As a result of the the president signed the National Baseball Hall of Fame Commemorative Coin Act (Public Law No. 112-152 [TXT][PDF]), the U.S. Mint is required to hold a competition for the design of the obverse (heads) side of the three coins that will be issued as part of the set. The law states:
IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall hold a competition to determine the design of the common obverse of the coins minted under this Act, with such design being emblematic of the game of baseball.
SELECTION AND APPROVAL- Proposals for the design of coins minted under this Act may be submitted in accordance with the design selection and approval process developed by the Secretary in the sole discretion of the Secretary. The Secretary shall encourage 3-dimensional models to be submitted as part of the design proposals.
PROPOSALS- As part of the competition described in this subsection, the Secretary may accept proposals from artists, engravers of the United States Mint, and members of the general public.
COMPENSATION- The Secretary shall determine compensation for the winning design under this subsection, which shall be not less than $5,000. The Secretary shall take into account this compensation amount when determining the sale price described in section 6(a).
Here is your chance to design a coin that will be sold to collectors everywhere and if you create the winning design, you will win $5,000!
The obverse design must represent baseball and include the inscriptions “Liberty,” “In God We Trust,” and “2014.”
Your design must be able to look good on a coin about the size of a nickel, which is close to the size of the $5 gold coin.
You must be a 14 years old and older, a U.S. citizen or permanent resident to enter. Employees in any area of the Department of the Treasury, current and former members of the Artistic Infusion Program, and contractor to the Department of the Treasury are ineligible.
Your design must not depict any real person, name, logo, stadium, field, etc. from now or in the past. It must be original artwork.
When you are ready to submit your entries, you must submit your line art in black and while (no color) to http://www.batterup.challenge.gov/. This site is not up but will be there, ready to accept your submissions on April 11 starting at noon EDT. Deadline is May 11, 2013 at noon EDT. You can also submit a plaster or plastic model approximately 8-inches in diameter.
Do not procrastinate because the U.S. Mint has said that if 10,000 entries are received prior the May 11 deadline, they will suspend the contest early with 48 hours notice. They also said that the contest will not end before noon EDT of April 26.
If you have an idea give it a try! You do not have to be that artistic because the engravers at the U.S. Mint can translate your design into something that can be struck into coins. They are good, so give it a try!
While we are talking about the design of these coin, will you try to submit a design for this commemorative? Let me know in this week’s poll:
It seems that the biggest trend in modern collectibles are colored non-circulating legal tender (NCLT) coins. You have seen these coins from various countries including Canada, Somalia, New Zealand, and Australia to name a few.
Not all colored coins are made of precious metals. My set of Somalia Motorcycle and Classic Sports Cars coins are silver-plated copper-nickel coins. In fact, most of the Somalia-shaped coins are not made from precious metals. But the shaped coins are so cool that they find buyers around the world, including with me.
In addition to making commercial collectibles, coins have had art imprinted on them, enhanced designs, and even commemorate something based on the country of issue.
So what do you think? Should congress give the U.S. Mint permission to produce colored coins? Rather than pay for a third-party colored coins, what if the U.S. Mint produced a colorized American Silver Eagle coin? Or maybe a bi-metalic coin where the coin is silver and Adolph A. Weinman’s Walking Liberty design is struck in gold on specially made planchets?
Vote in the current poll and let me know what you think below.
Should the U.S. Mint be allowed to make colored coins?
No, the coins are just fine the way they are. (41%, 11 Votes)
No, but maybe they can do something cool with different metals. (30%, 8 Votes)
Yes, colored coins are cool. (15%, 4 Votes)
Yes, and while we are at it, how about special shapes. (15%, 4 Votes)
Every week, Heritage Auctions sends out an email newsletter from their various auctions. Saturdays, they send out a newsletter about their coin auctions. While the newsletter is mostly about their upcoming auction and tips for using their website, there are some interesting tidbits that make it worth reading. One of the interesting features is the interactive section toward the end of the note.
