Full text of Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee Meetings, Recommendations, and Minutes : Meeting, November 22, 2013 : Transcript

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

1
United States Mint
Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee
Meeting
Friday, November 22, 2013
The Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee met in
Conference Room A, 2nd Floor, at 801 9th Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C., at 10:00 a.m., Gary B.
Marks,
Chair,
presiding.

2
CCAC Members Present:
Gary B. Marks, Chair
Michael Bugeja
Erik Jansen
Michael Moran
Michael Olson*
Michael A. Ross
Donald Scarinci
Jeanne Stevens-Sollman
Thomas J. Uram
Heidi Wastweet
United States Mint Staff Present:
Steve Antonucci
Tom Bernardi*
Betty Birdsong
Don Everhart
Michael Gaudioso*
Joe Menna
Bill Norton
April Stafford
Megan Sullivan
Greg Weinman

3
Contents
2014 American Eagle Coin Program

4

2014 First Spouse Coin Program

35

Tally of First Spouse 2014

74

2015 March of Dimes Coin Program

76

2015/2016 First Spouse Themes

92

Visual Definition of Design Excellence

107

4
Proceedings
(10:10 a.m.)
2014 American Eagle Coin Program
Chair Marks: Calling this Friday, November 22nd,
2013 meeting of the Citizens Coinage Advisory
Committee to order.
Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here.
Michael Olson, are you on the line?
Member Olson: Yes.
Chair Marks: Okay. So Michael is joining us via
telephone.
The first item on our agenda is the discussion of
letter and minutes from the previous meeting. You
were just handed the minutes from the October
18th meeting. So I would suggest that later in our
day, we circle back and take a motion to approve
the minutes. I won’t ask you to do it on this short of
order. And we’ll just approve the letter at the same
time.
So with that, we can move down to review and
discussion of candidate designs for the 2014
American Eagle Platinum Coin Program.
And, April Stafford, can you give us your report,
please?
Ms. Stafford: Yes, sir. Before we do that, if I could
just ask whoever is, has called in to the meeting,
can you identify yourselves, please, for the record?
Mr. Gaudioso: Hi. This is Mike
sculptor/engraver in Philadelphia.
Mr.
Menna:
Joe
sculptor/engraver.
Mr. Bernardi: And
sculptor/engraver.

Tom

Menna,
Bernardi,

Gaudioso,
Philadelphia,
lead

acting

5
Member Olson: This is Mike Olson, CCAC member.
Ms. Stafford: Okay. Thank you. It is 31 USC
5112(k) that grants the Secretary of the Treasury
the authority to mint and issue platinum bullion
coins and proof platinum coins. The specifications
and designs are left to the Secretary’s discretion.
Beginning with the coin’s debut in 1997, American
Eagle platinum proof coin designs have depicted the
Statue of Liberty on the obverse. The reverse
designs of the platinum proof coins change from
year to year.
In 2009, the United States Mint introduced a
year platinum proof coin series that explores
core
concepts
of
American
democracy
highlighting the preamble to the Constitution of
United States.

six
the
by
the

This program examines the six principles of the
preamble: 2009, to form a more perfect union;
2010, to establish justice; 2011, to ensure domestic
tranquility; 2012, to provide for the common
defense; and in 2013, to promote the general
welfare.
The 2014 designs which we’re considering today are
based on a narrative by Chief Justice Roberts on the
meaning of the sixth principle, to secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
The reverse designs in previous series have
featured eagles supporting the American Eagle
Brand. So to balance the goals of brand identity and
artistic freedom an American Eagle privy mark
appears on the reverse design of these coins.
Required inscriptions are United States of America,
.9995 platinum, $100, and one ounce.
So today we have a total of 12 reverse designs for
your consideration.
In designs 1 and 2, liberty releases a dove, giving it

6
the greatest blessing, the freedom to become
independent. I’m sorry. We’ll have to pause for a
second. Okay.
So I know that all of the Committee members have
the correct designs in their binders. Shall I continue
while we’re sorting out, making sure we have the
right slide presentation or shall we pause to see
how long this might take?
Chair Marks: Yes, I think keep going.
Ms. Stafford: Okay. And so if you would like me to
pause so that you can reference the larger designs
that you’ve printed out in your binders, I can do
that. So again, in designs 1 and 2, liberty releases a
dove, giving it the greatest blessing, the freedom to
become independent. So we have designs 1 and
designs 2.
And if you can refer to design 3 in your binder, it
depicts the blessings of knowledge, plenty, peace,
and freedom surrounding the central figure of
liberty. The lamp of learning is held in the hands of
posterity. And again, that was design 3. Will you
reference design 4 in your binder, please? This
design depicts the blessings of liberty being freedom
and prosperity represented here in design 4 by a
dove alighting on a young girl’s hands and a swag of
fruit and grain. Again, that was designed 4.
If you could reference designs 5 and 6? Okay.
Designs 5 and 6 depict a granite monument
inscribed with the Latin phrase Libertas Perpetua
and United States of America, symbolizing the
permanence of liberty as one of our nation’s ideals.
The blessings of liberty are represented by the
shade of the liberty tree elm. Lady liberty harbors a
young boy and girl who represents America’s
posterity. So here is design 5 and 6.
In design 7, liberty holds a child representing our
posterity. The child reaches for the torch of liberty
aspiring to hold it.

7
In design 8, America, a young nation stands on high
ground with the Constitution held in her extended
hand. The Constitution is surrounded by 13 stars
symbolizing the beginning of our nation. She cradles
an olive sprig in her left arm. Design 9 shows
America striding confidently into the future guided
by an eagle of freedom and protected by the
Constitution.
In design 10, lady liberty passes her torch to two
contemporary American children. The children firmly
grasp the torch with both hands, securing it for the
future.
Design 11 depicts a young liberty carrying her
torch high. Her youth symbolizes the hope and
promise of the new America, while the gentle
landscape symbolizes harmony, pleasure, and
sociability, blessings that flow from a government
that ensures freedom passes from one generation to
the next.
And in design 12 -- which was the CFA’s preference
-- the hands of liberty plant a sprouting acorn into
fertile soil as a symbol of securing the blessing of
liberty. As the tree matures, it will produce its own
acorns ensuring that these blessings are secured for
years to come. The preamble to the Constitution
was also planted, so to speak, with this last phrase
and allowed our nation to sprout from the 13
original colonies to a strong nation of 50 states.
So if it’s okay, I’ll just ask that we go back and we
can just flip through those one more time so that
the members can see them on the screen.
Starting with design 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
and 12.
Chair Marks: Thank you, April.
A technical question. On the descriptives of each of
the designs, for number 9, it reads “Guided by a
dove of freedom.” I just noticed you called it an
eagle.

