The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee Public Meeting Monday, June 27, 2016 Colorado College, Colorado Springs CO In attendance: Mint Personnel: Mary Lannin, CCAC Chair Betty Birdsong Robert Hoge Pam Borer Erik Jansen Don Everhart Michael Moran Ron Harrigal Steve Roach April Stafford Jeanne Stevens-Sollman Megan Sullivan Donald Scarinci Greg Weinman Dennis Tucker *Robert Gilpin - North Light Commission Block Island Thomas Uram *Bob Krumenaker - Apostle Islands National Lakeshore Herman Viola * indicates telephone attendee Heidi Wastweet 1. Chairperson Lannin opened the meeting at 6:02 pm. 2. Chairperson Lannin offered thanks from the Committee to Kim Kiick, Susan McMillan and Amber Bradish of the American Numismatic Association for hosting and making arrangements for this meeting. 3. Committee member Donald Scarinci asked for a moment of silence in memory of Chester L. Krause. 4. Letters to the Secretary of the Treasury were approved. A motion was made by Chairperson Lannin to approve the minutes from March 15, 2016 and were seconded by Erik Jansen. A mistake in the previous minutes on a missing second on the 2017 high relief was noted by Committee member Erik Jansen. 5. Heidi Wastweet, a member of the sub-committee on voting, summarized the work that she, Erik Jansen and Michael Moran developed in fine-tuning the traditional voting procedure. A summary is as follows: Recommendations: - Scoring Overall, we are of the opinion that our basic selection system (unlimited 0-3 score with a threshold of greater than 50% of possible score to achieve recommendation), is not broken and does not need to be replaced. Rather, we suggest simple refinements. After much discussion we concluded that achieving both objectives (selection and feedback) in a single step was inevitably working against itself. Therefore we suggest two parallel steps... In this proposal, each member will be asked to essentially make two passes as they mark their preprinted ballot. The first column will be the same 0-3 score we have always had. A second, new column, is a simple checkbox for "merit". A merit is given to all designs that a member deems admirable and wishes to acknowledge without diluting the scores for their favorite picks. This frees members to concentrate their scores for only their top preferences. Any design with a score greater than zero automatically receives a merit. All merit votes would then be tallied and reported back to the artist for the sole purpose of feedback. Members are still urged to score designs based on strength of quality. (3 = excellent design, strong preference. 2 = adequate design 1 = minimal support.) Designs of equal appeal should receive equal scores. - Culling As further streamlining we suggest re-instituting the initial culling practice to save time and minimize negative comments. Culling eliminates from discussion, any designs that no members support. All designs, regardless of any culling, would remain viable for a merit. - Variations of Designs In the cases where multiple designs are presented as mere variations of essentially the same design, we have observed these can unfairly compete against themselves or cause confusion. (e.g. Effigy Mounds) While we greatly appreciate seeing these variations, we suggest the Mint present them together on the score sheet for a single score. If such a family of designs prevails as a selected design, the specific variation choice could be managed in a simple show of hands vote. - Scoring Pairs We also love seeing designs presented as pairs. If two paired designs are both selected based on their own individual content, the system of selecting the best art is working. If a member likes the pairing it should be reflected in their score. Therefore we recommend no change to our current scoring system Pairs should be presented as pairs but listed individually on the score sheet. In summary - Add a merit column - Concentrate scores - Reinstate culling practice - Consolidate variations - Score paired designs independently 6. April Stafford of the U.S. Mint reviewed the reverse designs for the 2018 America the Beautiful Quarters Program. a.) Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore - Michigan MI-01 2 MI-02 1 MI-03 11 MI-04 3 MI-05 3 MI-06 0 MI-07 0 MI-08 8 MI-09 12 MI-10 0 MI-11 0 MI-12 25 MI-13 0 b.) Apostle Islands National Lakeshore - Wisconsin A motion was made by Michael Moran, seconded Erik Jansen and passed by the Committee to request new designs from the Mint. No design was recommended to the Secretary of the Treasury. 16 7 14 9 0 0 12 0 0 WI-01 WI-02 WI-04 WI-04A WI-05 WI-05A WI-09 WI-10 WI-11 c.) Voyageurs National Park - Minnesota MN-01 19 MN-03 8 MN-04 0 MN-05 8 MN-06 20 d.) Cumberland Island National Seashore - Georgia GA-01 2 GA-02 5 GA-03 30 GA-04 0 GA-05 14 GA-06 1 GA-08 1 GA-09 0 GA-10 0 GA-11 0 GA-12 0 GA-13 0 GA-14 0 e.) Block Island National Wildlife Refuge - Rhode Island RI-01 8 RI-02 11 RI-03 0 RI-04 0 RI-04A 0 RI-05 1 RI-06 0 RI-07 7 RI-08 8 RI-09 0 RI-10 26 RI-11 0 7. Regarding the two Obama Presidential Medals, Donald Scarinci made a motion, seconded by Michael Moran, to use BO-T1-O-01 paired with BO-T1-R-01 for the first term medals, and BO-T2-O-01 paired with BO-T2-R-02 for the second term medals. The motion carried unanimously. 8. April Stafford introduced Ron Harrigal of the United States Mint to discuss the palladium bullion coin, authorized by Public Law 114-94 (Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act). This act authorizes one troy ounce bullion, proof and uncirculated .9995 palladium coins with a face value of $25. The obverse is to be a high relief likeness of Adolph Weinman's 1916 winged Liberty, familiar from the "Mercury" dime issue, paired with Weinman's high relief eagle, originally designed for the 1907 American Institute of Architects (AIA) gold medal award reverse. The bullion version, with a standard wire-brush finish, is NOT to be made at West Point, as stated in the law, but the proof version may be made at West Point, with surface changes to distinguish it from the bullion version. The proof coin is an optional product. There is no start date for the bullion product. Research and discussion with the only other mint producing palladium, the Royal Canadian Mint, are underway. Planchet size, grain size, hardness and upset profile are issues that need to be addressed with Mint staff and potential vendors. 9. April Stafford updated the Committee on the 2017 High Relief Gold 24 Carat Gold Coin and Silver Medal. Edge-lettering for the 225th Anniversary of the Mint will be spaced evenly on the gold coin to complement the dual date on the obverse. 10. Committee members took questions and noted comments from members of the audience. 11. Chairperson Lannin adjourned the meeting at 9:30 pm.
@FedFRASER