Over the last few years, the U.S. Mint has been trying to process orders via the web and not being successful. Their website fails when they try to sell limited production items and the site gets slammed by collectors and dealers trying to place orders.
We saw this recently when the main website, www.usmint.gov crashed during the sale of the Eisenhower Coins and Chronicles set because the U.S. Mint did not build enough capacity. We know this because if you went to catalog.usmint.gov you were able to complete your order.
Another problem is how to handle the production of special products, such as a reverse proof dollar or enhanced uncirculated coins. Maybe a poll for another day would ask if it is a good idea to change how the U.S. Mint issues these special strikes.
What should the U.S. Mint do? How should they fix the problems? Take the poll and add comments below. If you have another suggestion, add it to the comments, too.
How should the U.S. Mint fix its product ordering process?
Just fix the darn website! (81%, 21 Votes)
Go further back to old school and do mail order only. (12%, 3 Votes)
Since the U.S. Mint cannot get the web right, go back to telephone ordering. (4%, 1 Votes)
Forget it... it's a lost cause. I'm going to take my chances on the aftermarket. (4%, 1 Votes)
Sell only through authorized dealers. (0%, 0 Votes)
Just before the World’s Fair of Money, I learned that Jake Sherlock was leaving the ANA Headquarters to take his talents to a new level. You might have seen Jake at the National Money Show or World’s Fair of Money working to help the ANA run those shows smoothly. But Jake has been behind the scenes working to help the ANA keep in touch with its members.
After years of complaining about the technology and communications that the ANA was not doing, I was asked to join the committee where I met Jake and learn what he was doing for the members from Colorado Springs. Even though it looked like the ANA was not doing a good job with communications, it was Jake keeping together what the ANA was doing!
Jake is not a computer person. He said that his background is in communications and public relations. But in that job, he was put in charge of the website. He was not a computer person in the way that someone like me has had an over 30 year career in computers. Jake was given the job because he was there and probably could spell “computer” faster than any other person.
Considering what the Technology Committee found when we began to look at what was available in Colorado Spring, the job Jake had done in keeping those systems together were nothing short of amazing! Even though the site had problems (not his fault) and various attempts to fix it had problems (definitely not his fault) and the pain in trying to provide extended web-based services was a bit disconnected (absolutely not his fault), you would never know that Jake’s first job was not in computers.
While a lot of people have helped with the transition to the new ANA website, Jake has to be singled out for knowing and understanding the processes that helped integrate the new services with the ANA headquarters. I am sure that some will point out the bumps in the road during the initial transition, it went a lot smoother than other integration efforts that I have been involved with in my long career in the computer business. I believe that everyone involved with the transition will credit Jake with success of the transition.
I would like to thank Jake Sherlock for his service to the ANA and hope he is successful in this next step in his career!
As part of my perusal of the Internet looking for numismatic-related stories, I stumbled upon an article at the website for The Guardian about the Royal Mint’s operating income and profits. The story touted how the Royal Mint, whose history can be traced back over 1,000 years, increased over 70-percent from the previous year.
Using The Guardian’s reporting, I wondered how the Royal Mint would stack up against the U.S. Mint. Even though the story was published on July 23, 2015 and the U.S. Mint’s data is for Fiscal Year 2014 that ended on September 30, 2014, I am using the conversion rate of at the time I write this of £1 is equivalent to $1.55.
Revenues
The Guardian reported that the Royal Mint earned £260 million in revenues. This is equivalent to just over $404 million. In contrast, the U.S. Mint boasted revenues of over $3.1 billion or a bit over £1.995 billion. Yes, that is BILLION with a “B.” While the Royal Mint’s revenue was depicted as being the most in the institution’s history, the U.S. Mint’s record revenues came in 2011 when it earned $4.970 billion.
Profit
What good is making money if there are no profits. The Royal Mint reported a record profit of £11.5 million or just over $17.7 million. The U.S. Mint did slightly better by reporting a seigniorage of $367.9 million or more than £236.756 million. Even if you take it as a percentage, the Royal Mint’s profit margin is 4.38-percent while the U.S. Mint has a profit margin of 11.86-percent.
