Mar 28, 2011 | economy, legislative, policy
Bernard von NotHaus, creator of the Liberty Dollar, was convicted of counterfeiting for creating “coins resembling and similar to United States coins” and distributing them with the intent to “use [them] as current money.” The verdict was handed down by a federal jury in Statesville, NC on March 18, 2011. Von NotHaus is facing a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and fines up to $500,000. Sentencing hearing will begin on April 4.
In an email to supporters, von NotHaus indicated that he will appeal his conviction.
A few days before the end of the trial, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced H.R. 1098: Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011. Its stated purpose is “To repeal the legal tender laws, to prohibit taxation on certain coins and bullion, and to repeal superfluous sections related to coinage.”
During his Extensions of Remarks on March 15, 2011, Rep. Paul said, “At this country’s founding, there was no government controlled national currency. While the Constitution established the congressional power of minting coins, it was not until 1792 that the U.S. Mint was formally established. In the meantime, Americans made do with foreign silver and gold coins. Even after the Mint’s operations got underway, foreign coins continued to circulate within the United States, and did so for several decades.” Unfortunately, Rep. Paul learned the wrong lesson from history.
Starting with the statement that foreign coins continued to circulate for several decades, fails to recognize the real reason for this. Upon passage of the Constitution and prior to the passage of the Coinage Act of 1792, the new government realized that the they were not ready a would not be ready to supply coins to satisfy the needs of the new nation. Even after the passage of the first Coinage Act, congress realized that the U.S. Mint needed time to produce enough coins for the nation. Rather than plunging the economic potential of the new nation into chaos, the government continue to allow foreign coinage, specifically the Spanish Reales, to be used for commerce. This continued until the passage of the Coinage Act of 1857. Aside from authorizing the issuing of the small cent, which the U.S. Mint did by striking the Flying Eagle Cent, the law gave citizens two years to redeem their foreign money for the equivalent in U.S. coinage. By 1859, no foreign coins were circulating in the United States.
In the years leading up to the Revolutionary War, the new colonies were hampered by a situation where King of England did not allow the colonies to control its own money or create its own monetary policy. In order to expand commerce, colonies issued paper notes. These notes functioned as currency but actually were bills of credit, short-term public loans to the government. For the first time, the money had no intrinsic value but was valued at the rate issued by the government of the colony in payment of debt. Every time the colonial government needed money to pay creditors, they authorized the printing of a specified quantity and denomination of notes. Laws authorizing the issuance of notes were called emissions. The emission laws also included a tax that was used to repay the bills of credit with interest.
As taxes were paid using the paper currency, the paper was retired. As the notes were removed from circulation, that meant less payments the government had to make. On the maturity date, people brought their notes to authorized agents who paid off the loan. Agents then turned the notes over to the colonial government for reimbursement plus a com- mission. Sometimes, colonies could not pay back the loan. They instead passed another emission law to cover the debt owed from the previous emission plus further operating expenses, buying back mature notes with new notes. The colonists accepted this system since it was easier than barter and there were never enough coins to meet commercial needs.
To maintain commerce, many of the notes were tied to the value of the Pound Sterling but the worth of the Pound Sterling was interpreted differently from colony to colony. Although the colonies accepted foreign coins, especially the Spanish silver reales, each colony set its own price of silver as based on its purchasing power. For example, the colonies of North Carolina and Virginia tied the reales’ value to the amount of tobacco that can be traded. This continued following the Revolutionary War so that commerce could continue and the new states could repay war debts.
After the failure of the Articles of Confederation to form that perfect union, the authors of U.S. Constitution understood the a union must be able to be supported out of the whole and not individual parts. It was best explained by James Madison in Federalist No. 44 when he wrote:
Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States, and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded; retrospective alterations in its value might be made, and thus the citizens of other States be injured, and animosities be kindled among the States themselves. The subjects of foreign powers might suffer from the same cause, and hence the Union be discredited and embroiled by the indiscretion of a single member. No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver.
By reigning in the chaos caused by 13 different economic policies, the more perfect union turned this young country into an economic powerhouse that has surprised empires of years past.
The economic strength of the United States is based on strength of its currency that is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. While there are disagreements as to how to use and maintain that strength, the fact of the matter is that much of the world bases its economic stability on the full faith and credit of the U.S. Dollar. There are many economies that use Dollars as its primary means of exchange like most of the countries in Central America. Most of the world’s commodities are priced in dollars like oil and precious metals. And countries buy United States bonds to help back their currency like China.