8
Ms. Stafford: I did.
Chair Marks: I didn’t think it looked like a dove. But
is it intended to be an eagle?
Ms. Stafford: Yes, sir. We had fun with that
yesterday at the CFA meeting and it is, indeed, an
eagle.
Chair Marks: Okay.
Ms. Stafford: Not a fierce dove. Yes.
Chair Marks: Okay. Thank you. Are there other
technical questions before we do our artistic review?
Member Jansen: Is there a requirement to have an
eagle on this coin? And is that satisfied on the other
side?
Ms. Stafford: I mentioned in the introduction the
use of the privy mark, American Eagle privy mark.
So that would satisfy the tradition of having -Member Jansen: And the privy mark is on the
obverse? Because I don’t see a privy mark on -Ms. Weinman: It’s added in.
Member Jansen: It’s added in? In a particular place,
way, or -Mr. Bernardi: This is Tom. The privy mark is always
on the reverse.
Member Jansen: Okay. So we don’t see in these
designs where the privy mark would be applied?
Ms. Stafford: It’s added in after.
Ms. Weinman: It’s a very small privy mark.
Member Jansen: I -Ms. Weinman: And number two, it’s not a legal
requirement, it’s a traditional requirement. It’s just
because the American Eagle series -- Member

9
Jansen: Is that anything that was discussed at the
CFA as to where a privy mark might be put on this?
So that’s just at the discretion of the sculptor?
Ms. Stafford: Correct. Similar to the initials, the
placement of the initials, yes, sir.
Member Jansen: Thank you.
Chair Marks: Other technical questions? Any?
Okay. Since there aren’t any more then we’ll begin
our review process. And I’ve asked Michael Bugeja
to begin.
Michael.
Member Bugeja: Thank you Mr. Chair.
Chair Marks: Oh, excuse me, Michael. I need to do
something first. Usually, we go through a process
when we have a dozen or so designs and then we
go to the initial cullings. And I wanted to do that,
first. I apologize, Michael, for the false start there.
I think we’re all familiar with this process. I’m going
to hold up each design and, hopefully, they can
coordinate up on the screen. And if we want to
review a design then we only need one member to
indicate that they wish to have it reviewed. But if I
hear no interest then we’ll set those particular
designs aside. And we’ll focus our time on those
designs that we have interest in.
So beginning with number 1. Okay. There’s interest
in that. So we’ll consider number 1.
Number 2. No interest in that one. We’ll set that
one aside.
Number 3. Setting 3 aside. Number 4.
Yes. We’ll consider that one further.
Five.
Considering 5. Number 6?

10
Member Jansen: Similar, yes. Chair Marks: Seven?
Eight?
Nine. Nine? Setting nine aside. Ten? Setting 10
aside.
I will say yes to 11.
Twelve.
Okay. We’ll consider number 12. Okay.
So for the record, we have remaining for
consideration 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12. And I’ll
ask the members to make note of that. And let’s
focus our energies there.
So with that, I will recognize Michael.
Member Bugeja: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In going through designs, what I look for are ample
fields, movement, and orientation.
And this particular design has it, the free dove, a
more multi-cultural look. We’ll see even more multicultural looks, which I approve of, as an icon of
liberty a little bit later.
There’s ample fields. Coming from Iowa, I would
say that when you’ve been living next to 31 acres of
a county park and water, be careful about eagles
and doves. Okay. Be real careful. Use a privy mark
and but make sure it’s an iconic privy mark. Enough
said on that score.
But I thought this had clear fields, the mottos are
balanced, there’s movement, there’s flight, and a
nice iconic liberty-like woman.
Going to number 4, I thought a lot of the bounty
was ornate, perhaps too ornate, and took up too
much of the field. I, you know, a lot of the fields
here are -- have fillers. And if you’re going to put a
privy mark somewhere here, again, it’s going to be
even hard to find where to place it.

11
Though one thing that I wanted to bring attention to
was Morgan’s design of the Morgan dollar, where he
has so many different symbols and devices. But
they are not as large as this to make such an
impact. And they are woven into lady liberty’s cap
there. They are small. You can be ornate but when
you expand the ornateness of something like this,
it’s taking away from the dove. It’s getting busy
with the iconic liberty. The mottos are large. The
whole effect, to me, is unappealing.
The next one, I really liked because
more modern stylistic design to it,
ethnic faces, which we seldom see
and which now are the majority of
United States.

it had some, a
combined with
in our coinage
citizens of the

I liked it for a lot of other reasons too. There are
some fields in here. I’m not, you know -- the tree
does give a little depth and satisfies as a tree of
liberty as well.
I would be open to perhaps reducing the monument
a little bit and the fonts a little bit to see if that
helps.
I think the United States of America legend is too
large and detracts from the other devices that have
more symbolic appeal.
So in other words, there are things that I like here
but I think it can be improved. Perpetual liberty is
very nice.
I have the same comments on the next design.
The number 7, we are considering and I did not -this did not appeal to me. It didn’t appeal to me for
a couple of reasons.
One, I’ve seen this before. We have the waving flag,
we have, you know, the newborn, with what looks
like laurels in his hair.
There are a lot of -- I can’t remember the medal but

12
maybe Heidi or Mike will remember it. It came out
right after the Revolutionary War. And it depicted a
lady liberty striking down British rule and the, kind
of a baby portraying the United States. Do you
remember that particular medal? I wish I had it, I
wish I could remember the name of it. It came out
right after the Revolutionary War.
And so actually the baby does represent -- doesn’t
necessarily represent future generations, in my
mind.
Now the next one is 8, is -- my first impression was
wow. I really like it. And then I backed away. It’s
kind of a liberty as super hero. And then it
approaches the glitchy. But then I’m thinking, well
you know what? Liberty probably is the ultimate
super hero. And so I went back and forth on it. And
I just decided to go with my gut feeling. When I saw
it, it just was striking to me.
The movements, the striding, the 13 stars. And
there’s an example of devices used economically
which is, you know, everything at about what she’s
carrying and what she’s wearing, it looks like a
superwoman cape. You know what? It pushes the
edge but I think it made an impact because it
pushed the edge.
The number 11, you know, the first thing I thought
of was the Olympic torch. I didn’t think of anything
else. I don’t -- this is unappealing. Sun rising, we’ve
seen all that before. There’s a road. It must be the
yellow brick road. I’m not sure what that is.
And you know, I’m going to hear it from others on
this but I absolutely thought 12 was the worst of all
the designs.
And I want to say why from a numismatic
perspective. It’s bad. The stars, you don’t need to
do that. You put them on the edge or you don’t
make it a rim. They have two rims, two borders. If
you look at the hands and the borders that go
there. And from a numismatic perspective, this is

