Nov 18, 2011 | commentary, education
Are you a member of a club?
Are you a member of a club within your collecting interest whether that is collecting coins, banknotes, tokens, medals, scripophily, or ephemera?
If not, why?
I am a member of a few organizations, but my most satisfying experiences has been with my local coin club. Aside from the camaraderie of meeting with fellow collectors, I can be a participant in a way that I may not be able to as a member of a larger organization.
My local club meets once a month. At our meetings we encourage members to bring in some of their numismatic-related collectibles for an exhibition section to show to other members. One evening, I brought my iPhone to show off the Money Reader apps that visualize currency and announce the denomination. Our members have such varied interests that we never know what a member will show off.
We also have an education segment that is a 30-45 program focused on something related to numismatics. Speakers have included noted authors, prominent dealers, government officials including members of the U.S. Secret Service, and club members presenting something of their interest. We have also screened videos related to numismatics. This summer, I plan to screen a video from the History Channel about U.S. Bullion Repository at Fort Knox.
After a light snack that is paid for by members contributing money in a jar at the table, we hold an auction of up to 40 items that are mostly under $50. There are door prizes of (mostly) foreign coins and a raffle of a gold coin worth $50 or less—the coins are usually made from one-twenty-fifth of an ounce of gold.
Our goal is to allow everyone to participate in their own way.
Like a lot of clubs, we have one significant problem: our membership is mostly white, male, and aging.
The aging membership is not a problem if there are younger members to provide balance. But like a number of clubs, I am not seeing that many younger new members in my club or in other clubs I have observed. We want younger members to join our aging members—we can learn from our different perspectives.
The divide between the sexes has been documented in a lot of areas. While Women In Numismatics tries to engage and recognize the accomplishments of women participating in numismatics, they have worked more on a national level without reaching out to clubs to help bolster the participants of local women.
And why is numismatics almost an exclusively white hobby? We have had African-American visitors to our club meetings and have tried to make them feel as welcome as other visitors. Unfortunately, they never return. When I go to the Whitman Baltimore Show this weekend, it will be mostly a white affair. Where are the minorities? I am sure there are minorities who collect, but why do they not come out?
Local, regional, and national clubs must think about diversifying. Numismatics must recruit younger people aside from the Young Numismatists, women, and minorities. But how do we do that? Since I am not a member of any of these demographic groups, I need help to figure out how to recruit existing young, women, and minority collectors as well as new collectors.
If you have an idea, please leave a comment here.
Oct 16, 2011 | ANA, commentary
As easy as it is to criticize, it should be just as easy to complement. I want to complement the American Numismatic Association, specifically, whomever is responsible for the @ANACoins Twitter account. If you have not been following the tweets for @ANACoins, the updates have been reporting the goings on at the ANA National Money Show in Pittsburgh.
During the open Board of Governors meeting on October 14, person using @ANACoins had the following conversation:
|
ANACoins ANA
Under proposal, clubs would get free club tables but all tables would have to be staffed. #ANAshows
14 Oct |
|
CoinsBlog CoinsBlog
@ANACoins How about shared club tables so clubs can pool resources?
14 Oct |
|
ANACoins ANA
@CoinsBlog 2 clubs are allowed to share one club table under the proposal. Thanks for the question.
14 Oct |
|
CoinsBlog CoinsBlog
@ANACoins What about a regional org like MSNA and its member clubs?
14 Oct |
|
ANACoins ANA
@CoinsBlog That’s something we need to clarify. I’ve shared your tweet with Gov. Greg Lyon. We’ll get an answer on that.
14 Oct |
I am happy that someone is responding to their Twitter account and I hope to hear from Greg Lyon during the week.
Oct 7, 2011 | ANA, commentary
Late Thursday afternoon, the American Numismatic Association Board of Directors issued a statement in response to Larry Shepherd’s statement on his employment situation.
The problem is that the statement does not say anything of substance. It did say that Shepherd hired legal counsel who suggested that Shepherd was defamed. In response to that, the Board said that they made “an effort to avoid a rancorous, public discussion on personnel matters which are normally best left private.” If so, then why issue a statement?
The statement says that the Board “ended” their employment relationship with Shepherd yet seems to be concerned that Harlan Berk’s statement said Shepherd was fired. However, a person does not have to be a rocket scientist to know that after it was announced Shepherd was put on leave during an investigation and then his employment was “ended” to put the two events together to guess he was fired. In fact, my post on that day was “ANA Fires Shepherd.”