By repealing the legal tender laws (31 U.S.C. § 5103), Rep. Paul is proposing to demonetize all United States coins and currency that could lead to a global economic collapse. Countries that use the dollar as their currency will not have a currency; currencies backed by the dollar will be worthless; and the price of world commodities will become unstable as the markets search for a new standard. As we have seen during the current economic crisis, instability causes prices to rise—see the prices of gold, silver, and oil.
H.R. 1098 was referred to the Committees on Financial Services, Ways and Means, and the Judiciary. Rep. Paul is chairman of the Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee under the Committee on Financial Services. Should this bill be successfully reported out of all three committees it would have to passed on the floor of the House of Representatives. If it passes the House, it is doubtful that the bill would pass in the Senate. This aspect of the sausage making process ensures that this bill will never pass. Regardless of what you think about United States monetary policy, it is not in anyone’s interest to plunge the world into economic chaos.
Jan 2, 2011 | coins, economy, gold, investment, policy, silver
Many things can be said about 2010, but for numismatics and precious metals it was quite a ride. What could this ride tell us about 2011?
Looking at the economy, the real gross domestic product—the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States—increased at an annual rate of 2.6 percent in the third quarter of 2010. A rate greater than in 2009. Although real disposable personal income increased 0.2 percent through November, the consumer price index rose at a faster rate of 1.1-percent while unemployment reached a one-year high of 9.8 percent in November.
If the slow improving economy and expanding unemployment has you confused, the simple explanation is that if the economy was a bus, it just pulled away from the curb and the driver started to shift into second gear while employment has yet to be allowed aboard. Although economists agree that employment and Consumer Confidence Index are lagging indicators, neither have seen improvement in 2010. Although the politicians are hoping their lame duck legislative efforts will help the unemployed to board the employment bus, it is possible that the bus will be too far down the road to make a difference in 2011. Let’s hope it is not too late!
In an attempt to provide its version of stimulus in 2010, the Federal Reserve’s lowered its discount rates and its ability to manipulate the money supply to try to provide relief. Although the Fed has increased the money supply, the United States dollar has not been significantly weakened against most of the world currencies—although some would say that it was seriously weakened in 2009. While the dollar has fluctuated against other major currencies throughout the year, the dollar has shown marginal only weakness against the British Pound, Euro, and Yen year-over-year while there were no weaknesses against the Reniminbi (or Yuan) because of institutionalized currency manipulation in China. Many economists believe that the avoidance of a dollar free-fall was because of the failure and pending failure of some Eurozone economies and China’s desire to reduce its own inflation concerns. The rumblings to remove the dollar as the standard and benchmark currency that we heard in 2009 subsided in 2010.
To measure the effect of the economy on the numismatic markets, I use the PCGS3000® Index as an indicator. The PCGS3000 Index is a market basket of 3,000 coins that PCGS their analysts believe represents the broad market. The variety of coins makes for a good indicator but as a broad market basket, movement indicates trends rather than a real-time indicator (similar to the Russell 2000).
The PCGS3000 Index opened 2010 with at 68,476.87. After dropping to a 12-month low of 66,886.27 (↓2.3-percent) in August, the index closed at 67,323.11, down ↓1.68-percent for the year. For a market basket that consists of 3,000 non-volatile items made from a variety of metals an in different grades, a downward trend of one-to-two percentage points indicates a weakness in the numismatic market. While some think the markets are strong—and there has been no slow down in the high-end coin market—collectors and some investors are either pushing prices downward or waiting for prices to drop before buying. Like in retail sales, many purchasers are standing on the sidelines waiting for the bargains or the market to settle.
But if the economic indicators do not show weaknesses except in employment, then why should the numismatic market show a weakness? The answer can be summed up in two words: gold and silver.
Some dealers and auction houses have found that the buyers for the high-end coins have continued their strong buying but the rest of the market has not joined them. One of the factors can be that the price of gold has scared many people away. When the markets opened on January 4, 2010, the price was $1,087.50 for one troy ounce of gold. During the year, the price never dipped below $1,050 climbing to $1,420 on December 7 before closing at $1,405.50 on December 30. As a result, investors who bought gold prior to 2010 saw their investment to rise 29.2 during the year. One would think it makes sense that the generic gold coin market would rise with the gold market. But a look at the PCGS Generic Gold Coin Index found that even with gold’s rise through the year, the generic gold coin market also saw a 17.76-percent drop in prices. However, Proof Gold rose only four-tenths of one-percent (0.41%) showing that there continued to be a little activity in the high-end market.