13
just filler.
And the idea of planting an oak tree for future
generations on a $100 coin, you know, it looks
something out of a gardening manual. It’s a
magazine design.
I can see why the CFA picked it but from a
numismatic perspective, I have absolutely no liking
for it. Sorry.
Chair Marks: Thank you, Michael. We’ll go to
Donald.
Member Scarinci: You know, I think, I wish the CFA,
you know, would really take a little more time and
explain why they pick what they pick. And I think,
you know -- and I want to talk about this for a
minute. You know, and I think we have to ask
ourselves why did they pick this one? You know, it’s
obviously not good. You know, it’s not obviously not
something, you know -Ms. Stafford: Mr. Scarinci, we actually do have
feedback specifically about why they chose this or
recommended this design.
Member Scarinci: Oh, go ahead.
Ms. Stafford: Sure.
Member Scarinci: I’d love to hear it.
Ms. Sullivan: It’s just the notes that I took in the
meeting. So, they thought it was powerful. Then I
also have, it’s precise and straight -- concise and
straightforward. It’s a strong statement. They think
that the figurative can be problematic. They liked
the symmetry in the image and they said it was a
poetic and simple idea.
Member Scarinci: And they think the imagery of the
others would be problematic?
Ms. Sullivan: They just said that the figurative
images --

14
Member Scarinci: The figurative images. Okay.
Ms. Sullivan: -- could be problematic.
Member Scarinci: I suspect -- and that’s what, that
was my thought -- I suspect that the reason they
chose this one is because it’s the only one that’s not
a figurative image.
And I think the problem with all of the others, you
know, and you know, is that we, you know, we
seem to want to, we seem to want to keep redoing,
you know -- we all love Saint-Gaudens. And we all
love Weinman. And we all love these classic
designs. We love them. Right? They are, you know,
as kids, we loved them, we collect them, you know,
we grew up with them, we adore them. You know,
but, you know, at some point, you know, we really
all have to acknowledge that Adolph Weinman is
dead. Right. You know, you know, like, it’s over. So
you know, so we really have to move on.
You know, and you know, and I think, and I think,
you know, the problem with all the others is they
just, you know, they’re never going to, you know -it is as impossible today to duplicate Weinman and
Saint-Gaudens as it would be if Weinman and SaintGaudens were alive today to produce something
that any art gallery in New York would show. I
mean, that’s reality. I mean, the aesthetic, you
know, the what is art? It’s absolutely different.
And so I think, you know, I think until we get that,
until we get, accept this, all right, you know, that if
you want to depict liberty, you know, depict liberty,
you know, attempt to depict liberty in a new and
modern way. And you know, and the icons of the
torch, you know, and all of these classic elements,
you know, they had their place, they had their time.
And you know, we’re, you know, I mean, we dress
liberty. I mean, if we’re going to take a woman and,
you know, dress her like this, at least put her in
designer clothes. I mean, put her in something that
you’re going to see a contemporary woman wear. I

15
mean, I don’t know what this even is. It’s not a, it’s
not -- I don’t know what it is. You know, it’s Greek?
It’s ancient Roman? I don’t know.
I mean, I just don’t think we should be going there.
So you know, I’m actually going to vote for the ugly
one because, you know, I just can’t see -- I just
don’t want to give you any more encouragement to
do this kind of stuff. I mean, it’s got to stop.
I mean, so that’s my comment.
Chair Marks: Heidi.
Member Wastweet: That’s a tough one to follow,
Don.
Before I talk about the individual pieces, I want to
make two comments about the artwork overall. Two
trends that I’m seeing here. We’ve been asking over
and over to see symbolism and now we are seeing
symbolism. And I want to thank the artists for
giving us more symbolic images. Now, we need to
use the correct symbols.
The United States coinage has a very specific
language of symbols. The lady liberty, the olive
branches of peace, the oak leaves of strength, the
victory cap, the arrows, the bundle of unity, these
are -- it’s a language that’s been established. So
let’s not mix up our symbols.
The theme here is the blessings of liberty. But we
have symbols of prosperity, doves of peace, eagles
of -- and the oak leaves which are supposed to be
strength, not liberty. So let’s think a little, and like
Don said, let’s come up with some new symbols that
are speaking to a contemporary nation. The second
trend that I’m seeing overall is these designs look
like they were drawn and then put in the computer
and then, oh, yes, we got to put some words around
it. The word is -- if you look at the historic coins,
the words were part of the design. Let’s think a little
more strategically about where the words go, how
they incorporate into the design. They are design

16
elements. It’s not just a picture with words put in
afterwards and around it.
On design number 1, as I said earlier, we’ve got a
dove that stands for peace, not liberty. And we’re
sending mixed messages.
The same with 4. We’re talking about peace and
prosperity in our symbols here, not blessings of
liberty. In fact, we have to use the words blessing of
liberty because the image is not speaking for itself.
It’s a nice drawing if we were talking about peace,
and bounty, and prosperity. I don’t think it’s
speaking to the subject that we’re looking for.
Designs 5 and 6, I like that the words here are
incorporated into the design. I think that’s a plus.
The composition is nice. The flow of characters. But
I cannot get past the awkward physiques of the
characters. They’re just, I’m sorry, they’re ugly. And
I can’t get past that. There is no grace, there’s no -even though we have some ethnic representation -it’s not enough to reach our bar of excellence.
Design number 7, I hesitate to say this because it’s
a bit crude, but I’m afraid people are going to look
at this and think the Statue of Liberty got knocked
up. Somebody had to say it.
Member Ross: Not that there’s anything wrong with
that.
Member Wastweet: Not that there’s anything wrong
with that. Does she have a ring on her finger? I
don’t see a ring on her finger. We’re in trouble with
the church.
I’m sorry. We got off track. Let’s go on to design
number 8, please.
Member Ross: Please, let’s go on.
Member Wastweet: I think this is a beautiful design.
We have the forward movement, we have the wind,
these are all great elements. And it does speak to