Up until recently, the interactive section was more of a numismatic trivia-type of section where they asked two questions. You selected your answers and clicked through to their site to see how you did compared to others. Recently, Heritage changed the section to be a poll. This week’s question (copied so you can participate):
This got me thinking as to why were these coins chosen out of all of the possible modern commemoratives. Two are based on classic designs: 1999 George Washington Commemorative $5 gold coin was based on the design that Laura Gardin Fraser submitted for the design of the 1932 Washington Quarter that was turned down by then Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon, a known misogynist; the 2001 American Buffalo Commemorative Silver Dollar was based on James Earle Fraser’s Type 1 Buffalo Nickel design. James Earle Fraser and Laura Gardin Fraser were husband and wife.
The 1992 Olympic Silver Dollar features a baseball pitcher that is similar to the image of Nolan Ryan that appeared on the 1991 Fleer baseball card. Although designer John Deecken denied the connection, the coin is sometimes referred to as the “Nolan Ryan Commemorative.”
One of the significant attributes of the 1999 Dolley Madison Silver dollar is that the coin was designed by Tiffany & Co., the famous jewelry company, whose moniker “T&Co” appears on the coin as the designer. It marks the first time that a private company’s name appears on a United States coin.
Finally, the 2000 Library of Congress $10 Bimetallic Commemorative Coin is the only coin featuring this type of bimetallic composition. The coin features an outer ring made of gold surrounding a center made from platinum.
As I looked at the list, I knew that the 2001 Buffalo Dollar would be the most popular even though I think the 2000 Library of Congress Bimetallic commemorative is the most unique. But why these coins? The U.S. Mint has issued a lot of commemorative coins with great designs since restarting the commemorative coin program with the 1982 George Washington Half Dollar with the 2012 Star Spangled Banner coins being the most recent.
Since I am not a collector of commemorative coins, I was thinking that if I had to choose five coins what would I have chosen and why. Here is my list (in date order):
1982 George Washington Half Dollar because it is the first of what we consider the modern commemorative period.
2000 Library of Congress $10 Bimetallic Commemorative Coin because it is the only bimetallic coin of its type made by the U.S. Mint.
2001 American Buffalo Commemorative Silver Dollar because it is similar to the design of the Buffalo nickel, one of my favorite coins.
2008 Bald Eagle Half Dollar with the obverse showing two baby eaglets and an egg in an eagle’s nest with the reverse an image of the Bald Eagle “Challenger.” This coin shows the continuing of the Bald Eagle like the continuing of the nation. I love the symbolism.
2012 Star Spangled Banner Silver Dollar screams “United States of America!”
I do own a 2012 Star Spangled Banner Proof Silver Dollar.
As our 35th President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy became the youngest person to ever be elected as President and the first Roman Catholic. At 43, Kennedy was the promise of a new future; a new vision that would have the United States leading the world in fighting the “common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.” In his inaugural address, he called the nation to arm when he said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
From standing up to the Soviet Union’s Nikita Khrushchev, to the success in defense of the nation during the Cuban Missile Crisis, to the failures of the Bay of Pigs, the starting of the Peace Corps, and challenging the United States’ resolve using the space program by proclaiming, “We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” In over two years, Kennedy made an impact on this country in such a short period of time that one can wonder what would had happened if….
A few days after Kennedy’s assassination on November 22, 1963, U.S. Mint Director Eva Adams, Chief Engraver Gilroy Roberts reported that there was discussions about putting Kennedy’s portrait on a silver coin. Since Jacqueline Kennedy did not want to replace Washington’s portrait on the quarter, it was decided to use the half-dollar. Roberts used models from the inaugural medal for the obverse design and Assistant Engraver Frank Gasparro prepared the reverse design using the Presidential Seal.
Since the law stated that coinage design could not be changed more often than 25 years, and that the Franklin Half was only 15 years old, it required Congress to authorize the change. The Act of December 30, 1963 (Public Law No. 88-253) allowed the design to be changed.
