Options
Article: "Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee Recommends Improved Coin Design" - Could it
Goldbully
Posts: 16,990 ✭✭✭✭✭
Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee Recommends Improved Coin Design
By Steve Delahoyde on January 24, 2011 7:01 AM
If coins in the US suddenly become great looking over the next couple of years, know that you have the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee to thank. Unless you’re a collector or work in the industry, it’s likely you’ve never heard of the organization, but ever since 2003 when Congress put them in place to help advise the Secretary of the Treasury on any design proposals, they’ve been there trying to get the best looking coins into circulation. However, the Committee has apparently been unhappy of late, citing a number of recent coins they felt lacked any emotion or quality design, as well errors made in historical selections (e.g. using the wrong emblem for a coin honoring the Army). Following meetings this past fall, the Committee has drawn up three recommendations they’d like to see the Treasury and the US Mint put into practice:
•Take the artistic design process out of the hands of the sales and marketing department and put it in the hands of an art director.
•Create an environment for Mint artists that inspires creativity.
•Integrate the roles of the CCAC and Commission of Fine Arts earlier in the design selection process.
The recommendations were sent late last week to the Secretary of the Treasury for review. Says the chairman of the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, “If we really want excellence in coin design then we need to create an environment that fosters that.” We wish them the best of luck.
Link
By Steve Delahoyde on January 24, 2011 7:01 AM
If coins in the US suddenly become great looking over the next couple of years, know that you have the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee to thank. Unless you’re a collector or work in the industry, it’s likely you’ve never heard of the organization, but ever since 2003 when Congress put them in place to help advise the Secretary of the Treasury on any design proposals, they’ve been there trying to get the best looking coins into circulation. However, the Committee has apparently been unhappy of late, citing a number of recent coins they felt lacked any emotion or quality design, as well errors made in historical selections (e.g. using the wrong emblem for a coin honoring the Army). Following meetings this past fall, the Committee has drawn up three recommendations they’d like to see the Treasury and the US Mint put into practice:
•Take the artistic design process out of the hands of the sales and marketing department and put it in the hands of an art director.
•Create an environment for Mint artists that inspires creativity.
•Integrate the roles of the CCAC and Commission of Fine Arts earlier in the design selection process.
The recommendations were sent late last week to the Secretary of the Treasury for review. Says the chairman of the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, “If we really want excellence in coin design then we need to create an environment that fosters that.” We wish them the best of luck.
Link
0
Comments
The report provides recommendations for artistic improvement and specific changes, including organizational modifications, necessary to implement improvement. It is hoped this will be one of the top items on the new Director's to-do list. The CCAC is prepared to assist in any manner possible.
The full report is publically available. Questions can be sent to the CCAC web site, attention chairman Gary Marks.
I find it illogical that all sorts of different interests want to have their input
on a St. Gaudens-like renaissance of coinage design.
The original renaissance of American coinage circa 1907 was due to a President
(Roosevelt) giving one person (St. Gaudens) control of the entire design process
with basically no interference from anyone.
When multiple people impose their thoughts on designs, the result is inevitably
the lowest common denominator of their collective scattered vision.
Not that the Mint does.
TD
<< <i>Art never has, and never will, function by committee.
I find it illogical that all sorts of different interests want to have their input
on a St. Gaudens-like renaissance of coinage design.
The original renaissance of American coinage circa 1907 was due to a President
(Roosevelt) giving one person (St. Gaudens) control of the entire design process
with basically no interference from anyone.
When multiple people impose their thoughts on designs, the result is inevitably
the lowest common denominator of their collective scattered vision. >>
The genius of designer Paul Rand's thoughts on design and its process certainly could be applied to coin design today:
"The roots of good design lie in aesthetics: painting, drawing, and architecture, while those of business and market research are in demographics and statistics; aesthetics and business are traditionally incompatible disciplines."
"Expertise in business administration, journalism, accounting, or selling, though necessary in its place, is not expertise in problems dealing with visual appearance."
"A serious barrier to the realization of good design, however, are the layers of management inherent in any bureaucratic structure."
I recommend folks read the report, then offer meaningful insights and suggestions.
<< <i>Art never has, and never will, function by committee.
I find it illogical that all sorts of different interests want to have their input
on a St. Gaudens-like renaissance of coinage design.
The original renaissance of American coinage circa 1907 was due to a President
(Roosevelt) giving one person (St. Gaudens) control of the entire design process
with basically no interference from anyone.
When multiple people impose their thoughts on designs, the result is inevitably
the lowest common denominator of their collective scattered vision. >>
Word.
Although given the reality of the present-day situation, I commend the CCAC for recognizing the problem, and seeking to do 'something' about it.
I also think a major hindrance to the current state of U.S. coin design, are the Presidential portrait mandates... with all due respect to the great men whose likenesses appear on circulating coins, none aspired to be "beauty contest winners" - (not to mention the fact that at least Washington & Jefferson would have abhorred the notion of seeing their portraits on U.S. coins, as they both viewed the practice of placing leaders on coins too akin to the monarchical system of government they were trying to break away from.) At their inception at the time of the first Mint, the designs of U.S. coins were intended to be forward-looking, inspirational, the embodiment of American ideals... in contrast, when I look at the circulating coins we have today, that have not substantially changed in generations, I see tombs.