Benefit to their respective governments
The Royal Mint is wholly owned by the British Treasury. They pay a £4 million ($6.218 million) dividend to the British government. By law, the seigniorage earned by the U.S. Mint is deposited in their Public Enterprise Fund. The Treasury Department requests a budget for the U.S. Mint which is then approved by congress. The funds are withdrawn from the Public Enterprise Fund. Allowing for overages, the Secretary of the Treasury then transfers the rest of the money to the U.S. General Funds where it is used to pay whatever the government needs. In 2014, $272 million (£174.971 million) was deposited into the General Funds, more than 43-times the dividend that the Royal Mint pays the British government.
The U.S. Mint is the most profitable agency in the United States government. No other mint in the world can match the U.S. Mint’s production, income, and profit. The U.S. Mint even out performs private industry. The average profit margin in the United States is 5.1-percent.
The next time someone complains that it costs too much to make a specific coin, remind them that the U.S. Mint provides more benefit to the government than the loss of a little profit on a few coins.
Royal Mint logo courtesy of the Royal Mint. U.S. Mint seal courtesy of the United States Department of the Treasury.
The other day I walked into the office of a big-shot producer and pitched a story for a movie that had the possibilities of a sequel. Here is the story I pitched:
Our story opens in Philadelphia where the U.S. Mint is striking 445,500 double eagle coins bearing the design by Augustus Saint-Gaudens.
Flash to Washington where President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs Executive Order 6102 that banned the private use of gold for currency.
Transition back to Philadelphia where a shadowy figure, presumably the U.S. Mint’s cashier, is locking the doors of the coin room but is clearly clanking coins in his pocket.
Watch as the cashier grabs his coat, hat, a small bag and leaves the Mint. He walks to the Philadelphia’s diamond district where he knocks on the backdoor of jeweler Israel Switt. Switt opens the door and the two men talk. Switt hands the cashier a bag and the cashier hands the bag he was carrying to Switt then leaves.
Fast forward to 1944. An emissary for King Farouk of Egypt is meeting with someone at the State Department to obtain permission to export a 1933 double eagle to Egypt for his vast collection. Not knowing whom to call, the State Department worker calls the Smithsonian who verifies the coin that leads to an export permit.
Next, a series of investigations and stories about the seizing of 10 double eagle coins that the Secret Service says should not have left the U.S. Mint. This part of the story goes to 1952.
Scene is the famous Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York in 1996. British coin dealer Stephen Fenton is attempting to buy a 1933 double eagle when the Secret Service interrupts the transaction and arrests him.
Attorney Barry Berke helps get Fenton out of jail and begins to build a case against the government. The defense claims that King Farouk of Egypt legally exported the coin. Some court drama and negotiations lead to charges against Fenton being dropped but the coin not returned to Fenton.
The scene is Federal Court in Manhattan where Berke is negotiating a settlement with federal attorneys. Finally, in July 2001, both sides agree that the coin would become federal property and sold at auction. The Fenton and the government would split the proceeds of the auction. The government required the buyer pay an extra $20 to officially monetize the coin.
Flash to the World Trade Center where the coin is removed from a safe and transferred to the government.
Brief pause for a scene about the destruction of the World Trade Center.
Fade to Southeby’s Auction on July 30, 2002 where the coin sells for $6.6 million plus a 15-percent buyer’s premium. After the auction Stephen Fenton received $3.3 million. Another $3.3 million was deposited in the federal treasury. Southeby’s and their auction partner Stack’s earned $990,000. The president of Southeby’s will pull $20 out of his pocket and hand it to the government’s representative to monetize the coin.
New scene is in a dark basement in Philadelphia. Joan Langbord, Israel Switt’s surviving daughter, will be opening boxes as if she was looking for something. Soon she would find a bag with ten 1933 Saint-Gaudens double eagle coins.
Langbord contacts the U.S. Mint and hands the coins over for authentication. In July 2005 they determine the coins are real and confiscates them.
Langboad contacts Berke to help recover the coins.
First trial occurs in July 2011, which leads to a unanimous decision against Langbord who was joined by her sons in the lawsuit. The elderly Langbord did this to protect the family’s interest.