If there was a bull market in 2010 they were running for silver. After opening the year at $16.99 per troy ounce, silver closed at $30.63—a whopping 80.4-percent increase! Although less than the $54 ($143 adjusted for inflation in 2010 dollars) that it reached when the Hunt Brothers tried to corner the silver market in 1980, the 2010 rise is significant because few believe that the markets are being manipulated. In fact, one analyst believes that the silver market is undervalued as compared to the gold market. He said, “The gold rush of the 2000s is going to be nothing [compared] to the silver rush of the 2010s.”
When looking at the numismatics market, silver is the key metal. Up until 1964, every dime, quarter, half-dollar, and non-gold dollars were made of silver. Silver has been a key coining metal since the creation of the United States Mint in 1792. Many of the most collectible coin ever created by the U.S. Mint were struck in silver. Nothing represents silver coins like Morgan and Peace Dollars. Arguably one of the most popular numismatic collectibles, Morgan and Peace dollars are 26.73 grams made of 90-percent silver and 10-percent copper making its melt value $23.03 at the end of 2010.
But the value of Morgan and Peace dollars extend beyond their melt value. Morgan and Peace dollars are tied to the late 19th and early 20th century history of silver manipulation in the United States with designs popular with collectors. Morgan dollars struct at the Carson City mint are amongst the most desired. Since the GSA sales in the 1970s, the prices of these coins have gone up—in some cases beyond the reach of the average collector. Of the Peace dollar series, the high-relief 1921-D dollar is very desirable as is the low mintage 1928 dollar, and the 1935 last year of issue dollars. And the rumor that not all of the 1964-D Peace dollars were melted makes finding out the absolute truth a great interest to the numismatic world. However, with the rest of the market trending downward and silver skyrocketing, the PCGS3000 Morgan and Peace Dollar Index found the market rise-then-fall-then-rise again to end the year up eight-tenths of one-percent (0.825-percent) for 2010. Not a great showing, but demonstrating that Morgan and Peace dollars are still popular amongst collectors.
What is clear is that the coin market was down in 2010 while investors and even some collectors might have been concentrating on gold and silver bullion.
In speaking with some dealers, many have said that they have survived the last two years buying and selling bullion including American Eagle coins. One said that the numismatic market has been very slow that the bullion market has allowed him to stay in business during this era being dubbed “The Great Recession.”
Just because the calendar turns does not mean the market will turn along with it. Even though the lame duck congress passed significant stimulus legislation, it will take some time for those measures to settle into the markets. Some experts think that the eventual hiring may not occur for at least six monist and that there will not be a significant drop in unemployment until the fall. Others point to the infrastructure project the new laws are supposed to support forgetting that even shovel-ready projects have legal requirements, such as contract and environmental restrictions, that have to be address before a shovel can be used. In short, we may be in for more of the same through the first and even second quarters of 2011.
The new congress will help keep the economic uncertainty alive. Although the Republicans will control the House of Representatives, the Senate will be controlled by the Democrats with an active Republican minority who has shown that they will use the body’s rules to try to force their will. In other words, prepare for gridlock. None of this takes into consideration that Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) will be the chairman of the House Finance Committee, thus allowing him to have control over economic policy in the House!
Neither the lame duck stimulus or the new congress will do anything to settle the markets in the short term. With the uncertainty, investors will continue hedge their bets using precious metals. Gold will continue to rise but at a rate less than in 2010. It is fair to say that with the current valuation being so high, it is likely that 2011 will end with gold only rising by 20-percent. However, the argument that the gold-to-silver ratio is out of balance being very compelling, we may see silver continue to climb. Silver may not climb at the 80-percent rate we saw in 2010, but a 40-percent rate may be reasonable. If this holds true, this time next year we could be talking about gold being $1,680 per troy ounce and silver closing at $42.
During the Fall of 2010, the PCGS3000 Index rose a bit from its low for the year and the low since the index’s all-time high in 2008. But with other factors not changing in the short term, could this be the coin market’s version of a “dead cat bounce?” A dead cat bounce is a small yet brief market recovery derived from the idea that “even a dead cat will bounce if it falls from a great height.” It is more likely that the numismatic market will flatten a bit while the rest of the markets figure out which direction they will go.
The first indication of how the numismatic market starts the year will be at the F.U.N. Show held January 4-9 in Tampa, Florida. With F.U.N. being one of the largest non-ANA shows of the year, sales and dealer impressions will set the tone for at least the next few months. Under the premise that markets do not turnaround quickly and that the last major show, Whitman Baltimore Expo in November, saw only nominal sales, one can assume a similar atmosphere for F.U.N. It will be more reasonable to wait until the National Money Show March 17-19 in Sacramento and the Whitman Baltimore Expo held March 31-April 3 to determine if the numismatic market will be better in 2011. At the end of the year, it is reasonable to expect that the PCGS3000 Index will be up 2.5-percent by the end of 2011 given the other market forces.