When the coin was released in 1964, the 90-percent silver coin was saved by a grieving nation wanting something that represented the fallen President. Over 273 million coins were struck in Philadelphia and 156 million in Denver. The composition was changed in 1965 with the introduction of clad coinage. Half dollars consisted of 40-percent silver that included a core made from 79-percent copper and 21-percent silver. In 1971, the composition was changed to current copper-nickel clad that is in use today.
There has been one design change to the coin and that occurred in 1975 and 1976 in honor of the American Revolution Bicentennial. A special reverse depicting Independence Hall in Philadelphia was designed by Seth G. Huntington. For both years, the obverse featured the dual date 1776-1976 in celebration.
John F. Kennedy would have been 95 years old on May 29, 2012.
The “they” I am talking about are the collectors 50 and 100 years from now.
By that time, those of us who remember non-clad coins will be long gone or elderly. But what would our successors in this hobby say about us?
For the last few years, I have been putting together a set of Barber coinage to cover the 20th century. From the Liberty Head Nickel, to the Barber dimes, quarters, and half-dollars, these coins had an interesting sameness whose aesthetic roots appear to be from Victorian culture. Even the dollar designed by George Morgan had a similar look to those Barber coinage.
While there are fans of Charles Barber’s coin design, we tend to concentrate on Theodore Roosevelt’s “pet crime.” Roosevelt was not fond of Barber’s designs. In fact, he called the “atrociously hideous” and “conspired” with Augusts Saint-Gaudens to design coins that would be considered more artistic.
Judging the aesthetics of any coin design is subjective, but a closer and more objective look at Barber’s designs do have a lot of character for the time they were produced at the height of the Victorian era. When TR took office in October 1901, Queen Victoria had passed 9 months earlier and Roosevelt, whose was not a fan of Victorian Era designs, wanted something different.
Barber’s designs appear to be a victim of Roosevelt’s efforts rather than being a sign of its times. It has produced a general opinion that Barber was not a good artist or that his designs were lacking without considering the times in which he worked.
So how will today’s coins be thought of in the future?
The “modern era” of U.S. coinage started with the introduction of clad coins. This marked the end of silver circulating coinage with the exception of the half-dollar, which was silver-clad until 1970. Forty-eight years later, modern coinage does not have the same appeal to many collectors as its silver predecessors mainly because of the impression from older numismatist that these coins are not silver or copper. Some believe that the only excitement generated by clad-coinage in the last half of the 20th century were the bicentennial designs of 1975-1976.
Even though the 50 State Quarter program started in 1999, the 21st century has been the century of the circulating commemoratives. The introduction of the Sacagawea Dollar introduced a new dollar coin in an attempt to “fix” the problems caused by the Susan B. Anthony dollars (too much look a quarter) while new designs representing four states were issued each year. During that program, we were treated to the 2004-2006 Westwood Journey Nickel Program honoring the “Corps of Discovery Expedition” lead by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to the far reaches of the Louisiana Purchase. There was also the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Cent Program honoring the 200th birthday of our 16th president. All have been seen as positive programs.
Then there are what some consider failures, such as the Presidential Dollar and Native American programs. These failures are not because of their designs but because they are based on the one dollar coin that does not circulate in the United States. In fact, most of the presidential portraits are well executed and the reverse designs of the Native American dollars are inspiring. But numismatists, collectors, and the public are more focused on the politics surrounding the use of dollar coins rather than the designs.
Similarly, the National Parks Quarters have not lived up the expectations that it would be as popular as the 50 State Quarters program. Some have even seen the program as jumping the shark on circulating commemoratives, but the designs have been very interesting and even well representative of the site which is being commemorated.
Again, how will today’s coins be thought of in the future?