17
our subject which is the blessings of liberty. It is in
the form of a document really. It comes from the
government’s writing of our stated liberties in this
country. And so it is on topic with the symbolism.
It’s not necessary that we have a branch of olives
which represents peace. That’s getting off topic a
little bit.
It is very classic looking. It’s not modern. It’s not
daring at all. It’s very safe. It would be okay. It’s
not very encouraging though. We’re looking for a
little more innovation here.
So going onto 11, this was actually the one that
stood out to me. I like this design. This is my
favorite.
We don’t see a lot of children on our coins. So it is a
little different. Symbolically, I think this hits the
mark, the blessings of prosperity. It’s talking about
leaving this for our children to ensure that this gets
carried on beyond us. And this girl, to me, looks like
the torch has been handed to her and now she’s
bearing the weight of it. There’s gravity in this
picture, there’s wind, there’s motion, she’s moving.
It’s got all the elements there.
The sun speaks of hope for a new day. It’s a classic
symbol. It’s on target. It’s not necessarily needed. I
think it speaks enough without the sun. But I’m
okay with it.
I like this design. I think it’s drawn very well. It fits
well in the series. If we look at what we’ve done so
far in this platinum series, I think this fits in well
with the whole series. It’s not too far away but it’s
unique enough.
Design number 12, I, too, did not like this design.
The oak leaves are symbols of strength and it
makes me think of military strength. It doesn’t
make me think of liberty at all. I think it’s
completely off-topic symbolically.

18
That concludes my remarks.
Chair Marks: Thank you, Heidi. Just a word on
mixed messages. You know, I’ll cut the artists a
little bit of slack here. I think what they’re trying to
do with some of these messages is they’re trying to
portray what those blessings of liberty are. And
peace is one of those. And I think it’s how we get a
dove.
I think the problem is that we’re getting a little
extended out there a little far. And it creates
designs that I think they’re hard to readily interpret.
So look at 1, I don’t suppose I have a whole lot to
say with that. It doesn’t move me. And I also want
to be careful as we think about the fact that we’ve
got five other prior-year designs that all come out of
the preamble to the Constitution. And we’d like this
last coin to be one that fits well into that set. A
number of these, I don’t feel like they would.
Number 1, I just can’t find a lot to be excited about.
It’s not particularly bad but I don’t -- I just don’t
like it. Number 4, I think it’s interesting but I think
there’s too much going on. There’s not a central
focus to it.
And I’ve said this before many times. To me, it’s all
about the art. And when we start relying on text to
convey our message, it signals, to me, that there
might be a weakness. There are exceptions to that
but I’d prefer we didn’t have the words blessings of
liberty in there and trust in our artwork to convey
the message. I’m not going to support number 4.
Number 5 and 6 are interesting. They look like they
come out of the Art Deco period. However, Art Deco
would not have had figures like this. So it’s like
we’re trying to put modern ethnic images into an
Art Deco piece. And to me, it just doesn’t, it doesn’t
gel. So I can’t support 5 and 6.
And it would be kind of a, very much a design
departure from what we’ve seen the other five

19
images from the five prior years.
Number 7, I just struggle with this one. It just -the word cliché comes to mind with this. I have a
hard time wrapping my mind around liking this. I
don’t know.
Putting the flag in the back, I think it clutters the
field. If you had to go with this design, I’d rather
just clear the field and just focus on the human
figures and the torch. I can’t support that one.
Eight is interesting. I don’t know it for a fact, but
I’m guessing, and because I’m guessing I’m
probably wrong, but I’m guessing that this is the
same artist who did the 2013 Platinum that’s now
being sold. This one is dramatically classical.
And while I appreciate the art, it’s beautiful, I’m not
sure it’s the direction we want to go. Last year’s, I
really liked it. But it was, it was very classical, yes,
but it was presented in a modern way with the
gears and the composition in its totality.
But 8 is not one that I can support.
I’ll go to number 12 and come back to number 11.
Number 12, for the reasons stated by the others for
not liking this, I’ll ditto all of those ideas. I simply
don’t like this one.
I’m not sure what that conveys to someone who
doesn’t have a little cheat sheet to read about. It
looks like Earth Day to me, a coin commemorating
Earth Day. I don’t think it commemorates the
blessings of liberty to us and our posterity.
Now on the other hand, number 11, I really like this
one, like Heidi stated. I, too, like this one. If we’re
going to do liberty in a female form, it’s wonderful
to portray a young child as liberty. We’ve never
seen that before in American coinage. The torch to
me, as was said earlier, the torch didn’t look like
anything in particular. I know immediately that’s the

20
torch from the Statue of Liberty. That’s the torch of
freedom. Obviously, it’s been passed to her as the
next generation.
There’s some traditional icons in there with the
rising sun, relating a bright future under freedom.
Perhaps that road is -- I don’t think that’s the yellow
brick road and thank God we don’t do color. Perhaps
that’s the road to freedom. I don’t know. But the
landscape is something reminiscent of the Midwest,
I think, which is nice.
I think this would coin up early nicely as a proof
with a lot of the negative field in the background on
the upper portion of the coin. I think, especially with
some of our frosting technology that Steve and his
crew developed, I think they could do some
wonderful things with this design.
So I believe this is the gem and, yes, Donald, it’s
not as modern as some of us would like, I’ll admit
that. I would like to see even, you know, something
more imaginative. But given the set that we have
here, Donald, I’ll ask you to, if you’re going to vote
for, if you’re going to give three to number 12,
could you pitch me a vote or two on 11? Because I
think I think this one is worthy and I truly hope that
this is the one that we see our way to approve.
And then just hopping to 12 very quickly, I
neglected to say this before. I hope the message is
coming through clearly and I hope it can be
conveyed to Treasury who makes the ultimate
decision on this. At the very least, this is
controversial. I think with one group really liking it,
thinking it’s wonderful, and our group panning it,
and our group being more representative of the
collector community, I think you’re headed for
danger with this one. I don’t think this one will sell
well, at all. Particularly, if you’re not just buying
platinum. I’m sure platinum people, some of them
don’t care. They just want to buy the metal. But for
those of us who would buy this because of its art
and its collectible value, it’s not here. It’s ugly.