Of course predicting any market is a total crap shoot. While my roll of the dice may be no better than others, I would caution against thinking that my crystal ball is clearer than anyone else’s. All I have done is read the proverbial tea leaves and drank the tea while throwing darts at the wall trying to guess what the future will bring. Or as one comedian used to say, “That’s my opinion, I could be wrong.”
Metals charts courtesy of Kitco.
The PCGS300® Index courtesy of the Professional Coin Grading Service.
Nov 6, 2010 | commemorative, legislative, palladium, policy
Recently, I met someone familiar with the internal workings of congress. After talking about the election, I asked about the coin-related bills that were still in congress waiting for action in the lame duck session. I passed along the link to my post about Coin Legislation in the 111th Congress and asked if any of the bills passed the House of Representatives and in a Senate committee had the chance of being voted on. I was given the following report:
Bills Passed by the House and Referred to the Senate
Three bills have passed the House and sent to the Senate for their action. These bills are currently waiting for action in the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. All three bills are expected to pass with the following modifications:
- Mother’s Day Centennial Commemorative Coin Act will pass without modification.
- American Eagle Palladium Bullion Coin Act of 2010 will be modified to allow the U.S. Mint to begin striking palladium coins in 2012.
- Coin Modernization, Oversight, and Continuity Act of 2010 will pass with the possible modification that the report is due to congress within 15 days of the end of the 2012 fiscal year.
Bills that are modified are required to be reconciled by a conference committee or just accepted by the House. It is expected that the House will accept the modifications by unanimous consent and will be signed by the president.
Bills Introduced in the House of Representatives
There are 13 commemorative coin bills waiting for action in the House Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology. None of the bills are expected to receive attention and will “die in committee” at the adjournment of the 111th Congress.
In addition to the commemorative bills, there are three other bills related to collectors and investors that are likely to see some action:
- Free Competition in Currency Act of 2009 was introduced by Ron Paul (R-TX) and referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. The basic provisions of this bill calls for the elimination of all taxes on the sale and transfer of bullion and coins. It also changes the law to allow precious metals to be used as coins or a medium of exchange. As the future chairman of the Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee, Paul may not push this bill. Rather, he will wait until the 112th congress to have it assigned to his subcommittee so he can control the outcome. This bill is unlikely to pass in the Democratic-controlled lame duck congress.
- Coin and Precious Metal Disclosure Act was introduced by Anthony D. Weiner (D-NY) and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. This bill is referred to as the Goldline Act since Rep. Weiner has targeted Goldline in his commentary regarding this bill. Because of the controversial nature of this bill and the potential for side effects that could hurt other industries, it is unlikely that this bill will be brought up again in committee.
- Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act was introduced by Dan Lungren (R-CA) and referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. This is the bill that will remove the requirement to report all goods and services purchased in excess of $600 with an IRS 1099 form beginning in 2012 that was part of the health care reform legislation. Almost everyone in almost every industry is in favor of this bill’s passage. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) has introduced S.3578 as a companion bill in the Senate. Although this bill has bipartisan support and should pass with few issues, there is a concern that more conservative members will create a problem when demanding that revenues lost by this measure be made up elsewhere. Revenue enhancements (read: taxes) will be deferred to the 112th congress allowing this bill to pass. The president is expected to sign this bill into law.
Bills Introduced in the Senate
There are 11 commemorative coin bills waiting for action in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Only the Mother’s Day Centennial Commemorative Coin Act introduced by John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) as S.1012 may receive some consideration. Sources report that this may be done as a favor by outgoing Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) for Sen. Rockefeller. If this bill is voted on by the Senate, it is unlikely to be considered in the House.
No further bills are expected to be introduced.
This will end the 111th Congress. It will certainly make for an interesting study for future historians. But for today, we can only wonder what the 112th Congress will have in store for collectors.
Nov 6, 2010 | commentary, policy, US Mint
Now that the dust has settled from the November 2 mid-term elections, there is a consequence for collectors of United States coins: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) will be the chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, the subcommittee with oversight authority over the U.S. Mint.
Prior to the election, Rep. Melvin Watt (D-NC) was chairman of the subcommittee and Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) was the ranking member. With the 60-seat gain by the Republican party, they will change the makeup of committees. Since Castle lost his primary race, the Republican leadership in the 112th congress will likely elevate Rep. Paul to be the chairman of the committee. It is likely Rep. Watt will become the Ranking Member.
While there will be other changes in the governing structure in the various committees that provide oversight to the U.S. Mint, this subcommittee provides the direct oversight where bills on coins, commemoratives, and medals are first assigned. Considering the legislative history of its new potential chairman, it is likely that it will be an interesting session.