Scene changes to the transfer of the ten coins to the Bullion Depository at Fort Knox, Kentucky.
Langbord appeals and a three-judge panel will vacate the forfeiture and order the government to return the coins.
The government appeals and asks that the return order be vacated in order to appeal the decision. Rather, the Chief Judge of the Third Circuit will stay the order and ruled that the appeal will be en banc, meaning that the appeal will be heard before the entire bench of judges this year.
Fade to the image of the ten coins in Fort Knox with the lettering “To be continued…” overlaying the screen.
The producer found the story so unbelievable that he threw me out of his office.
Just goes to prove that reality is weirder than fiction!
What is going on at the U.S. Mint? For an organization whose actions are micromanaged by law seems to be finding a way to get around those rules to make some real questionable decisions.
2015-S Saratoga National Historical Park Quarter
First, the U.S. Mint begins production of uncirculated San Francisco struck America the Beautiful Quarters in 2012 leaving the coins of the first two years of the program out. Collectors of the entire set will have two uncirculated options for 2010 and 2011 but a partial set for the rest of the program. Why start something like this in the middle of the program?
Just before the release of the S-mint quarters, the U.S. Mint changed its branding and changed the design of the Presidential $1 Coin Cover. Those of us who collect the coin covers now have two different formatted designs that shows when you show your 2010 Abraham Lincoln cover followed by the 2011 Andrew Johnson cover. And the change puts a thick black bar across the bottom forcing the portrait to be reduced making it an ugly design.
2010 Lincoln First Day Cover (before branding)
2011 Andrew Johnson First Day Cover (after branding)
Although I love the reverse proof coins and do not think including them in special sets, such as the 2015 Reverse Proof Roosevelt Dime as part of the 2015 March of Dimes Special Silver Set, but there are persistent rumors of a Presidential dollar reverse proof set. Why add a reverse proof set in the middle of a series? What is the U.S. Mint thinking? Adding a reverse proof to an existing series is as wrong as the S-mint national parks quarters.
2015 American Liberty High Relief Gold Coin
Allegedly, there is “excitement” being made over the new 24-karat $100 Liberty gold coin. First, there was a lot of industry discussion on the $100 face value, which is irrelevant to the issues. What difference does the denomination make on a non-circulating coin? But am I the only one who thinks the image of Liberty looks like an anorexic weakling?
Look at some of the past images of Liberty and they have a stronger look. Two of the most famous by Augustus Saint-Gaudens and Adolph A. Weinman has a striding Liberty that shows character. George Morgan’s Liberty had a regal look and Anthony de Francisi’s Liberty on the Peace dollar is just a marvel of beauty. This image is so uninspiring that I would buy the coin only because it is the first year of issue and has some investment potential. Otherwise, if I were to invest in 24-karat gold coins I would continue to buy the American Gold Buffalo.
2015 American Liberty High Relief Gold Coin Reverse
The appealing feature of the coin is the eagle on the reverse. While there have been flying eagles on Christian Gobrecht dollar, James B. Longacre’s Flying Eagle cent, and Saint-Gaudens’ $20 gold coin, the new design brings forward the strength of the eagle gripping an olive branch to symbolize peace. Although the eagle depicted on Official Seal of the United States includes arrows in one of the eagle’s claws, modern sensibilities will prevent the symbolism that the arrows would depict.
I know that the designs were approved by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee and the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. But, as usual, their motivations and sense of design is really in question. Maybe it is time we drop one of these committees and streamline the process.
Expanding collecting options from the U.S. Mint is good for the hobby. However, adding options to existing series and ugly coins should be discouraged.
Saratoga Park quater image courtesy of USACoinBook.com All other images courtesy of the U.S. Mint.
Reverse of the $2 Federal Reserve Note features an engraved modified reproduction of the painting The Declaration of Independence by John Trumbull.
The enigma of congress predates the Declaration of Independence. It began in 1776 when it was clear that King George III would not negotiate to resolve the grievances. It took until the session on May 1, 1776 for all of the colonies to realize that independence was the only answer. Thomas Jefferson was asked to draft the preamble and five days later the Continental Congress debated the issue until June 11, 1776.