21
So with that, I’m going to recognize Michael Olson if
he’s on the phone still.
Member Scarinci: Before Michael, can I -Member Olson: Yes, I certainly am. Good morning.
Chair Marks: Michael, hold on just a minute. Just a
minute. Donald wanted to interject something.
Member Scarinci: A technical request. Is it possible
-- you made an excellent point about -- and I hadn’t
really thought of that. The rest of the coins on the
series. Is it possible to put the slide you have of all
the other coins on the other screen while we’re -- is
that -- -Chair Marks: It’s right there.
Member Scarinci: Oh, no, yes. Is it possible to keep
this one up while we display another one?
Ms. Sullivan: I can -Member Scarinci: If it’s possible -Ms. Sullivan: -- well, I can check.
Member Scarinci: -- if it’s possible. If it’s not, it’s
okay.
I mean, I think, if we can keep coming back to this.
I think that was a really really really important
point, you know, that this is a series of six and it
does kind of need to go with this.
Chair Marks: Yes. And that tree has nothing to do
with that.
Member Scarinci: Right. The tree would absolutely
not work. Okay.
Chair Marks: Okay. That’s one of those intellectual
tests where they give you six images. Which one
doesn’t belong? I think it would be the tree.
Member Scarinci: Yes.

22
Chair Marks: Okay. Anyone who has the average
IQ, it would be the tree, it doesn’t belong.
Member Scarinci: Right.
Ms. Sullivan: He cannot do that. He’s -Member Scarinci: Okay.
Chair Marks: Okay. Are you done, Donald?
Member Scarinci: I’m done.
Chair Marks: Okay. Michael Olson.
Member Olson: All right. Good morning. I want to
reiterate a couple of comments that I’ve already
heard. I like Heidi’s comment regarding the fact that
it looks like some artwork was done and, oh, hey,
wait, we’ve got some texts we need to put in here,
let’s find a place to jam it in.
That seems to be fairly prevalent in this design. And
I will not comment on all of the ones that are up for
consideration. I’m going to reserve my comments
for only three designs.
I’ll start with number 8. Number 8 does have some
appeal for me. The thing that I really liked on 8 was
the stars surrounding the declaration. And I think
there’s a lot of symbolism there. That is a beautiful
design. However, it is very classical.
Onto number 12, Gary hit the nail on the head. I
happen to collect these. And if my choice next year
is dirt, hands, and a weed, I’m not buying it. As you
stated, there’s a -- without a crib sheet, you don’t
know what’s going on there. And we can do much
better than that. And we have.
I’m looking at the sheet that has all 12 designs on
it, in our binder. And when I opened to this page,
number 11 took command and literally leapt to my
attention immediately. There’s a lot of good in
number 11. It’s a vibrant fresh design. It symbolizes
youth. And in my opinion, can properly convey the

23
theme that we’re here today to discuss.
There’s no better depiction of a young liberty then
it’s shown on that coin, which we’ve really not I
can’t recall ever seeing before. When I look at that
coin, I see my two young daughters in that image.
It really is depicting liberty as well as youth, at the
same time, it’s looking forward to a hopeful and
prosperous future.
So number 11 will be the only design that will get
any votes from me. And I will give be giving it the
full amount of votes.
That’s all I’ve got.
Member Jansen: Three on 11.
Chair Marks: Thank you, Michael. We go to Erik.
Member Jansen: When I go through these, before
the meeting, I try to get a visual picture on my own
of what I expect, or hope, or believe might be in the
images. And when I went through these 12 images,
having done that, I kind of came up with what my
teenage kids would say, “Seriously?” Blessings of
liberty was a hard charge here. And I think, in
general, was, is totally missed. Blessings of liberty
is a really really hard charge. And so, I think the
artists fell back on the second half of that phrase
and use prosperity, our prosperity, as the anchor
here.
I am appreciative of Heidi’s moving up the bar here
from, okay, symbols, we’ve got symbols. That’s
good. Right symbols. And the dove is the wrong
symbol here.
And so out go number 1 and number 4.
I spoke to keep 5 and 6 in. It is highly reminiscent,
these two designs are highly reminiscent of the
liberty quarter from 16 to 30; is that right? When it
was made? Which I happen to like it.
And I also liked and agree completely with Heidi’s

24
comments about this design has integrated text
with the design. And it has an Art Deco feel.
I wasn’t pleased with the ethnicity or the stature of
the individuals, the young boy is acceptable. They
lack elegance to me. And I think liberty must
convey elegance because I think the concept of
liberty is the ultimate elegance in the truth of life.
And so, unfortunately, whereas I like 5 and 6, for all
those integrated, and iconic, and reminiscent, and
classic, and -- Weinman didn’t do that quarter,
Donald. Who did that quarter?
Member Scarinci: MacNeil.
Member Jansen: Okay. I think he’s dead too, I
guess. So I wanted to like 5 and 6 but I can’t get
there.
I will let Heidi’s description of 7 just remain in
infamy.
Number 8, to me, is -- and with all due respect I
think I know who the artist is here, and I spoke with
that artist recently, and that artist has some strong
feelings that I’m about to oppose. I think this design
is the absolute worst product of computer aided
design that we could possibly produce. I think this
design number 8 tells us exactly why we need to be
afraid, very afraid of computer aided design on our
designs. This looks to me like a -- this is a pay stub.
This is not a piece of art.
The body is out of proportion. Those silks don’t look
like silks. They look like rags to me. The flag is lost.
The face is so flat as to convey -- actually destroy
emotion.
Obviously, number 8 will not get any support from
me.
So I come down to, seriously? Number 12 is a -- I
mean, Earth Day, that’s the best description I get of
it. Earth Day. The plant is not attractive. It doesn’t

25
look like it’s anything in particular. The acorn is
totally lost in the ir-resolve-ability of the detail on a
coin this size. The stars are a bizarre noise. They
just contribute noise to the design. Seriously?
And so I end up on 11. And I like the idea. The
icons are right. There’s one thing on 11, I mean, it’s
actually, like, this is, this could almost be like wow,
1897, flowing hair, it’s back.
The one thing that concerns me is her expression.
What is she? Is she afraid? Is she -- what is she? I
mean, has she never seen fire before?
I’m going to support number 11, but, I mean,
seriously?
Member Ross: I thought the aliens had arrived and
we were about to give up all our freedom.
Member Jansen: Yes, yes, yes. It’s like, okay, here’s
our fire, leave us the wheel. Okay.
So I’m going to support 11 because I don’t dare go
out with no support and let history deliver us a
platinum coin with a tree on it.
And the last comment I will make is, if you pop up
the last five years again -- can we do that? Now,
this is the first time I’ve actually gotten some
mental emotional traction here. If I drop a design
into that lower right-hand corner, number 6, design
number 11 works. It flat out works. Design number
12 is like an IQ test. And, no. So I’m going to
support design number 13 -- or design number -there’s a Freudian slip. Design number 11 solely and
completely, and be done with this.
Chair Marks: Erik, I thank you for your genteel
remarks.
Member Jansen: Genteel, you can count on.
Chair Marks: We’ll go to Michael Moran.
Member Moran: I think that the first problem I had

