! (30%, 40 Votes)
Yes, I am buying the silver coin set only. (24%, 32 Votes)
No, I am just not interested. (16%, 21 Votes)
Yes, I am buying the gold coin and silver coin set. (14%, 18 Votes)
Yes, I am buying the gold coin only. (13%, 17 Votes)
Yes, I am buying the uncirculated set only. (3%, 4 Votes)
According to the U.S. Mint:
At the beginning of each month, I like to provide my readers with a progress with coin or coin industry-related legislation being considered in congress. For the third time this session, there were no new coin-related bills introduced and those that have been submitted have not seen any legislative action. Considering congress has begun their summer break, there will probably be nothing to report for this month.
Loading ...