Again, this statement does not say anything of substance. But it appears that the Board feels they have to defend themselves. If the Board did not do anything wrong, what are they defending? Then to have Cliff Mishler, past president and current governor, make a statement, it makes them appear like they are trying to hide something.
What are the ANA Board of Governors hiding?
The ANA released their statement, Harlan Berk had his say, then Shepherd responded. Everyone vented and that should be enough. Why did the Board of Directors have to respond? What are they hiding?
The Board’s statement concludes:
It is most unfortunate that Mr. Shepherd has resorted to a public discussion that the ANA cannot comment upon, instead of moving forward in a dignified manner. We are deeply saddened by his decision. Rather than dwell on past mistakes, the ANA will move forward and fulfill its educational mission to serve the best interests of the entire numismatic community.
If you do not want to “dwell on past mistakes,” then just SHUT UP!
Oct 4, 2011 | ANA, commentary
The former American Numismatic Association Executive Director Larry Shepherd issue a statement regarding his dismissal from the ANA. In that statement, Shepherd emphasized,
During my tenure at the ANA I have not violated the ANA employee handbook, or the code of ethics as stated in the ANA bylaws. I did not violate any provisions of the ANA conflict of interest policy. I did not violate federal EEOC anti-discrimination or harassment guidelines (sexual, age, race, etc.).
Including this in the statement was curious. It is implying that Shepherd was alleged to have said something inappropriate, as I speculated in a previous post. But this allegation may be something that was used as part of someone’s agenda. This is reinforced when Shepherd followed up the above paragraph with:
I offered to the general counsel that I would take a polygraph to clear up any issues or concerns that may have arisen due to unfounded rumors and innuendo, but I sensed they were more interested in finding a cause than in finding facts, as evidenced by my being told on Aug. 20 that I would not be coming back, even before the outside investigation took place.
This is the first act of newly inaugurated ANA President Tom Hallenbeck. Hallenbeck, who was previously ANA Vice President, may have not had a good relationship with Shepherd and wanted to find cause to terminate his contract. When reading between the lines, it is clear that Hallenbeck and allies on the Board was looking for a reason to fire Shepherd rather than try to work with him.
Welcome to the old ANA where it appears that the Board wants to micromanage the operations in Colorado Springs rather than being a body that sets the agenda and allowing the Executive Director to manage the day-to-day operations. It is a big strike against the Board whose two year term has just begun.
Finally, the Coin Collector’s Blog wishes Larry Shepherd well with his new job at Harlan J. Berk, Ltd. Berk’s gain is the ANA’s loss.
Aug 16, 2011 | coins, commentary, currency, dollar
When congress comes back to Washington to (hopefully) represent their constituency to carry out the nation’s legislative interests, a twelve-member bipartisan commission (a “super congress” as the press is calling them) must find a way to deal with the government’s debt and deficit by Thanksgiving or the law requires an additional $1.5 trillion in cuts, mostly to defense.
Followers of the debate have found that there are fundamental differences between both sides of the aisle as to how to manage the affairs of government. Rather than look for common ground and try to negotiate about the differences, their actions are reminiscent of a smoker who quits their habit but uses food to make up for the cigarettes trading one condition (cancer risk) for another (obesity). In an attempt to get them started, I have a proposal:
End production of the one-dollar Federal Reserve Note!
According to the most recent report from the Government Accountability Office, the independent, nonpartisan legislative branch agency that investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollar, the government could realize a savings of $5.5 billion dollars over 30 years by eliminating the paper dollar for coins.
By eliminating the one-dollar Federal Reserve Note, congress can begin show that they are willing make “difficult decisions” to help the economy while not stepping on either side’s political hot buttons. Also, if congress votes to eliminate the paper dollar, the approximately $1.1 billion of dollar coins sitting the Federal Reserve’s coin vaults will start to circulate in the economy. This is $1.1 billion dollars of money not doing anything but sitting. It would be a $1.1 billion stimulus to the economy that will not add any money to the deficit because the coins are already paid for.
If you add the $1.1 billion of existing money to a $5.5 billion in long term savings, that is a total of $6.6 billion of economic immediate economic stimulus that does not cost the government anything. Further, once the $1.1 billion is circulated in the economy, the money spent will generate additional revenues from the taxes collected by the economic activity, something both parties said they want to encourage.
But this is such a small amount compared to the total debt, why do it?