26
as I started to review these was just what are the
blessings of liberty. And I believe, as I went through
them, I got mixed messages across the board. I’m
not sure that anybody exactly got the blessings of
liberty right

.
The first one that you see up there is definitely, it’s
the dove of peace, the bird of peace. And is that the
blessing of liberty? The sole blessing of liberty? So,
the answer to that was no.
Going to number 4, I guess after listening to
everybody here, I always wondered if I was just
stupid or low IQ. I like this one. Now that I’ve
listened to everybody critique it, I know that I’m
missing some IQ points here. I like the wreath. And
we’ll move on. My vote’s not going to count on that.
I’m going to throw my vote away there.
The next one, I find the fonts here, the mixed fonts
jarring. It bothers me. The other thing that I don’t
like on both of these, this one and on the next one,
and I really don’t understand why we actually got
this, look at her foot. It’s not anchored. It is not on
the steps. And to me, that’s a basic error. You don’t
see any lines of the leg underneath the gown. That
leg is just thrown out there. It’s just like a straight
arrow. So they’re just, there’s too many flaws in
that model. I just dismissed them out of hand, right
there.
Eight -- 7, we’ll just go on by 8. I felt, when I
looked at the this, I needed to go out, it’s 1917, it’s
a time warp, and I’ve got a go buy war bonds. And
it’s Weinman’s walking liberty all over again. Very
close to it. And we can do better. That one needs to
go away.
I’ll skip to 12. You don’t need to put it up there. I
mean, it’s awful.

27
Eleven. The first thing I thought of was sarcasm,
that’s the yellow brick road et cetera. And I couldn’t
get past that in terms of my selection of that one. If
we’ve got the amber waves of grain that might have
gotten it a lot better. I know the road to the sun but
I hope to God it’s not a setting sun.
And this one, I think, there’s some flaws with the
background there. I don’t have Erik’s asked problem
with the expression. I think the torch is iconic and
it’s going to get my vote. I think the -- for the
simple reason when you put it in with the others, if
fits and none of these others do. So there you have
it. Eleven.
Chair Marks: Thank you, Michael.
Go to Tom.
Member Uram: Thank you, Gary. Just make a
couple comments. Number 7 -- first of all, that one
you just had there, number 1, I do like it. I’m not
sure about where it is with the arms but I did like
the comments made regarding the movement and
so forth on it, and the simplicity of it. But I don’t
think the message will get out.
Number 7, though, I kind of like as it relates to the
others because I think actually that background, if it
was frosted properly and done right, I think that the
actual point itself could be a real popping liberty
from being able to do some things with the flag in
the background actually. I think it could pop.
Number 8 was my first look at. And basically if you
took last year’s coin, this is the left version versus
the right version of the one of progress from last
year. Very traditional and so forth. But once again, I
think since we used it last time, I’ll take a pass.
The design 11, I’ve listened to everyone’s
comments so far. And I agree, there are certain
things in there you like, there’s certain things you
don’t like, does it fit in with the whole series, I think
it does. It’s not as popping as I think that number 7

28
would be when it comes to a coin. That’s where I
am on that.
And just to make a comment so that -- on number
12, well, I think when it came to a coin, I heard the
Earth Day comment and I would have just -- I don’t
mind a rim in a rim but I would just use 13 stars
and squared it off and so forth. But what I was -- I
don’t know what those leaves are really going to
look like when they end up on a coin. You could end
up with marijuana on the coin here before this is
over.
Member Moran: That’s what it does look like.
Member Uram: You know, when it struck, it’s going
to be dangerous. So I’m totally off the chart on 12.
So my leanings are for number 11 and number 7.
Chair Marks: Thank you Tom. Jeanne.
Member Stevens-Sollman: Thank you, Gary.
I liked Michael’s interpretation of this and having an
open field. I think it’s a beautiful use of devices.
However, I don’t understand it in terms of being
blessings of liberty. This is like just freeing the dove
and I’m not convinced that this is what we want to
do in terms of representing liberty and its blessings.
I have to agree with my colleagues about, just
about everything.
And I want to make one statement about 5 and 6.
And that’s the text, United States of America. In my
own work, I think text is very very important. And I
don’t feel like the R in this font is correct. It’s like
the smallest thing in America, to squeeze it in there,
I think, I just think that it’s nice that we have text
in this field but it’s so, in my opinion, awfully poorly
represented. So that’s my opinion of that coin.
And I have to go to number 8. It seems to have -you know, when I first saw this I thought wow, oh,

29
this is great, you know. I liked the division of a lot
information on the right side and an open field on
the left side. However, it is, it’s old. It’s just an old
image. And I like the fact, in a sense, that it would
maybe work with the rest of the platinum coins. But
it’s just not, I think, modern enough, contemporary
enough.
So to go to number 11, I liked Michael’s idea that it
would be great to have waves of grain in the back
instead of the yellow brick road. I don’t know if we
can make a suggestion or if we choose this, this is
the one we get.
I like the fact that there is an incredible seriousness
about this young girl in that, yes, she has the
weight of this torch. I think it’s exciting that she has
-- she could be, you know, the one that’s going to
be bearing this for the future.
So in regard to having the oak leaves on number
12, I have to go to number 11 and support that
because it’s probably the clearest, most exciting
piece that we have. And I’d like to think that less is
more. I would like to see less with the yellow brick
road.
Thank you.
Chair Marks: Thank you, Jeanne. Mike.
Member Ross: I think I’m going to reveal why you
really don’t want a historian on this Committee.
Particularly -Member Moran: I’ve are ready taken that.
Member Ross: -- with my sarcastic world view. But
if that is supposed to be liberty, liberty is never
represented as a child. Libertas is the God of liberty
from the Roman era. And the framers looked back
to the Roman Republic because it was the only
democracy in the world. When liberty is portrayed,
it’s always portrayed with a stern face or a face that
inspires people to come to liberty. And in this case,