On June 11, rather than let Jefferson continue his draft, the Continental Congress elected the Committee of Five to write the full document. John Adams, whose role in the Continental Congress would be that of the Majority Leader today, was a member of the Committee of Five but insisted that most of the writing be done by Jefferson. The other members of the Committee of Five were Ben Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston.
The committee presented the document to the Continental Congress on June 25. For the next seven days, the document went through the first ever mark-up session where members applied their edits to the document. Debate began on July 1 and by July 2 everyone who wanted to speak has their say before the vote. With each delegation allowed one vote, the final tally was 9 in favor of independence, 2 against (Pennsylvania and South Carolina), and one abstention (New York, their delegation did not have their legislature’s authority to cast a vote).
But if you thought that this was the end of the debate, you failed to remember that this was the beginnings of congress! The vote was conditional on Jefferson revising the document before it was adopted. The rewrite was completed and presented the final copy to the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776 where it passed with the same vote. Adams felt that July 2 should be considered Independence Day. A combination of the day that the text was adopted and what we would consider in today’s environment to be a clerical error, the Declaration of Independence was signed (on August 2, 1776) saying that independence was declared on July 4, 1776.
The moral of this story is that no matter how ridiculous the bill or idea, it is not law until the final version of the bill is approved and signed.
Congress had a busy June with regard to coin-related legislation. The bills that saw action were as follows:
H.R. 2722: Breast Cancer Awareness Commemorative Coin Act
Sponsor: Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)
• Introduced: June 10, 2015
• Referred to the House Committees on Financial Services and Budget
H.R. 2906: To require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in recognition of the 50th anniversary of the Texas Western College National Collegiate Athletic Association men’s basketball championship.
Sponsor: Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX)
• Introduced: June 25, 2015
• Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services
Thankfully, the state of the ANA is calmer than in the past. Finances are stable, lawsuits have been settled, upheaval in Colorado Springs has settled, and the ANA has a technology platform it could be proud of. I happy to have been a part of the technology upgrade process that made a liar out of a current member of the Board of Governors.
Both Tom Hallenbeck and Walt Ostromecki have done well as the last two presidents leading the ANA out of its problems. What I know about Jeff Garrett, the ANA should be in good hands. But that does not mean the rest of the Board of Governors can be ignored. As we have seen, there are good reasons to choose wisely.
Endorsements
Jeff Garrett is running unopposed for president and Gary Adkins is unopposed for vice president. Both are good people and will provide great leadership for the ANA. While I have no objections to either holding these respective offices, I wish they did have some competition. It has been a while since there have been choices for these offices.
Since the ANA Board of Governors includes the two executive offices and seven governors, it is my preference to see a turnover where new people have a significant presence over members who are being re-elected or have been governors in the past. New people come with new ideas. Keeping the ideas fresh with a tie to the past is the best way to go.
With Garrett and Adkins running unopposed from the current board, I will only endorse one member of the current board for re-election. To continue with the current leadership, I am endorsing Tom Mulvaney to return as Governors.
There are a lot of reasons to endorse every member who is not a governor for the four other positions. Each has their strengths, weaknesses, positives, and negatives. But when looking at the list of candidates, three jump out at me with different backgrounds who I think would be good to have as a member of the Board of Governors. These people are (in alphabetical order): Steve D’Ippolito, Richard Jozefiak, and Oded Paz. I have either met all three or met people who have wonderful things to say about them. All are worthy of an endorsement.
Christopher Marchase will be my last endorsement. I have not met Mr. Marchase and all I know of him comes from his online statement. But his online statement begins, “I believe the future of the ANA is the millennials and the young numismatists…” then talks about expanding the ANA online presence and expanding its technology. As a member of the Technology Committee, I am in violent agreement with everything he said in his first paragraph. How I could not endorse someone like this!
As you noticed, I did not endorse seven Board of Governor candidates. Although I filled out a complete ballot, I do not feel strongly in favor or against the other candidates.