Using the correct form of the Lao-tzu quote: “The journey of a thousand miles begins beneath one’s feet.” Lao-tzu believed action naturally arises from stillness. This country has been still on its money production policies, it is a natural move to eliminate the one-dollar note. Or to use the more colloquial version: “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”
Borrowing an anonymous response to a previous post:
You people need to get over yourselves – put it to a vote and the public does not want or need dollar coins! / Just because coin collectors want coins doesn’t mean the rest of us need to suffer. / If it’s dollar coins versus dollar bills… bye bye dollar coins.
It looks like saying that countries like Australia, Canada, France, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, and the United Kingdom eliminated their unit currency in favor of coins is not a good argument for some. Or that the European Union started this century with producing only a coin for the 1-Euro denomination will not work either. How about this:
Supporting the elimination of the paper dollar is the patriotic thing to do!
Is it patriotic to continue to waste money? Or is it our patriotic duty to do what is in the best interest of the country even it means making a few minor sacrifices for the common good? True patriots will make the adjustments and do what is right by the country!
Sacrificing for your country is the patriotic thing to do!
Jul 24, 2011 | commentary, dollar, legislative
Not to be outdone, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA12) with co-sponsor Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO2) introduced their own bill in the House of Representatives to end the Presidential $1 Coin Program. On the same day Sens. Vitter and DeMint introduced their bill, Speier and Polis introduced H.R. 2593, Wasteful Presidential Coin Act of 2011.
Don’t you love the way congress can editorialize in what is supposed to be serious laws?
But wait, there’s more!
The bill is essentially the same as the Senate version. However, in an attempt to become managers of the Federal Reserve coin rooms, Reps. Speier and Polis has added a new section to their version of the bill:
SEC. 3. RESTRICTION ON OVERPRODUCTION OF $1 COINS.
Section 5112 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(w) Restriction on Overproduction of $1 Coins- Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, no $1 coin may be minted or issued under this section during any period in which the number of $1 coins issued, but not in circulation, is more than 10 percent of the number of $1 coins in circulation.’.
What Speier and Polis is saying is that they know better than the Federal Reserve on how to manage the coins in their possession. Should the Federal Reserve find that in the future they want to add stock to their coin rooms, like when congress actually does the right thing and end the printing of the $1 federal reserve note, the Federal Reserve could find itself in a shortage situation in trying to comply with the law.
This is the type of legal provision that has the potential to create unintended consequences. Further, I do not think that congress should manage the cash operations of the Federal Reserve. They can barely manage the nation’s budget, I do not want these people trying to manage the Fed.
Jul 21, 2011 | coins, commentary, dollar, legislative
On July 19, 2011, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced S. 1385, To terminate the $1 presidential coin program. Simply, the bill removes subsection n of Section 5112 of title 31 United States Code (31 U.S.C. § 5112), which is the law authorizing for the Presidential $1 Coin Program.
The bill reads as follows:
S 1385 IS
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1385
To terminate the $1 presidential coin program.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
July 19, 2011
Mr. VITTER (for himself and Mr. DEMINT) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
A BILL
To terminate the $1 presidential coin program.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF PRESIDENTIAL $1 COIN PROGRAM.
Section 5112 of title 31 United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (n) and inserting the following:
`(n) [Reserved.]’.
This is clearly an over reaction to the slanted report by NPR that suggests this is a taxpayer issue and not an issue of the broken monetary system in the United States. Rather than figure if this bill will properly achieve their purpose, Messrs. Vitter and DeMint wrote the most expedient bill regardless of its ramifications.
First, if this bill is passed, it will not do anything to relieve the oversupply of dollars being held by the Federal Reserve. All it will do is not increase the current supply leaving about $1 billion of coins in the Fed’s coin vaults and not circulating in the economy.
Another problem with the bill is that it leaves the First Spouse Gold Coin program in place. A closer look at the law shows that the First Spouse Program is codified in 31 U.S.C. § 5112(p). In order to stop the entire program, the bill would have to remove both subsections “n” and “p.”
Further, 31 U.S.C. § 5112(q) (subsection “q”) requires the U.S. Mint to promote the Presidential Dollar program and includes the requirements about the government and commercial acceptance of the coins. If the bill passes by removing subsection “n,” both the U.S. Mint and Federal Reserve will have difficulty complying with this law.
For numismatists who have been collecting Presidential Dollars, this bill’s passage will end the program early leaving us with a partial series. Teachers who use the coins and the good materials produced by the U.S. Mint to help teach history will have to find different tangible aids than coins. Coins would be a better teaching aid since it is tangible and money gets everyone’s attention.