To say that Ron Paul has an economic agenda that differs from current policies and similar policies that have existed since 1964 would be an understatement. Paul wants to go back to a precious metals-based standard specifically using gold and silver. While it is recognized that a precious metals standard would make it difficult to manipulate currency markets, it has its limitations to be able to supply a demand for money.
Although Paul’s policy preferences are something to be debated, policies dealing with the operation and production of the U.S. Mint is not the place for that discussion. During the hearing of “The State of U.S. Coins and Currency” held on July 20, 2010, Paul’s opening statement was more about not about his view of monetary policy. In his opening statement, Paul commented on the prosecution of Bernard von NotHaus by saying, “the federal government insists on printing trillions of dollars out of thin air, and prosecuting individuals who attempt to create precious metal currencies to compete with the devalued US dollar.”
Later during the same hearing there was a discussion regarding the U.S. Mint not issuing the 2009 American Silver Eagle Proof coins. Paul asked U.S. Mint Director Ed Moy why the U.S. Mint could not just strike 2009 Proof American Silver Eagles. Moy rightfully pointed out that doing so was not legal (see 31 U.S.C. § 5112(d)(1)).
In fact, during the questioning of Director Moy, it was as if Paul did not understand that the “Mint Does What It’s Told by Law to Do.” Although Paul said, “It is a shame that Congress has already unconstitutionally delegated its coinage authority to the Treasury Department,” he underestimates congress’s role as outlined in Title 31 of the United States Code.
I am not encouraged by Ron Paul’s potential elevation as chair of this subcommittee. Rather than provide oversight to an already over-regulated agency, Paul will use his position as a platform for his policy preferences. Oversight of the U.S. Mint is not the place to promote these policies. If Rep. Paul wants to promote his policy preference, I suggest he chooses another committee for which to serve or learn what the U.S. Mint actually does before accepting the role as chairman of its oversight committee.
Sep 20, 2010 | coins, legislative, policy
Collectors have very few friends in congress. In most cases, members of congress usually do not care for collectors. While some will sponsor and promote a few commemorative issues, most of the time they are interested in promoting the cause that will receive the surcharges from the sales. But for 18 years, numismatist have had one friend in congress: Mike Castle (R-DE).
Michael Newbold Castle, 71, from Wilmington, has been the representative at-large from Delaware since 1993. As a direct descendant of Benjamin Franklin, Castle has worked in public service in Delaware since serving as Deputy Attorney General in 1965-1966. Castle rose through the ranks by being elected to the Delaware State Legislature, State Senate, Lieutenant Governor, Governor, then U.S. Representative. His long service to Delaware is legendary. But that was not enough for Castle to win the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate last week.
Castle has made his first indelible mark on numismatics within a few years of his arrival in the House. In 1996, Castle consolidated several commemorative requests into the United States Commemorative Coin Act of 1996 which became Public Law Number 104-329 ([text] [pdf]). This act authorized the following commemorative coins:
- 1997 Franklin Delano Roosevelt
- 1997 Jackie Robinson
- 1997 National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial
- 1998 Black Revolutionary War Patriots
- 1999 Dolley Madison
- 1999 George Washington Bicentennial of his Death
- 1999 Yellowstone National Park
The Commemorative Coin Act of 1996 also included a “study” that lead to the 50 States Commemorative Coin Program Act, Public Law Number 105-124 ([text] [pdf]). Aside from creating the 50 State Quarters Program, the law also authorized the Sacagawea Dollar and the 2003 First Flight Commemorative. Castle worked with the American Numismatic Association and other numismatic organizations to craft a bill that lead to one of the biggest increase in numismatic interests ever. The 50 State Quarters program was one of the most successful programs ever.
Another idea of Mike Castle’s was a coin series to honor past presidents. Castle first introduced the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005 in the house (as H.R. 902). Even those the version introduced in the senate was the one that eventually became Public Law 109-145 ([text] [pdf]), it was Castle’s idea.
Probably the last significant piece of coin legislation that Castle will sponsor is the America’s Beautiful National Parks Quarter Dollar Coin Act of 2008, Public Law Number 110-456 ([text] [pdf]). As a follow-up to the 50 State Quarter program, the America the Beautiful Quarters® Program will feature reverse designs of national parks or other national sites from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S insular territories. The program started this year and will run through 2021.
Mike Castle will not appear on a ballot for the first time since 1966. His current term in the House of Representatives will end on January 3, 2011. He ends his career in the House being recognized as the numismatists’ friend after working on the passage of landmark coin-related legislation aimed at the collector. For his service to our hobby, I honor Castle’s accomplishment and wish him well in his (forced) retirement.