Why I did not run again
Over the last three years working with the Technical Committee, I have learned a lot about how the ANA works and think I could make a difference. But as my regular readers have noticed, the amount of writing has declined. This is because I started a new business, Having-Fun Collectibles. Having-Fun is all about having fun collecting. We deal in collectibles of all types—all the fun items that remind you of yesterday. Having-Fun is on eBay and The Antique Center in Historic Savage Mill (Savage, Maryland). Starting a business takes a lot of effort and requires my personal attention that prevents me from committing the time necessary to be an effective Governor.
I am also proud of the work that the ANA Technical Committee has done in moving the ANA forward with using technology to create more outreach opportunities. The upgrade and moving forward of technology in support of the ANA’s mission was my primary platform. Now that the platform is there, the priority should change to expanding programs using the technology to create outreach to younger collectors.
The ANA continues to have issues that have yet to be addressed including personnel matters, highlighted by the transition of five executive directors in 15 years, and two lawsuits with the second recently settled. The next board must address these issues and ensure a level of management that may still be lacking.
I will continue to write about my numismatic experiences here and hope to return as an active member as soon as business allows.
During the latter part of 2014, I was asked to participate in a “Coin Experts Survey” by a representative from International Precious Metals. As one of the 19 experts, I was asked ten questions about my opinion about numismatic issues and some numismatic preferences. Although the survey results were published in January, I am now finding time to write about it.
One of the problems I had with writing about this is that I did not know what to say. While it was fun to participate, what can I add to the survey? Rather than just reporting, I decided I would share my answers with some commentary.
Question #1: What is your favorite individual coin?
My answer: 1955 Double Die Obverse Lincoln cent
Prior to the appearance of the 1955 DDO Lincoln cent, there was almost no interest in error coins or that coins with errors can be collectible. After the discovery of the 1955 DDO, it was a number of years before error collecting was considered acceptable—I found a 1960 referenced to “spoiled 1955 pennies.” It is a historic coin in that it is the only coin that can be pointed to that started a type of collecting. That is what makes it so cool!
Question #2: What is your favorite coin series?
My answer: Peace dollars
I love the design of the Peace dollar. The image of Liberty on the front is, in my opinion, the one of the best images on U.S. coins. For collectors, it is the one set of silver coins that may be the most affordable for average collectors with the 1928 and 1938-S being the most expensive. It is also the only complete set of silver coins I own.
Question #3: What coin is most overpriced on the market right now?
My answer: Any coin in a slab with a CAC sticker
I have previously written of my dislike for CAC and how I feel they are practicing market manipulation. There are too many people willing to blindly accept CAC as an authority and some cannot explain why. While that CAC may have helped force PCGS and NGC to improve their processes, I have seen coins with CAC stickers I just did not like.
Question #4: What are some examples of undervalued coins?
My answer: Almost any commemorative coin
I should have clarified this answer to say that almost any modern commemorative coin. There are many commemoratives that did not sell well and not worth much more than their bullion value and a small numismatic premium. Even though they were not popular, they do have artistic value. A dedicated collector could put together a nice collection of modern commemorative coins for not a lot of money.
Question #5: What is the hardest coin to locate and purchase in the US?
My answer: A solid, mid-grade Liberty Head nickel
While most of the people taking the survey left this question blank, I was thinking about my own experiences. Not including rare coins, it is not that difficult to find key and semi-key dates. But if you really want to search for coins that are not easy to find, try to put together a set of extra-fine to almost uncirculated Liberty Head nickels. You can find a lot of lower grade nickels and higher grade nickels. Finding these solid mid-grade nickels can be more difficult than finding a 1913-S Type 2 Buffalo nickel.
Question #6: Do you think the penny will ever be phased out? If so, what year?
My answer: No. Never.
Although I am not in favor of eliminating the one-cent coin, I do not think it will ever be eliminated because of the dysfunction of congress. Congress would not be able to come to any consensus and neither side of the aisle does not have the intestinal fortitude to make a stand one-way or another.
Question #7: What President deserves to be on a coin/bill that hasn’t previously been featured?