As new, younger collectors enter the hobby, the stigma of clad versus silver coinage has waned since clad coinage is all these collectors know. They have seen world coins made of base metals dating back to times earlier than the United States change to clad coinage and do not wax nostalgic for “simpler times.” These are their simpler times!
While speaking with some younger collectors, many of whom started collecting state quarters, they like the new programs. State quarters have helped them learn about the states and some have said it helped them learn the history of the United States and its geography. Some like the Presidential Dollars not as circulating coins but as a collectible representing the democratic succession of peaceful leadership represented by the office. And they wish that the National Parks Quarters would see better circulation to add to the history behind the United States coins.
Looking at the short history of 21st century coinage, some might not believe it will be well thought of but the future numismatic leaders are more accepting of these coins meaning the future is bright. Older numismatists may not like what has been happening to U.S. coinage, but years down the road the future for their popularity seems bright, albeit without the values of pre-modern coinage because of the differences in metals used and their ample supply.
I’m bored with what is coming out of the U.S. Mint and looking at the interesting collector coins coming out of other mints who are being more innovative with their designs. Where the U.S. Mint has produced one ultra-high relief coin, the Royal Canadian Mint has three high-relief coin designs for 2011.
I’m bored with the themes of the coins coming out of the U.S. Mint. While the Medal of Honor Commemorative is a worthy coin and one of the few good designs to come out of the U.S. Mint, but I am fascinated by what some of the other mints are doing. The Mongolia 2011 500 Tugrog Endangered Wildlife silver commemorative features the Ural Owl struck in high relief with an antique finish and Swarovski Crystal Eyes. This is part of the same series that produced the 2007 Wolverine coin that was named the 2009 Coin of the Year. It also was a high relief coin with an antique finish and Swarovski Crystal eyes. We have great artists in the United States, why can’t the U.S. Mint create coins like this?
Why can’t the U.S. Mint celebrate the history of auto making in the United States the way Tuvalu celebrates Classic Sports Cars or great American motorcycles the same way Somalia did in 2007?
My late mother was a fan of impressionism. She could tell you anything about the artists and the art of that era. One day, I showed here the 2007 Niue Island Van Gogh rectangular silver dollars and thought the design was one of the neatest things she saw. Every time I see on online I am reminded of her interest in a coin when she was not a coin collector. Could we interest others artists if the U.S. Mint created coins honoring American artists? Can you imagine what could be done with Georgia O’Keeffe’s flowers, Andy Warhol’s pop art, or even Louis Comfort Tiffany’s glass designs? These could become popular collectibles and generate significant seignorage for the U.S. Mint.
The reason why the U.S. Mint is behind the rest of the world is because of congress. Congress has taken its power to coin money and has clutched it in such a pedantic manner that it has turned the U.S. Mint into a tired looking organization that is falling behind the rest of the world. Although as a factory for circulating coin, the U.S. Mint produces more coins than any other world mint, they are losing the potential seignorage and artistic prestige to other mints that are producing interesting coins that people want to collect.
There is nothing in the constitution that says the U.S. Mint has to be structured the way it is. All we have is 219 years of “this is the way we wrote the law” that binds the United States to a system that is questioned every few years.
One idea is the model an independent U.S. Mint after the operating model of other world mints. One example that could be adopted is to model a new public corporation after the Royal Canadian Mint. While the RCM is required to produce circulating coinage for the Bank of Canada, they have a little more freedom to produce a portfolio of non-circulating legal tender coins that appears to have a broad appeal. Since many of these NCLT coins are made of precious metals, collectors and investors have been purchasing the RCM’s coins as investments.
As a public corporation, the U.S. Mint would continue to be required to supply circulating coins to the Federal Reserve, maintain the American Eagle Bullion program, and the current commemorative program. As a public corporation, they could add support for additional NCLT coins coins that could compete with other world mints to sell coins with great designs.
I realize that this is a very high-level idea of a new future for the U.S. Mint that requires additional details but it would be a waste of time to pursue this further. Given the personalities in congress who would have to approve such a measure, the chance of this happening is the same as the chance of ending the printing of the one-dollar note.