30
we have liberty deferring to some higher power.
And I think a lot of portion of liberty is not deferring
to some sort of higher power. She looks like she’s
seen a dinosaur in Jurassic Park, or the aliens have
arrived, and we’re about to give up all of our liberty.
But it’s a, it would be, I think -- maybe I’m wrong -but the first depiction of liberty as a child in the
depiction of liberty. And I know Donald once
addressed liberty as Miley Cyrus, and that would be
completely modern. But I think there’s a reason
why American iconography is you stick with
tradition because tradition matters. So I can’t
support the coin.
Particularly, these are kind of important coins.
These aren’t ones that are just going to go off into
the distance. I think you’ve got to stick with
tradition on liberty.
And with that said, I don’t know where I’d go from
there.
But I just want, I want to be the fly in the ointment.
On 11, I think it would be a travesty. Travesty is a
strong word -Chair Marks: Thank you.
Member Ross: –- but I think it would be a problem.
Chair Marks: So we are running about a half-hour
behind. So I’m going to ask us to be efficient in
wrapping this up. We always have some follow-up
comments and I’ll ask if we keep those brief.
I’m going to start one, which made to be just
completely politically gratuitous but the writeup on
11 speaks of a blessing, a blessing that flows from a
government that ensures that freedom passes from
one generation to the next.” I’d suggest that if
we’re trusting in government to pass our freedom
from one generation to the next, we’re in trouble.
And that should read, a Constitution.

31
So with that, are there any other quick remarks?
Member Scarinci: I have one more. And if you could
put the screen up again, the one with the others.
You know, I think that was an excellent, that was a
comment. And as I heard Erik, even further, but I
think by the time we got to Mike, I think Mike, you
know, through me over the top. And I have to go
with number 11. I have to go with number 11.
You know, I think number 11 fits there. And you
know, I kind of like the, you know -- it probably
would be the first depiction -Member Ross: You’re speaking from an era where
we’re used to seeing like Superman as a kid. But
this is liberty. Liberty isn’t a kid.
Member Scarinci: Well, why does it have to -- why
can’t it be?
Ms. Stafford: Well, then we can do all the founding
fathers as children. Let’s do George Washington as
a kid on the next drawing. We could do -Chair Marks: Let’s move this on.
Member Scarinci: Anyway, I think I’m going to go
with, I’m going to go with 11 because I think it fits
best there, in that series. I think it was a good
point.
Member Bugeja: On number 11, which is gaining
lots of traction, I just want to say that, you know,
what is the, number one, what is the need for the
road? Okay. Is it essential to have that road?
And number two, she’s running away from the road.
And this is what I mean about orientation. If you’re
going to keep the road, what if you started turning
her toward the road. And a road and a sun, the
iconic, the iconography of a sun, whether it’s rising
or setting, this looks like a rising sun because the
rays are so large, and then a road to it or a pass to
it is, like a river, it’s a symbol of not quite being

32
there and getting there. So the road, to me, is a
small distraction because she’s running parallel to
the road. And that road, as you see, goes right by
her knee.
And concerning orientation, I wanted to just give an
artistic comment. Earlier today, Mike showed us
some, Mike Moran, showed us some high relief. And
the artistic nature of our coins, with the flatness
that’s there, is just so that they could stack them.
Because 1921, they couldn’t stack the peace dollar.
And we’re not stacking coins anymore. We’re selling
commemoratives. And much of the art that I’m
seeing is almost two-dimensional. You know, it’s not
Caravaggio, it’s more mediaeval. So let’s have some
orientation in that coin, and think about what that
road is.
And when you put that privy, if you’re going to put
that privy mark, figure out a place where it would
best be. So I’m thinking in the classic sense of
numismatics, that privy mark would go on that
torch. Not -- if you put a bird in a field with a sun,
the privy marks are small, but smallness doesn’t
mean that it’s not going to detract. If that privy
mark is on the torch, suddenly it doesn’t matter
where she -- it’s something that we already own.
So that’s what I -- just some comments because
this looks like it’s got a lot of traction.
Chair Marks: Michael, I completely agree with you
about the road. I don’t believe it’s an essential
fixture on that design. In fact, you’re probably
correct, it probably detracts.
Member Bugeja: It distracts.
Chair Marks: Because she’s going perpendicular to
the road actually.
Member Bugeja: Exactly. Exactly.
Chair Marks: And she’s not moving towards the
future of the sun.

33
Member Bugeja: Yes.
Chair Marks: So if this is our recommendation, and I
believe it will be, we may want to consider a motion
to suggest that the road be removed.
So that Greg wanted to make -Ms. Weinman: Actually, the folks in Philadelphia
want to make a couple of comments.
Joe.
Mr. Menna: Yes. You guys are onto something.
Talking about historical depictions of liberty, one
thing that, you know, I went to a very classical
Academy in Russia. One thing my teachers always
told me, it’s not important what you sculpt, it’s
important how. So when you’re talking about
repeating certain types of iconography and symbols,
you’re talking about them from a literal perspective.
What maybe could be considered is, you know,
maybe we can still have these iconic traditional
images but concentrate less on, you know, the hat,
the drapery, this, that, as literal devices and think
more about how they’re treated plastically, how
they’re treated sculpturally. This type of imagery
whether on American coins, or in classical sculpture,
in modernist sculpture, they’ve existed for
centuries. But there’s a difference between the way
Phidias treated a draped woman, from the way
Michelangelo treated, from the way Lehmbruck
treated the same type of figure.
So maybe if we concentrate on artistically designing
these figures with the same types of symbols, but
designing them in a way that it is necessarily
contemporary, just by not trying to copy classical
sculptures but drawing in our own unique styles,
which will necessary place them in our time.
I mean, Michelangelo wasn’t consciously trying to
be a 15th century sculptor but when you look at his
work and the work of his contemporaries, it just is
what it is. They actually -- we call it classical but if

34
you look at a 15th century Renaissance painting of a
biblical theme, they actually painted and drew
themselves
in
very
contemporary
clothing
intermingled with the more traditional Greco-Roman
imagery.
So I don’t know. Maybe it’s how we draw and how
we sculpt these images rather than specifically
what, that will make them more contemporary.
And I thank you for your time.
Chair Marks: Thank you very much. I truly
appreciate those comments. And I would welcome
more in the future from you folks.
Heidi.
Member Wastweet: Thank you. I wanted to just
respond to the fly in the ointment.
When I -- I know in the writeup it says that this is a
young liberty. But when I saw this, I had a different
interpretation. That’s one of the reasons I like this
design is, I think it is open to different
interpretations including her expression could be
interpreted differently. I interpret her expression as
being very serious and trusted. So I saw this, not as
a young liberty, but I saw this as just a young
person representing the next generation receiving
the blessings from lady liberty. I pictured lady
liberty handing her the torch, not her being a young
liberty trying to grow up, but receiving the blessing
of liberty. That’s how I interpreted it.
Member Ross: Then I might take her out of what
seems to be some sort of suggestion of a Roman
robe. Because then you’re tying it to Libertas. And Participant: Yes.
Member Ross: -- if she’s receiving the torch from
the Statue of Liberty, and I don’t know why the
Statue of Liberty is putting the torch down, but if