My answer: Not counting the presidential dollars, Theodore Roosevelt
In this political climate, I knew what the dominant answer would be. Rather than thinking about the political, I was considering what president had the single largest impact on U.S. coinage. No other president had the impact on coin design than Theodore Roosevelt. While his “pet crime” was directly responsible for the designs by Bela Lyon Pratt, Augustus Saint-Gaudens, and Victor D. Brenner, it was the seed he planted for the renaissance of coin design. Remember that James Earle Fraser and Adolph A. Weinman were Saint-Gaudens’ students and added notable coin designs of their own.
Question #8: Do you think the US will ever introduce a brand new denomination?
My answer: No.
For the same reason that congress would never be able to vote on legislation to eliminate the one-cent coin, the same dysfunction will prevent new denominations from every being created.
Question #9: Which of the following phased out coins/bills do you think the US will begin minting in the near future?
Kennedy Half dollar
Susan B Anthony silver dollar coin
Sacagawea dollar coin
Two dollar bill
None
My answer: All items in the list are being produced except for the Susie B’s. There is no correlating law to authorize the U.S. Mint to produce the Susie B thus it could never be produced unless congress changes the laws. Kennedy halves and Sac dollars are being produced for the collector markets, but there are correlating laws to allow them to be produced. Authorization is codified in 31 U.S. Code § 5112.
The $2 Federal Reserve Note is different in that the law (12 U.S. Code § 411) authorizes the Federal Reserve to determine what notes are produced. The way the law is written, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing is not as regulated as the U.S. Mint. The only legal consideration is that the Fed could only have notes produced based on the denominations codified in 12 U.S. Code § 418. The law does not say these denominations have to be produced. Section 411 lets the Fed decide. In 1969, the Fed decided to stop producing large denomination currency. By the Fed’s definition, large denominations are FRNs larger than $100. Currently, the $2 FRN is being produced. The Fed does not order many and the rest are produced for the collectors market.
Yes, that was my answer and I’m sticking to it!
Question #10: If you didn’t collect coins, what would you collect?
My answer: Cars, sports memorabilia, lapel pins
In reverse order, I do collect lapel pins from situations meaningful to me. I have a collection that includes past professional activities, interests, places I have visited, and more. While I have some sports memorabilia, I am jealous of the collections I have seen of people who just pickup items as they go along. Of course those people are like Penny Marshall who have a phenomenal collection but also has access.
When I mention cars, I am not talking about a Jay Leno-like collection, but I wouldn’t mind his collection. I am just looking for a few cars to have some fun with. While I own a 1974 Plymouth Gold Duster with a 225 cu. in. Slant 6 engine (memories of my youth), I want other classics. A few great examples come to mind like a 1959 Cadillac convertible in red (Eldorado or Series 62, I don’t care which), a 1968-70 Dodge Charger R/T with the 426 Hemi engine in Plum Crazy purple, and a 1930s 4-door car to create a hotrod (yes, I know 2-doors are more popular, but I have an interesting idea). Every so often I see movie or television-related cars that come up for sale that I think would be cool to own.
But I digress. While I am looking for a token with a cut-out “Q” as part of its design (it does not have to be a transportation token since none were made like that), you can check out the survey and compare my answers with those from the other experts.
Infographic courtesy of International Precious Metals.
In June 2013, Shepherd filed a lawsuit claiming that the ANA violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) laws alleging that the ANA has committed are racketeering, theft, and fraud. Shepherd also alleged that a few employees of the ANA and members of the Board of Governors made up stories about Shepherd in order to find a way to relieve him of his duties for cause so they can invalidate his contract
Early in January, Mike Ellis resigned from the Board of Governors while the ANA continued to wrestle with this lawsuit. As part of the reporting, ANA President Walt Ostromecki was quoted as saying, “He realized he had made a mistake and chose to step down from the board.”
Mike Ellis
A source speaking on the condition of anonymity as reported that Ellis allegedly had worked behind the scenes against Shepherd to rally ANA employees to work against Shepherd in order to create a hostile working environment for Shepherd. The move was allegedly designed to make Shepherd look incompetent in order to get him fired.
The source was not sure whether Ellis initiated this or it was initiated by the ANA employees involved, but it was alleged that Ellis was the ring-leader from the Board’s perspective. It was also alleged that while Ellis was the most active it was suspected that other members of the Board had knowledge of his actions.