Before commenting on the CCAC Blueprint Report, I would like to note that the report has not been formally published by the U.S. Mint. It appears that the report was sent via email to a number of people who requested a copy. When I received a copy, I posted it here for the public to see. It appears as if the U.S. Mint takes an arms-length approach to the CCAC with regard to its support which shows in the lack of public information disseminated about the CCAC. While I appreciate the U.S. Mint Public Affairs Office sending a copy of this report, they should be more proactive in providing information about the CCAC to the public.
Also, it is not known whether the CCAC is accepting comments about the report. Page iii indicates that this is a final report and was transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury. This is a shame since the document should clearly have been reviewed by others before its transmittal. While they could reject comments, accepting reviews from another perspective may have been helpful to tighten their sound recommendations.
Since they have not indicated whether they are accepting public comment, I am providing my commentary in this blog post. I will be contacting those CCAC members whose email address I know and point them to this commentary. I ask that they share this with the other CCAC members. They are invited to provide commentary to this blog post or contact me privately for further clarification. I am willing to help in anyway I can.
As with all my blog posts, comments from my readers are always appreciated!
Introduction In 2007, speaking before the delegates at the International Art Medal Federation (Fédération Internationale de la Médaille d’Art or FIDEM) in Colorado Springs, then U.S. Mint Director Edmund Moy announced his vision “to spark a neo-renaissance for coin design and achieve a new level of design excellence.” But during design reviews by the United States Commission of Fine Arts and Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee during 2010, it was noted that the U.S. Mint was falling short of Director Moy’s goals.
The subcommittee’s work is document in the report, A Blueprint for Advancing Artistic Creativity and Excellence in United States Coins and Medals that was approved by the CCAC as their official position on January 19, 2011. This 62-page report, of which the first 22-pages is the report with the balanced supporting Appendices, describes the reason the CCAC felt it needed to write this report, their findings investigating the issues, and recommendations for improvement.
While reading the documented investigation into the process’s of the U.S. Mint, it reads like the U.S. Mint is a typical federal government agency whose entrenched processes created many years ago are continued today because “that’s the way we’ve always done it.” The biggest flaw is that the Sales and Marketing Department is in charge of the coin design process. While this might have made sense many years ago, as the report points out, there is a conflict between the goals of the Sales and Marketing Department and the artistic nature of the coins produced by the U.S. Mint. Further complicating the situation is that the Sales and Marketing Department does not include someone with an artistic background overseeing the decisions.
Another part of the U.S. Mint bureaucracy is the Design Working Group (DWG) whose function was to coordinate manufacturing time tables and interface with stakeholder groups. Since the creation of the Artistic Infusion Program (AIP), the DWG has managed those artists and coordinating with the U.S. Mint Sculptor-Engravers. However, the report notes that the DWG does not include anyone with an artistic background.
CCAC’s Recommendation #1 The CCAC’s first recommendation is to remove the Sales and Marketing Department from the design process and abolish the DWG. Rather than these groups controlling the artistic design process, the report recommends that the U.S. Mint forms an Coin and Medal Design Department (CMDD) whose Division Chief has an artistic and management background. The CMDD would include all artists and include the management of AIP artists, management of stakeholder relations, and management of the die creating functions (Dies, Tools and Digital Control). While some may see this as the proverbial “shuffling of deck chairs,” it makes sense for the U.S. Mint to combine these functions under one manager and eliminate potential interdepartmental issues that occur within government agencies.