Sep 18, 2010 | ancient, legal, policy
Following the lead of Italy, Greece has asked the State Department’s Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) for import restrictions be imposed on cultural property.
Even though there has not been a decision made on the Italian request, the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) is asking for your help in responding to the CPAC. I said before, this can damage the hobby for everyone. It can start with Italy and Greece, but where does it stop? Will Canada come after my collection of Canadian coins? What about the 1912 Russian banknotes my relatives brought with them when they landed at Ellis Island? Once this snowball begins to roll downhill, what is to prevent congress from declaring pattern coins as contraband? It reminds me of a numismatic version of the “First they came…” attributed Pastor Martin Niemöller about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets.
This time, the State Department is using the facilities of regulations.gov to facilitate the response. First I recommend reading the notice “Receipt of Cultural Property Request from the Government of the Hellenic Republic.” Then go to this article on the Cultural Property Observer blog that has five good talking points for you to include in your response. Then write your note in a separate window because there is a 20-minute time limit on the regulations.gov page.
When you are ready, you can go to the comments page and upload the file or copy and paste your note in the space provided.
According to Wayne G. Sayles, Executive Director of ACCG, “Don’t worry about getting the content perfect, just state in your own words why you oppose import restrictions on ancient coins. It doesn’t need to be long, nor eloquent.”
The comment period ends on September 22, 2010 and the meeting of the CPAC is scheduled for October 12, 2010. Please lend your support before a government comes after your favorite collectibles!
Jun 1, 2010 | ancient, legal, policy
According to the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) noted that 1,934 discrete addresses used their fax service to send notes opposing import restrictions on ancient coins from Italy. I would like to thank my readers who were amongst those who sent faxes to the U.S State Department’s Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC).
ACCG Executive Director Wayne Sayles attended the meeting and wrote about the meeting from his perspective. ACCG Board member Peter Tompa wrote a full report about the meeting. Both are worth reading.
The Washington Post also sent a reporter who filed this story.
CPAC has not yet resolved the issue. I hope our efforts writing to the CPAC in conjunction with the ACCG prevents the Memoranda of Understanding with Italy from being modified to include ancient coins.
Apr 17, 2010 | ancient, legal, policy
The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG) issued a press release calling for action by all collectors to petition the U.S. State Department’s Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) to not include ancient coins with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Italy that will claim them as State cultural heritage.
The State Department issued a Notice of Meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee announcing that they will meet in open session on May 6, 2010 starting at 9:30 A.M. to discuss the Italy’s request to expand the MOU. Anyone wishing to attend the meeting must reserve a seat by calling (202) 632-6301 by April 22, 2010, 5:00 P.M. Eastern Time.
Anyone wishing to address the committee or provide written testimony must submit their comments in writing to the committee by faxing it to (202) 632-6300 for statements 5 pages or less. Those more than 5 pages must be mailed with 20 duplicates to Cultural Heritage Center, SA-5, Fifth Floor, Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-0505.
This is where you can help. ACCG is asking for collectors to send letters to the CPAC to oppose adding ancient coins that may be considered “Italian” (e.g., ancient Rome). Such a rule would make almost all Roman and early Greek coins contraband, even if they entered the U.S. from other countries without documentation. Have you ever walked the bourse floor and seen piles of ancient coins in trays on dealers’ tables? These coins have been sold around the world for hundreds of years and not part of any antiquities collections belonging in a state collection.
With one ruling, the CPAC can seriously damage the hobby for everyone. Yes, EVERYONE! It may start with Italy, but where does it stop? Will Canada come after my collection of Canadian coins? What about the 1912 Russian banknotes my relatives brought with them when they landed at Ellis Island? Once this snowball begins to roll downhill, what is to prevent congress from declaring pattern coins as contraband? It reminds me of a numismatic version of the “First they came…” attributed Pastor Martin Niemöller about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets.
ACCG will help you contact the CPAC using their free fax service at www.vcoins.com/fax.
If you need help constructing a letter, the fax service has suggested text. If you want something a little different, the following is what I sent:
Ms. Katherine L. Reid
Chair, Cultural Property Advisory Committee
United States Department of State
Annex 5
2200 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20522-0505
Dear Ms. Reid:
I am a collector of historical coins and want to see that US collectors retain the same rights as collectors in the EU, where restrictions on the transfer of historical coins between EU countries are specifically forbidden. Please do not allow the rights of US citizens to be further infringed.