Lastly, IMHO, before the design of a coin can become relevant, the coin itself must be relevant. A $.01 coin made today has less than 1/200 of the purchasing power that a cent made in 1793 would have had... and yet the highest circulating denomination today is only a quarter. As near as I can tell, U.S. coins today serve as little more than place savers in petty transactions. Personally, I feel that the lowest circulating coin should have a $1 value, and denominations should rise from there. Given the roles precious metals such as gold & silver play in our contemporary economy, and their wild fluctuations, it is unrealistic to think that they could ever be employed in the composition of circulating coins again, however if the cost equation of manufacturing coins to their respective values is adjusted in the manner I suggest, then at least the some of surplus generated could go to improving minting, i.e. use of better planchets & higher reliefs.
>>>My Collection
<< <i>The purpose is to have an work and evaluation environment where creative people can "create" fresh designs that better express the themes and meanings of the subjects stipulated by Congress. It is foolish to try and fit the CCAC report within some absurdity as "design by committee."
I recommend folks read the report, then offer meaningful insights and suggestions. >>
I've read the report and can certainly support the first two major recommendations. However, I have trouble with the third, which will permit even MORE individuals in on the early stages of the design process. Correct me if I am misunderstanding this point, but wouldn't that contribute to an even greater stifling of creativity? After all, how many members on the CCAC have a background in the visual arts? I can see them perhaps at the beginning stages - assisting in the development of narratives, etc., but I would hope that once the artists are given the green light, both the CCAC and CFA get out of the way and permit the newly established art director to his/her job: art direct.
<< <i>Art never has, and never will, function by committee.
I find it illogical that all sorts of different interests want to have their input
on a St. Gaudens-like renaissance of coinage design.
The original renaissance of American coinage circa 1907 was due to a President
(Roosevelt) giving one person (St. Gaudens) control of the entire design process
with basically no interference from anyone.
When multiple people impose their thoughts on designs, the result is inevitably
the lowest common denominator of their collective scattered vision. >>
My thoughts exactly Dan. It's extremely difficult to get a group of folks to agree on anything much less the design of a coin. The reality is that "artistic impression" is as varied as coin grading "opinion" and "design by committee" amounts to nothing more than "group consensus" which may or may not have public appeal.
Besides, how many different ways are there to depict a Dead President's bust?
The name is LEE!
I'm a coin collector / lover and am all for improvement of design but the thought of tax dollars funding a think tank for coin design pretty much thoroughly disgusts me. I hope this is a voluntary, love of the hobby kind of thing. In that case I'm all for it.
John
Never view my other linked pages. They aren't coin related.
<< <i>I just spent some time on the CCAC website and cannot determine if the CCAC members are paid or not. They are Congressional appointees (some) which makes me think there is money involved.
I'm a coin collector / lover and am all for improvement of design but the thought of tax dollars funding a think tank for coin design pretty much thoroughly disgusts me. I hope this is a voluntary, love of the hobby kind of thing. In that case I'm all for it.
John >>
I believe that they get reimbursed for expenses such as Per diem when travel is required. I could also assume that a conference line and/or web meeting software is setup for group discussions over coinage design submissions.
It would be easy enough for an all volunteer committee but you just never know with Government.
The name is LEE!
As to allowing earlier consultation (not review and decision) on designs: a persistent problems has been that production schedule are very tight. If there is a problem with a design, there is very little opportunity to fix it. The earlier consultation allows for corrections when it is easy to do. We also expect the Art Director to give the artists much greater guidance and source materials than at present.
The quality of the AD person is key.
I'm a government employee with a slashed budget for Fiscal Year 2011 and am much more finely attuned to waste than I used to be.
I was once told to stay at a staging base in Kuwait after coming out of Iraq rather than proceed to an airport hotel to save literally a couple hundred dollars. I went to the hotel anyway and expected a war with the pencil pushers but the war never came. There are times and places to save a buck but not off the back of someone just rolling out of the war zone.
Travel costs for a Congressional appointed committee are okay by me.
John
Never view my other linked pages. They aren't coin related.
<< <i>Art never has, and never will, function by committee.
I find it illogical that all sorts of different interests want to have their input
on a St. Gaudens-like renaissance of coinage design.
The original renaissance of American coinage circa 1907 was due to a President
(Roosevelt) giving one person (St. Gaudens) control of the entire design process
with basically no interference from anyone.
When multiple people impose their thoughts on designs, the result is inevitably
the lowest common denominator of their collective scattered vision. >>
Indeed. I have often thought that is the reason why so many of the state quarter designs look like haphazard collages of clip art.
I found the article in CW very interesting. Especially the part about SaM (Sales and Marketing) having full control over the subjects, material acquisition, design, and even supplying the raw art for the engravers to 'copy', or as the article calls it, "Trace and Bake".
