A Thought For The Incoming Director of the U. S. Mint

[leeg]

From a letter written by C. S. Ridley, Major, Corp of Engineers, Secretary and Executive Officer of the U. S. Commission of Fine Arts to the Hon. Raymond T. Baker, Director of the Mint dated September 7, 1920:

 

"Memorial coins should represent in the very highest degree the ability of the United States Mint. These coins, if well-designed and well-executed, become a portion of American history. If ill-designed and poorly executed, they are a reflection on American taste. It is not an answer to say that these coins quickly disappear from circulation and are lost to the world, - rather the assertion is in itself an argument for a perfection of our coinage, because the fine coins of the world belong quite as much to history as they do to numismatics, and they endure for centuries."

 

This letter was written giving the reasons for rejecting, and giving improvement recommendations, for the initial design of the Plymouth (Pilgrim) Memorial Coin.

 

I feel that the incoming Director of the U. S. Mint needs to return to these values for our Memorial Coinage.

 

Just wanted to share.

[cpm9ball]

From a letter written by C. S. Ridley, Major, Corp of Engineers, Secretary and Executive Officer of the U. S. Commission of Fine Arts to the Hon. Raymond T. Baker, Director of the Mint dated September 7, 1920:

 

"Memorial coins should represent in the very highest degree the ability of the United States Mint. These coins, if well-designed and well-executed, become a portion of American history. If ill-designed and poorly executed, they are a reflection on American taste. It is not an answer to say that these coins quickly disappear from circulation and are lost to the world, - rather the assertion is in itself an argument for a perfection of our coinage, because the fine coins of the world belong quite as much to history as they do to numismatics, and they endure for centuries."

 

This letter was written giving the reasons for rejecting, and giving improvement recommendations, for the initial design of the Plymouth (Pilgrim) Memorial Coin.

 

I feel that the incoming Director of the U. S. Mint needs to return to these values for our Memorial Coinage.

 

Just wanted to share.

 

Major Ridley should have been a 6-star General!

 

Chris

[Razor2k]

So much of yesteryears *Honor and Integrity* seems to be lost in todays world.

 

Hopefully the incoming director will brush up on his history and act accordingly.

[Conder101]

I think Ridley should have remembered that it is the job of the Commission of Fine Arts to criticise the designs, make suggestions, and try to request new designs if all are unacceptable. If the designs are bad do not give them your approval. The Director does not design the coins, he does not decide what the theme of the design will be, he is not even part of the approval process. He might play a part in the imput on the designs with the artists while the designs are being created but that is all. (The Director probably has a lot less imput on the designs today than he did back in 1920)

[RWB]

If the CCAC or CFA withhold a recommendation, the designs go forward anyway.

[Conder101]

Yes I know they do but it does or at least can cause a rethink if there is enough time. I believe some of the early state quarter designs went back and forth several times between the artists and the committes before they were finally approved. More recently the designs have come so close to the issue date that there isn't time for that. It isn't a for sure way of getting a change, but it is the best we have.

[RWB]

You're right about the schedule impacting quality - too many special issues and not enough time to do them right.

[DC Dawg]

You're right about the schedule impacting quality - too many special issues and not enough time to do them right.

Then maybe it's time to do it right. Why do we have both the CCAC and the CFA reviewing coin designs? Yes, I know the CFA has been doing this for quite some time, but if you you look at what the CFA really does, they look at buildings, architecture, parks, and the like around DC. The only non-architectural type of work they look at are coins. And if you look at some of the comments in their minutes, you will find that some of them may not know which side of the coin is up!!

 

Maybe it's time we get the CFA out of the business and just let the CCAC do this job. The CCAC seems to have more qualified people to judge coin and medallic art than the CFA. So let's see if we can lobby congress to get the CFA out of the coin art business. We can reduce the lead time by at least a month!!

 

[leeg]

ScottB brings up a good point.

 

Back in the day, the CFA had a sculptor member. None of the current members of the CFA has this background. I also looked at the current members of the CCAC and they seem much more qualified to make decisions on the artistic value of our coins.

 

In late 1951 there was a dust up between the Acting Director of the Mint, Leland Howard, and the CFA. The CFA approved the design for the Washington-Carver Commemorative Coin without a model being sent to the Mint to ensure the Engraver did not have any concerns in the manufacture of the coin.

 

In this case, the Engraver did have some concerns. The Engraver stated that the designs were unsuitable for coinage, especially the reverse side. There were several other concerns the Engraver had.

 

Due to this, the CFA sent a letter to the Director of the Mint stating that in the future the procedure the Director of the Mint recommended, namely, that models for memorial coins be first approved by the Bureau of the Mint would be followed.