Although this is a sound recommendation, it appears that the recommendation continues to promote a bureaucratic approach for this new organization by creating three Associate Division Chiefs (ADC) to manage each of the major functions. While the ADC of Designing and Engraving should be the “Chief Engraver of the United States Mint” and the ADC of Dies, Tools and Digital Control should be a technical oriented person, it is questionable that the ADC for Stakeholder Relations is necessary. All the report says about the current stakeholder relations is that it is part of the Sales and Marketing Department without describing the basic job function and the level of effort to perform that job. Unless the CCAC and U.S. Mint can justify that the level of effort would require a full-time ADC, it would seem that the external contact and the person best suited to for this function would be the CMDD Division Chief. In fact, it should be recommended that this function be taken on by the CMDD Division Chief until such time as the level of effort is too great for this person to handle.
The report recommends that the DWC be replace by an interdisciplinary group to coordinate artistic and manufacturing schedules, a group referred to as the Timetable Task Force (TTF). According to the report, the TTP would be made up of representatives of Office of Chief Counsel, Sales and Marketing Department, and the Manufacturing Department and “should perform the scheduling function and advise the Art Director on historical, legal and technical matters.” This is absolutely the wrong approach to “fixing” what is wrong with the design issues. The design process already has too many inputs into the process. In order to provide more artistic freedom for the artists to create good designs, it is highly advisable to remove as many obstacles as possible. All design decisions including consulting with outside stakeholders (including the Office of Chief Counsel) should remain within the CMDD and managed by the Division Chief and Chief Engraver. The TTF should only concern itself with the timetable necessary to that will take the law passed by congress and have it manufactured, marketed, and sold to the public. The TTF should be limited to one representative of each department with the authority to speak for that department. Having worked in a federal government environment, having a large group of stakeholders meet is unwieldily and leads to a bad decision making process.
CCAC’s Recommendation #2 The CCAC’s recommendation to provide more artistic freedom for the U.S. Mint Sculpture-Engravers and improve the requests for proposals (RFP, the “call for artists”) for the Artistic Infusion Program is a necessary change the U.S. Mint needs to implement. The report rightly calls for the end of the practice U.S. Mint artists call “trace and bake” where artists are given materials to reproduce rather than rely on the artists talents.
It was surprising to learn that the U.S. Mint artists are not offered addition professional training, the opportunity to attend seminars or workshops, and are not allowed to attend artistic exhibits of coin and medallic art. The CCAC recommends that this change to allow U.S. Mint artists to advance themselves and promote their fine work. Funding must be set aside to support continuing education and promotion of the U.S. Mint’s talented artists. However, the recommendation does not include members of the AIP. Although the AIP artists are technically contract workers to the U.S. Mint, they should be afforded some opportunities to attend seminars and workshops that would benefit their work as part of the Artistic Infusion Program. While these opportunities would be offered on a lower scale than those offered to the full-time Sculpture-Engravers, it would benefit the U.S. Mint for these artists to be able to participate.
Although left out of the Summary section (Section 5), the recommendation for changes in working conditions in Section 4.3 is a key issue for artistic creativity. While the U.S. Mint should provide better working conditions by removing the cubicle farm and creating a studio-like design, the CCAC should have recommended that artists be given the opportunity to participate in a telework program. Missing from the report’s recommendation is how the U.S. Mint would implement “Telework Enhancement Act of 2010” (Public Law 111-292; 124 STAT. 3165) the could help improve the working environment of the U.S. Mint’s artists. Signed by President Obama on December 9, 2010—prior to the publishing of this report—the law calls for agency to “establish a policy under which eligible employees of the agency may be authorized to telework” within 180 days of enactment. The CCAC’s report should recommend that the U.S. Mint Sculptor-Engravers be allowed to telework in their own studios away from their current office at the Philadelphia Mint with a requirement to work at the Philadelphia facility for a certain amount of time to ensure appropriate collaboration. Not only would this provide the artists an opportunity to work comfortably, but it would help the U.S. Mint comply with the new law and begin compliance with the Presidential Memorandum “Accountable Government Initiative” of September 14, 2010.