The same source also alleged that Ellis participated in creating the environment that caused Shepherd’s successor, Jeff Shevlin, to be fired using the same approach.
According to the source, the crux of the issue is that there allegedly was a faction at the ANA Colorado Springs Headquarters who did not want to work. Both Shepherd and Shevlin tried to reorganize the headquarters staff in order to create efficiencies that were not met with positive reactions. While the list of allegations were pretty comprehensive, it included claims that employees worked flexible hours against workplace policies, abused other workplace policies, and used ANA equipment for personal business including for outside income.
Ellis was only part of the problem. If the source is true, there are employees in Colorado Springs that should be disciplined for their part in creating the hostile environment for both Shepherd and Shevlin. We may never know what changes will be made in Colorado Springs because of both federal and Colorado employment privacy laws. However, the ANA Board of Governors should be open with the membership regarding how they are dealing with the ANA permanent employees.
While it appears the situation has settled with Kim Kiick as the Executive Director, the ANA has over 20 years of problems with Executive Directors. Maybe it is time for operations at the ANA Headquarters be revamped into a more professional organization with workplace rules and policies rather than being a club where people get paid.
Larry Shepherd image courtesy SIMCO Numismatics as published on YouTube. Mike Ellis image courtesy of Numismatic News.
Some members of congress seem to act without thinking. Aside from not thinking about how much the U.S. Mint is forced to waste in order to make less than pure planchets, there are others who are so entrenched in their ideology that they make proposals that no longer make sense and will hurt the collecting industry in the long run.
Case-in-point, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) introduced S. 95, a bill “[To] Terminate the $1 presidential coin program.” Like the knee jerking to copy and paste old bills, Vitter dusted off his previous attempt (S. 94 in the 113th Congress and S. 1385 in the 112th Congress) and dropped it in the hopper more in an attempt to make it look like he is doing something when all he is doing is annoying collectors.
By anyone’s measure, the Presidential $1 Coin program has not been a success. While it was fundamentally a great idea, the problem with having it gain wider circulation is that congress did not pass the appropriate laws to discontinue printing and distribution of the one dollar Federal Reserve note. When given a choice, people have chosen to carry the note rather than the coin.
Acting as the only adult in the room, then Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, ordered that the production of all dollar coins, including the Native American dollar, be reduced to levels to only satisfy the collector market unless the Federal Reserve ordered more coins.
At this point, the Presidential Dollar, First Spouse gold coins, and the First Spouse medals are a collector’s series that is near its end. In 2016, the U.S. Mint is scheduled to issue coins in honor of Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford. By law, because President Jimmy Carter is still living, he is not allowed to appear on a coin. Even though President Ronald Reagan is deceased, the coins have to be in order making the program end with Ford.
With six coins to go in the series and four years after the fury, why is Vitter introducing this bill now? Costs have been contained with the reduction of circulation. In fact, reviewing the annual reports, the Presidential $1 program has increased in sales as more of the better known 20th Century presidents have been featured.
Rather than leave well enough alone, Vitter joins the others in congress of not thinking and dropping a bill into the hopper that he might think has value to a small percentage of a perceived base but fails to look at the bigger picture. This is part of their collective myopia that keeps congress’s approval ratings in the single digits.
If Vitter did this for show, he has wasted the time of his staff for having to prepare the bill for submitting; he wasted the time and resources of the Senate clerk for having to record the bill; and he wasted the resources that will have to go into the various mechanisms for tracking the bill. Anytime a member of congress wastes resources they are wasting money.
As a federal government employee, Vitter, his staff, and the congressional support services are paid for out of your taxpayer dollars while the U.S. Mint is making more profit by maintain this program than it would otherwise. If members of congress would look beyond any ideology they pretend to profess and engage their brains when they do something like this, then maybe they might find their approval ratings at least higher than the current temperature in Washington, D.C.
Loading ...
The other day I walked into the office of a big-shot producer and pitched a story for a movie that had the possibilities of a sequel. Here is the story I pitched:
By now, 