If the info in CW is accurate, this explains a lot of what is going on with the mint. Pure mismanagement and absurd delegation of responsibilities. May as well eliminate the engravers, etc, and just use Photoshop.
Positive BST Transactions: kalshacon
<< <i>The CCAC report was the work of a special subcommittee, of which I was a member, and was approved by the entire CCAC. The Commission of Fine Arts and others also had input and contributed to the findings.
The report provides recommendations for artistic improvement and specific changes, including organizational modifications, necessary to implement improvement. It is hoped this will be one of the top items on the new Director's to-do list. The CCAC is prepared to assist in any manner possible.
The full report is publically available. Questions can be sent to the CCAC web site, attention chairman Gary Marks. >>
This is great and a highly laudable and important goal in itself.
But I think it would be best implemented in conjunction with a few other fundamental
changes. Our coinage system is obsolete. It won't be long until it doesn't matter what
is on the coins because they'll hardly be used at all. Eliminate the penny. Switch the
nickel to aluminum. Get the $1 coin in circulation.
Secondly mintages are low due to structural changes in coin usage as well as the slug-
gish economy. Even if we had beautiful new designs we'd hardly see them since new
coins aren't getting into circulation like they used to. So take the vast savings on pen-
nies, nickels and dollars and pull the old worn and thin coins out of circulation and recoin
them in the new designs. Since production will be far lower and there will be far less
stress on production capacity on th floor and the die shop (aluminum dies last far longer)
it will be possible to slow the presses and have higher relief. In five or ten years a sig-
nificant portion of circulating coinage wil have the new more attractive and higher relief
designs and the old heavily worn and cull coins will be mostly gone. Coinage will look
a lot bettr just getting the zinc oxide off of peopls' hands and the ugly cents out of their
face.
Total cost would be quite nominal and even negaitive if the cents are recalled for proper
disposal or recycling and the nickels are removed for their metallic value. The lowered
cost of mint operation and BEP printing would easily pay for th transition and we could
have coinage of which Americans can be proud for the firt time in nearly fifty years.
<< <i>The CCAC report was the work of a special subcommittee, of which I was a member, and was approved by the entire CCAC. The Commission of Fine Arts and others also had input and contributed to the findings.
The report provides recommendations for artistic improvement and specific changes, including organizational modifications, necessary to implement improvement. It is hoped this will be one of the top items on the new Director's to-do list. The CCAC is prepared to assist in any manner possible.
The full report is publically available. Questions can be sent to the CCAC web site, attention chairman Gary Marks. >>
...And thank you for your efforts.
It would be wonderful just to get more nice attractive designs in circulation.
<< <i>The design difficulties evolved over several years. We hope to be much more timely in making corrections. Still, it will take months before improvements begin to show....one cannot "snap" their fingers and make it happen. >>
I'm with you, RWB!!!
All the best!!!!
GB
By Les Peters on February 7th, 2011
On June 28th, 2010, in response to the lackluster designs the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) was seeing during their reviews, Chairman Gary Marks formed a subcommittee on Coin Design Excellence, with the assignment to “develop a comprehensive set of recommendations addressing design quality to the Secretary of the Treasury regarding all future theme and design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, commemorative coinage, congressional gold medals and national and other medals produced by the Secretary of the Treasury.”
Eliza Johnson candidate design criticized by CCAC for historical innaccuracy.
The type of sewing machine depicted was not yet invented.
On January 19th, 2011, the result of their efforts was reviewed by the full committee, and unanimously approved. CoinUpdate had previously reported on the live tweets from Donald Scarinci from that meeting, but here is the summary of their recommendations from the actual report:
RECOMMENDATION #1:
That all responsibility for artistic design be removed from the United States Mint Sales and Marketing Department and that the Design Working Group be abolished. We recommend, instead, that the position of Art Director be created and that an interdisciplinary group (we will refer to it as the Timetable Task Force (TTF) for brevity) be established to coordinate and streamline the artistic and manufacturing schedules.
RECOMMENDATION #2:
That the status of the United States Mint Sculptor-Engravers be elevated, that their creativity be encouraged and utilized in design projects and that the current call for Artistic Infusion Program request for proposals (RFP) be substantially revised to elevate the creative qualities of originality and innovation to the same level of importance expressed in the current RFP for the basic competency requirements of technical draftsmanship.
RECOMMENDATION #3:
We recommend changes in the methodology for design review at the CFA and the CCAC and we recommend that the United States Mint contract with an outside historian for assistance with historical accuracy of designs.
The full CCAC Report A Blueprint for Advancing Artistic Creativity and Excellence in United States Coins and Medals can be accessed here.
CoinUpdate Link
TD
<< <i>Thanks for the update!
TD >>
You're welcome Captain......sounds like these guys are taking matters to the next level!!!!
I'm sure most(99.9%) forum members are proud to have Roger Burdette on the CCAC.
I'll add one more....we are lucky to have him on this forum and sharing his numismatic expertise.
RWB CCAC Link Still waiting for your 'mugshot!"