CCAC’s Recommendation #3 The CCAC recommends that they and the CFA be more integral in the design and review process. After commenting on reducing the bureaucracy in Recommendation #1 (above), this recommendation by the CCAC will only increase it in the name of alleged oversight. First, the CCAC does not say how it will change its process in order to work within the schedule the U.S. Mint might require. Instead, the CCAC recommends that “[production] timelines should be designed to recognize the role of these groups.” Unfortunately, the CCAC does not recognize the will of congress that could force a change in normal scheduling practices by passing a coin-related bill the same year as the coin is produced. While this situation does not effect current production, it has happened in the past and is not recognized by the CCAC.
Routinely, the CCAC decries the U.S. Mint’s scheduling and how designs are thrusted upon them for their approval in order to meet production requirements. What the CCAC has not considered is that their own schedule of monthly meetings that may not fit an active manufacturing process. While all the employees are working daily to manufacture the coins and medals, the CCAC meets once per month in a scheduled three-hour morning session to conduct its business. Waiting for the CCAC to meet in order to gain their concurrence has to wreak havoc with production scheduling. It places the CCAC on the schedule’s critical path of the U.S. Mint’s design and manufacturing process. The CCAC should not be on the critical path. If the report is to hold the U.S. Mint accountable for improving its process, the CCAC must consider their own process improvement to support the changes. As part of these reforms, the CCAC should support Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 and consider holding virtual meetings as necessary to aid the U.S. Mint in its production process. In fact, as a public committee, the CCAC should extend their use of this technology to make the meetings and discussions more accessible to the public rather than requiring interested parties to travel the the U.S. Mint’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Further, the CCAC does not include verification from the CFA that they would be willing to participate in this process or has the flexibility to work within the U.S. Mint’s schedule for manufacturing the coin or medal. It should not the CCAC’s place to volunteer the CFA’s time and effort without their concurrence.
Second, the CCAC recommendation asserts itself too far into the design process. For most of the commemorative and bullion designs, the narrative is provided in the law passed by congress. Thus, there is no reason for the CCAC or CFA to be involved in those discussion. Where a narrative is necessary, it should be held with the stakeholders are previously recommended. Inserting the CCAC and CFA will add to bureaucratic process. Once the narrative is created, having the designs reviewed by the CCAC and CFA should remain part of the process. Reviews should be in the form of recommendations and not mandates. Artists should have the ability to reject recommendations for artistic (fitting the narrative) or technical reasons (ability to strike the coin properly) remembering that the law says the final decision rests with the Secretary of the Treasury—and by extension the Director of the U.S. Mint. However, as it was stated above, the CCAC and CFA must become more flexible in their scheduling so as to support the timeline requirements of the U.S. Mint.
The goal of this recommendation is to reduce the bureaucracy giving the artists freedom to be creative and not change the bureaucratic structure.
Additional Recommendation It is unfortunate the the CCAC report does not properly address the bureaucratic nature of the design process and seek to reduce it or its impact on coin designs. While the above commentary attempts to reduce the bureaucracy there is one aspect of the coin design process that the CCAC does not discuss: why does it require two external committees to review coin and metal designs?
The CFA was established in 1910 to give expert advice to the “Federal and District of Columbia governments on matters of design and aesthetics, as they affect the Federal interest and preserve the dignity of the nation’s capital.” Their work consists of monitoring architectural development to historic buildings, statues, monuments, memorials, and other artwork in the public spaces in and around Washington, D.C. They also provide “advice to the U.S. Mint on the design of coins and medals.” In fact, their review of the coin and medal design is their only review that does not include physical development in Washington, D.C.
The CCAC was established in 2003 to provide a dedicated committee review all coin and medal designs replacing the Citizens Commemorative Coinage Advisory Committee, which only reviewed commemorative coins.
It seems that if both committees are doing the same work, it makes sense to consolidate the work into one committee. Since the CCAC is dedicated to advising the Secretary of the Treasury on coin and medal design and is only a part of what the CFA does, it makes sense to eliminate the review of coin and medal design from the CFA’s jurisdiction. This consolidation would also comply with the president’s Accountable Government Initiative.