I have been advised by the Directors of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild that renewal of the Memorandum of Understanding with Italy pertaining to importation of cultural property from Italy is being considered on May 6-7, 2010. Based on comments made during the recent interim hearing, it seems likely that a request will be made and considered to remove the exemption currently in place for ancient coins.
Coins of a type produced at mints in Italy during antiquity literally circulated throughout the known western world at that time as a result of the reach of the empires that occupied the land. Coins from these eras have been found from Britain to India as the empires grew. Because of this wide circulation, it is impossible to determine whether these coins came from Italy or were used in other areas of the those empires. For example, a hoard of copper Roman coins were found in Cardiff, Whales by someone searching with a metal detector in 2007. By removing the exemption currently in place for ancient coins, U.S. collectors would not be able to add any of this hoard to their collections.
The ACCG, the Numismatic Trade and the wider numismatic community have all presented, and will present, a wealth of justification for retaining the current exemption. This would allow Americans to continue to enjoy preserving, studying and displaying coins just like their fellow collectors in Italy and the rest of the European Union. I support the position of these organizations and oppose any attempt to restrict the importation of coins under the terms of this MOU.
Respectfully yours,
Scott Barman
I adopted this note from ACCG’s suggested text and the first paragraph is provided by ACCG from a form that was based on an answer I provided on the second page of the process.
Please help now! The ACCG has made it easy. Even if you use their suggested text or mine, act now. And when you are done, consider giving ACCG a donation to help with their effort. I did!
Feb 4, 2010 | CCAC, policy, US Mint
Last week I had a public discussion with Gary Marks, a member of the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee about my comments about the CCAC on CoinNews.net. My initial comments were based on an article that Mr. Marks says misrepresents the work of the CCAC. After following up with asking for more information, Mr. Marks produced a quote buried in a document on the CCAC website that was lacking context. It is evident that Mr. Marks does not fully understand the issue.
The Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee is supposed be a conduit for the public to have input to the coin design process. The CCAC is supposed to work with the US Mint to create coin designs that represents the best of the best. It is a committee that is to do what President Theodore Roosevelt did as part of his “pet crime.”
New York Yankees limited partner John McMullen once said, “Nothing is more limited than being a limited partner of [George Steinbrenner].” McMullen has not tried to pry information from the CCAC and the US Mint!
Openness of the federal government was first codified in the Freedom of Information Act signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 4, 1966. At the time, it was referred to as the “Sunshine Laws.” Before the growth of the computer age, the purpose was to make documents that were not sensitive or classified available to the public. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama have mandated their administrations to expand the availability of government information as electronic capabilities have improved.
On January 20, 2009, the first day of the Obama Administration, President Obama signed the Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies which said that “agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government.” By August, the White House issued the Transparency and Open Government memo telling agencies that they have 120 days to report to the Office of Management and Budget how they would make the processes more open.
Rather than making the process more open as the President requested, the CCAC and the US Mint appears to be stuck in the mindset of the electronic world before the invention of the World Wide Web.
Although the meetings are open to the public, knowing when the meetings are being held is almost a state secret. Although announcements are made via a press release by the US Mint—of course everyone follows the US Mint’s press releases—the CCAC website has no information as to when meetings are held. Rather, the front page says to call a Washington, DC telephone number to listen to a recorded message about the meeting. Meeting announcements are not posted on the web site. Neither are the agendas in advance of the meeting. Instead of following the President’s executive order to be more open, the CCAC makes meeting announcements are technically legal but violates the spirit of open government.
Even using the 20th century forms of communications, the CCAC is not updating their website. At this time, minutes have not been posted for the last four meetings. Not that it matters because the information is sparse and really does not explain what the CCAC is doing.
There is also nothing worth reading on their Press Room page.
Anyone attending the CCAC meetings are handed a package of papers with an agenda, support letters, and even images of the proposed designs being discussed. These packages contain a phenomenal amount of information that when combined with the sparse minutes provides a better insight into what the CCAC has discussed. But these packages are not available to the public. If you know someone attending the meeting, you can ask them to obtain an extra copy. When I called the US Mint to ask to receive a package, I was told that it could not be done but I could receive copies of the coin images if I signed a copyright release. More than a year ago, I submitted a request for the release. After my application was rejected because I could not provide a company name, I was told I would have to sign a form for each request.
Most of the meetings are held at the US Mint’s Headquarters in Washington, DC. On occasion, meetings have been held during the American Numismatic Association’s Summer Seminar, Worlds Fair of Money, and recently the Florida United Numismatics show. While I would like to attend these events, I have a full time job, not in numismatics, that keeps me close to home. However, if I had access to the meeting package and a way of listening to the conversation, I would be able to make educated judgements on their work without having to rely on a second hand source like a non-numismatic newspaper.