The ONLY way to reduce the oversupply of dollars being held in the Federal Reserve coin vaults is to eliminate the $1 Federal Reserve Note. With out the paper, coins become the currency of the realm and will start to circulate.
I am sure that within a day someone will send a comment saying that Americans like paper and do not like coins. While there are segments of the population that will complain, Americans are resilient and will adapt. We can adapt to anything that the government can do and be successful. We can adapt to anything that market forces place on us and bees successful. We went from an all cash society to adding credit cards; cell phones are now everywhere as compared to 10 years ago; we have survived many changes in the economy; we went from leaded gas to unleaded; transit tokens to electronic metro passes; and now many cities are moving to paying for parking electronically rather than feeding quarters into meters. Americans adapt to change all of the time. Now it is time for all Americans to dig into their souls and change their currency habits for the good of the country.
Jul 21, 2011 | coins, commentary, legal, US Mint
“People of the United States of America have been vindicated.”
This utterance came from Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacqueline Romero, the government’s lead attorney in the case Langbord v. United States after the jury deliberation said that the ten 1933 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle coins found by Joan Langbord is government property.
For years, the government has wasted taxpayer dollars on attorneys, staff, investigators, and expert witnesses (the government paid David Tripp $300 per hour) to deny the numismatic world the coins of legend. For what purpose? As a result, the jury set a precedence by saying that these coins “left the Mint illegally and were concealed.” It is an argument that can be used to confiscate any coin or pattern that has left the U.S. Mint.
What does this verdict say about the five 1913 Liberty Head Nickels? While the 1933 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagles were legally struck before the order to cease their distribution and melt the coins, the five 1913 Liberty Head Nickels were not supposed to exist. The U.S. Mint was supposed to start striking Buffalo Nickels for circulation, yet someone at the Mint struck five coins using Charles Barber’s Liberty Head design and they left the Mint without any record of their existence.
What does this verdict say about the pattern coins that are in collector hands. None of these patters were supposed to leave the U.S. Mint. Yet there are records of patterns being given out as favors to “important people” to curry favor. Aside from being Secretary of the Treasury at the beginning of the first Franklin D. Roosevelt administration, William H. Woodin was a collector of coins and patterns he collected mostly while director of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Are those pattern now illegal since they left the Mint illegally and were concealed?
What does this verdict say about the 1974 Aluminum Cent? The U.S. Mint struck these patterns to show to try to convince congress to change the composition of the cent to save money. After they were distributed to congress as “demonstrations,” the U.S. Mint asked for their return. Not all of the congress members returned the coins and some ended up in collectors hands. Are these aluminum coins illegal since they were not legally issued coins?
With all due respect to Assistant U.S. Attorney Romero, I do not feel vindicated. I feel cheated!
Jul 19, 2011 | commentary, dollar, Federal Reserve, US Mint
According to the website at National Public Radio, “The mission of NPR is to work in partnership with member stations to create a more informed public – one challenged and invigorated by a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas and cultures.” Unfortunately, it looks like NPR drowned in the shallow end when it published its story “$1 Billion That Nobody Wants.”
While the Federal Reserve is holding about $1 billion in dollar coins in its coin vaults, its assertion that, “Some 2.4 billion dollar coins have been minted since the start of the program in 2007, costing taxpayers about $720 million,” is false. To quote myself:
NO TAX DOLLARS ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF COINS AND FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES IN THE UNITED STATES!
The U.S. Mint can strike trillions of coins that will sit in the Federal Reserve’s vaults, but none of the money used to strike the coins comes from taxpayer dollars. For our friends at NPR, money used by the U.S. Mint is withdrawn from the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund (PEF). The PEF is the account where the seigniorage, the profit from selling the coins, is deposited. As sales are deposited in the PEF, the law requires that the U.S. Mint use the money in the PEF for budgetary reasons like to manufacture coins, maintain facilities, pay employees, etc. No tax money is deposited in the Public Enterprise Fund.
While the NPR story says, “The government has made about $680 million in profit by selling some 1.4 billion dollar coins to the public since the program began,” they failed to mention that this profit comes from the money paid by the Federal Reserve to buy the coins. Excess profit over and above the U.S. Mint’s operations funds are returned to the Treasury general fund.
Wait! Did you say that the program actually made a profit?
Yes, I did and so did the NPR story. And it did not cost the taxpayer anything to make that profit. Not one red cent!
But what about the $1 billion in the Federal Reserve’s vaults?