Eliminating the CFA’s role in coin and medal design should not require an act of congress. The law that governs the CFA (40 U.S.C. §§ 9101–9104) does not mention coin and medal design as part of its jurisdiction. However, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) does include coin and medal design under the section for Statutory and Executive Order Authority (45 C.F.R. § 2101.1(d)). Since coin and medal design review is not a statutory requirement for the CFA, it should be recommended that the Secretary of the Treasury request that the President issue an Executive Order to remove this requirement from the CFR as part of the Accountable Government Initiative and reduce the bureaucracy.
A Final Thought I have never hidden the fact that my professional experiences involve working with the federal government. Although I have never worked with the U.S. Mint, I am familiar with the bureaucracy of other bureaus within the Department of the Treasury. Using my understanding of the bureaucratic nature of these agencies and my background in public policy, I hope the CCAC will consider my recommendations to help improve the subcommittee’s report so that they reach their goal of improving coin and medal design at the U.S. Mint.
Following my post asking if the U.S. Mint was hiding the CCAC subcommittee report, I contacted their Public Affairs Office. After two days, a representative sent a copy of the report to me via email. I thank the U.S. Mint for their assistance.
The document has been uploaded on Scribd, an electronic document delivery service. Scribd allows you to read the report online, download it to your computer, allow you to directly print it to your printer (remember, it is 62 pages long), and share with others. In fact, you should share it with as many people as you think would be interested! Just click here to read the document on Scribd or use the reader, below.
I have not read the report as I write this. I will read it and report on my impressions shortly.
In a subtle way, the U.S. Mint announced the retirement of Chief Engraver John M. Mercanti after 36 years with the U.S. Mint.
The announcement was made in a tribute video to Mercanti as the U.S. Mint’s first post to their YouTube Channel. The video includes former U.S. Mint Director Ed Moy, and Sculpture and Engravers Don Everhart, Joe Menna, the back and side of Charles Vickers.
When asked what he will do in retirement, Mercanti said he will write a book, represent or consult with other mints and similar organizations, and he wants to be involved with educating young numismatists. “I think there’s a history in coins,” Mercanti said, “and I want to put that out there and I want to work with a lot of young people to get that history out there and inspire them to collect. I think that’s important.”
Note to the American Numismatic Association: it would be in the organization’s best interest to contact Mercanti to get him involved with his educational desires. Mercanti wool be an asset to the ANA in areas like the Summer Seminar or at the conventions. In fact, with the new fall National Money Show that will be held in Pittsburgh, why not invite Mercanti to cross the state to be a featured instructor during the show. It would be a real incentive for me to make the 5 hour drive from the D.C. area to attend the show!
Today’s agenda includes the review and consideration of the draft report “A Blueprint for Advancing Artistic Creativity and Excellence in United States Coins and Medals.” Last June, the CCAC formed a subcommittee after being consistently frustrated with “overall disappointment with the poor quality of the alternatives presented for the 2011 commemoratives” and reminding the Director Edmund Moy that he wanted “and intend to spark a Neo-Renaissance of coin design and achieve a new level of design excellence that will be sustained long after my term expires.”
Earlier today, CCAC Member Donald Scarinci tweeted, “CCAC will hopefully adopt the design excellence subcommittee report today. The info in it might be shocking to some, but all accurate.” While wondering what was so shocking, I asked Scarinci if the report will be release to the public today. He said yes. However, given the low information aspect of the CCAC’s website, I hope the report is given prominent place on the front page.
If you cannot attend the meeting you can follow along as Donald Scarinci tweets from the meeting. You can follow Donald at @scarinci on Twitter.
As a result of the the president signed the National Baseball Hall of Fame Commemorative Coin Act (Public Law No. 112-152 [TXT][PDF]), the U.S. Mint is required to hold a competition for the design of the obverse (heads) side of the three coins that will be issued as part of the set. The law states:
Loading ...