Even if the CCAC continues to use 20th century communications, the Department of the Treasury does have the capability of creating a teleconference bridge that can be outbound only and recorded. This teleconference bridge will allow people who are not local to the meetings to listen to the meeting. In my “Real Life”™ job, I have used this service. It requires the bureau to request the service in advance.
After the meeting, the audio can be posted on the website so that anyone who could not participate during the time of the meeting could download the audio and listen at another time.
If the CCAC and US Mint wants to step into the 21st century, there are Internet-based audio services that can be used with greater capacity than the Treasury’s teleconferencing service.
Would it be too much to ask for the CCAC to have a Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feed? RSS feeds allows for better communication by my RSS reader letting me know when the site has created updates by watching the RSS feed. RSS is really simple. There are a number of programs to help create feeds and services that help publish feeds. As the webmaster for my local coin club, I provide an RSS feed when the website changes. I also use it to remind members of upcoming meetings.
Also, it is possible to integrate Google search into the CCAC website to provide search capabilities to visitors. There is no cost for this service.
If the CCAC participated in the Open Government initiative ordered by the President and made its deliberations more open to the citizens, maybe there would be a better understanding between the committee and the citizens they are supposed to represent.
Jan 28, 2010 | CCAC, policy
There once was a saying that you should not argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel. In this case, maybe Gary Marks of the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee should consider how they deal with a blogger with an active blog. Mr. Marks commented on my response without understanding the point that if the CCAC had better communications outlets, we may not be having this discussion.
Here is the follow-up from CoinNews.net:
Mr. Berman [sic]wants to know how he would have known about the CCAC’s recommendation to put Roosevelt on the quarter obverse. Actually I known that it received prominent coverage in Coin World. He also asks why the CCAC’s documents are not on the web. Well, actually they are. Please go to ccac.gov and you will find them — right out there for the public to see. In fact, if you go to the January 27, 2009 CCAC meeting minutes you will find the following excerpt concerning the Roosevelt recommendation:
“9. Reverend Meier mentioned to the committee that he, as a private citizen, is urging legislation to place Theodore Roosevelt on the obverse of National Parks Quarters, in tribute to President Roosevelt’s role in establishing America’s national parks.
10. Members expressed considerable enthusiasm for Reverend Meier’s idea. Several members pointed out that any such change would, be definition, be temporary, because the legislation creating the National Parks Quarter Program specifies that an image of George Washington will appear on the quarter after the program’s conclusion.
11. After extensive discussion about whether a sua sponte suggestion was within the CCAC’s mandate, the committee voted 8-0 to recommend to the Secretary of the Treasury that consideration should be given to placing an image of Theodore Roosevelt on the obverse of quarters issued as part of the National Parks Quarter Program.”
Mr. Berman [sic] then suggests that the CCAC has “coordinated” talking points because he has heard from two members concerning the idea of improving the “spaghetti” haired Washington image on the quarter. Wow, I’m not sure who Mr. Berman thinks we are, but I can tell you that our committee is made up of hard working volunteers — most of them coin collectors — who share many of the same thoughts, aspirations and concerns held by many in the coin collecting world. We are certainly not career politicians who sit around “coordinating” talking points. If Mr. Berman has heard the same thing from two of us its simply because that is an area the committee is now focusing on.
To which I responded:
With all due respect to Gary Marks, I tried to subtly point out that you are spelling my name wrong by including “[sic]” in the quotes from his response to indicate that the previous word is not a transcription error. Mr. Marks responds to my comment by continuing the same mistake in the spelling of my name. Respecting the name of the person you are conversing with is important to having disparate points of view discussed in a respectful manner. Therefore, if Mr. Marks would like to continue this discussion, I would appreciate that he spells my name properly!
Mr. Marks notes that the information is on the CCAC website. However, with no search capabilities and with information less than what is available to those who attend the meetings, it is difficult to sit and read back through past meetings to find the information. It should also be noted that as of this writing, the minutes from the last FOUR CCAC meetings have not been posted.
What should be obvious from my response is that there is a communications issue. While the information is there, its usage and accessibility is lacking, even using the basic technology tools available to the CCAC and the US Mint. It should be incumbent on the CCAC and the US Mint to fix these communications issues to provide the public a better view into their work.
Again, if the CCAC and the US Mint cannot perform these basic functions, then my conclusion on how they perform their function does not change.
This is my last work in this forum. I will have a full comment on this on the Coin Collector’s Blog (coinsblog.blogspot.com) this weekend.
Stay tuned!
Loading ...