Those coins were not purchased from the U.S. Mint using taxpayer money. Each and every dollar coin in those vaults were paid for by the Federal Reserve at face value. Since it costs the U.S. Mint about 30-cents to strike one dollar coin, the U.S. Mint made a profit (seigniorage) of 70-cents per coin. The money was paid by the Federal Reserve and NOT taxpayer money.
Think about it: the U.S. Mint is generating 70-percent profit for striking $1 coins with most of that money will eventually make its way to the Treasury general fund.
If it is not taxpayer money, then whose money is it?
It is the money earned by the Federal Reserve through its banking operations as the United States central banking infrastructure. Deposits made to the Federal Reserve are made by member banks. Fees are paid by those banks for cash services, check clearing, and transfer services. The Federal Reserve also earns its money from making loans made to member banks. Some Federal Reserve branches make money on other services. For example, the New York Fed stores gold for foreign countries and sells currency overseas.
But it’s our money, right?
Yes, it is the money that is the heart of the economy of the United States. It is not classified as taxpayer money because no tax dollars were collected in order to fill its coffers.
You don’t make it sound like a problem. Why did the story go viral?
Actually, the $1 billion in coins sitting in the Federal Reserve’s vaults is a problem. It represents $1 billion of working capital that is not circulating in the economy. It is money that cannot be invested by loaning it to other banks or be used in other banking operations. In a tight economy, it is not a good idea to have $1 billion sitting idle. Unfortunately, the NPR story and subsequent follow-ups by various news outlets made it sound like it was $1 billion of taxpayer money being wasted by the government. On the contrary, the federal government earned $680 million!
If those dollar coins sitting in the Fed’s vaults is a problem, what can be done about it?
Stop printing $1 paper notes! The United States is the only “first world” country still producing its unit currency in paper. Two currencies whose value has stood up against the dollar during the current economic crisis, the British Pound and Euro, use coins for their unit currency and not paper. In fact, European Union use coins for the 1 Euro and 5 Euro denominations.
I know that “public sentiment” says to keep the $1 note. But when is governing about bowing to public sentiment. I thought government was supposed to do what is in the nation’s best interest. If it will save money in the long term, then let’s drop the paper for coins. American’s are resilient, they will get used to it.
Jul 9, 2011 | commentary, US Mint
Since the founding of the U.S. Mint in 1792, all of its 38 directors, from David Rittenhouse to Edmund Moy, have been a political appointment. Every so often there has been a gap between the service of directors, but eventually, a director is appointed.
Currently, the U.S. Mint has not had a director since the departure of Ed Moy in January 2011. Four days later, it was announced that Deputy Director Andy Brunhart also left the U.S. Mint to take a position with the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
Treasurer Rosie Rios became acting director and served until Richard Peterson was hired as Deputy Director on January 25. Peterson is not an appointee but a member of the government’s Senior Executive Service. According to his biography at the U.S. Mint website, Mr. Peterson was an executive at General Electric and has a manufacturing and supply chain background. Prior to becoming the Deputy Director, Mr. Peterson was Associate Director for Manufacturing. He is a retired U.S. Naval officer, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, and holds an MBA from Harvard.
In other words, Richard Peterson is well qualified to be the chief executive of the largest manufacturer of coins and medals in the world.
Since Peterson’s promotion, there has not been controversies from the U.S. Mint. Granted, there has not been many opportunities for problems, but it seems the U.S. Mint has weathered released of the five-ounce silver National Parks coins without too many controversy. Neither has the sales of the 2011 commemorative coins. Sales of the 2011 September 11 National Medal seems to be going well.
The U.S. Mint does not have a politically appointed director and it appears to be running without issue. In fact, it might be running better under a professional executive.
With the exception of the recent problems with the production of the new $100 notes that has delayed their release, the Bureau of Engraving and printing has run very well over the last few years. It is an efficient organization that maximizes its seigniorage and is able to supply the Federal Reserve with the currency it needs. Larry Felix, Director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, is a government professional and not a political appointee.
Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act (22 Stat. 403) of 1883 eliminated the patronage system within the federal government. For the first time in United States history, government employment was determined by merit and not because of who you know. It has resulted in a more professional workforce and one that did not have to curry political favor.
Although the law allows the president to convert appointed positions to be civil service jobs, the Director of the U.S. Mint has remained an appointed position.
Considering the recent history of the U.S. Mint and in the best interest of the bureau, it is time for President Obama to exercise his privilege under the law and convert the job of Director of the U.S. Mint to be a civil service position.
Loading ...