35
she’s receiving the torch from the statue -- maybe
she’s pregnant -- if she’s putting the torch down, it
would not be to someone in a Roman robe.
Member Wastweet: I don’t see it as a strictly Roman
robe. I think that the drapery is trying to be nontime oriented. It’s not Roman, it’s not modern, it’s
trying to be something in between.
Member Scarinci: Got you, Mike. In the words of
straight -Chair Marks: Folks, we are seriously behind
schedule here. So unless you have a burning desire
to need to say more, I’ll suggest that we have
plenty here.
And I’m going to ask you all to fill out your ballots.
By now, we should all have a very clear idea what
we’d like to do. If we need to revisit this later in the
meeting to have any additional recommending
motions, let’s do that. But if you could fill out your
ballot now, pass that into Erik, that would allow us
to move forward.
And if staff is ready, I would like to present the First
Spouse Program to us.
April.
2014 First Spouse Coin Program
Ms. Stafford: Yes.
Chair Marks: In the interest of time and being
efficient, I’d like to go through all of the obverse
and reverse designs. We’re going to have one stab
at this for each Committee member to make
comments on the totality of the designs presented.
Ms. Stafford: Okay. All right. So, background
information, if it’s agreeable, in the interest of time,
everyone is very familiar with the legislating
authority for this program. So -Chair Marks: Very familiar.

36
Ms. Stafford: -- I won’t repeat that.
You’re aware of the required inscriptions for both
the obverse and the reverse. And the fact that the
same device will be used for both the gold coins and
the bronze medals.
I’ll just remind the Committee that all of these
designs have been reviewed for historical accuracy
by scholars recommended by the White House
Historical Association. Okay.
And for the record, these are the designs for the
2014 First Spouse Program Gold and Medal Designs.
So we’ll start with Florence Harding. She was -served as First Lady from 1921 until her husband’s
death in 1923.
We have three obverse candidate designs. Obverse
1, 2, and 3. Obverse 3 was the CFA’s
recommendation.
Moving on to the reverse candidate designs there
are six to review.
A brief background for designs reverses 1 and 2,
when the Harding’s married, Warren Harding was
the owner of The Marion Star. And when her
husband fell ill, Mrs. Harding took over some of the
duties and continued her work at the newspaper
following his recovery. She is credited with the
inventing idea of paper routes for young boys. So
here in reverse 1 and 2, Mrs. Harding is depicted
with the group of newsboys. Okay.
Moving on, Mrs. Harding was the first First Lady to
cast a vote for her husband for president. She also
realized the power of the women’s vote and strongly
encouraged women to register.
In reverse 3 and reverse 4, Mrs. Harding casts the
vote for Warren Harding for president. So reverses
3 and 4. Reverse 4 is the CFA’s reference. Okay.
Here in reverse 5, Mrs. Harding visits with a

37
wounded World War I soldier. Her appointment
book shows that she often visited wounded soldiers
and sailors who she referred to as “my boys.”
Reverse 6 is done in the Art Deco style popular
during Mrs. Harding’s tenure as First Lady. As she
championed the causes of veterans, the letters
WWV form the torch she carried for the world war
veterans. It’s transformed into a pen at the base
representing her extensive correspondence with
veterans, their spouses, and widows.
The camera represents her orchestration of photo
opportunities and newspaper articles that supported
her husband’s campaign.
And the ballot box represents her distinction of
being the first First Lady to cast the vote for her
presidential candidate husband.
Moving on to Grace Coolidge. Grace Coolidge served
as First Lady from 1923 until 1929.
And we have six obverse candidate designs for your
consideration. Obverse 1, 2, 3. This was the CFA’s
recommended design. 4, 5, and 6.
Moving on to the reverse designs. Reverse 1, as
Mrs. Coolidge was the first First Lady to be depicted
in a talking newsreel, this design depicts the camera
and the inscription, “First in a talking newsreel.”
Reverse 2, Mrs. Coolidge devoted her time to
numerous civic causes including working with the
sick, with children, and with war veterans.
Next, Mrs. Coolidge advocated for the deaf and hard
of hearing.
Reverse 3, which is the recommended design from
the CFA, depicts three hands finger-spelling the
letters U.S.A. in American sign language against the
backdrop of a White House.
Next, inspired by Mrs. Coolidge’s work with Helen
Keller, reverse4 depicts Mrs. Coolidge meeting with

38
a young visually impaired girl.
Next, Mrs. Coolidge promoted many groups
including leadership and community service
activities for boys and girls. Here in reverse 5, Mrs.
Coolidge and their family, and their family dog greet
young girls visiting the White House.
Next is Lou Henry Hoover who served as First Lady
from 1929 until 1933. We have four obverse
candidate designs. Obverse 1, 2 -- which was the
CFA’s preference -- 3, and 4.
There are five reverse candidate designs for your
consideration. In reverse 1, President and Mrs.
Hoover relax at Camp Rapidan, the presidential
retreat in Virginia and precursor to Camp David.
Reverses 2 through 4 feature late 1920s
microphones and a radio representing Mrs. Hoover’s
first public radio address as First Lady, the first First
Lady to do so. Reverse 2, 3, and 4 -- reverse 4
being the CFA’s recommended design.
Although she did not have her own radio show, Mrs.
Hoover was a frequent guest speaker on radio
programs. And here in reverse 5, Mrs. Hoover is
depicted in front of a microphone.
Eleanor Roosevelt served as First Lady from 1933
until her husband’s death in 1945. We have seven
obverse candidate designs. Obverse 1, 2, 3, 4 which was the CFA’s recommended design -- 5, 6,
and 7.
For reverse designs, we have six. In reverse 1, a
microphone book and newspaper clipping represent
Mrs. Roosevelt’s popular radio addresses and
newspaper column.
Depicted here in reverse 2, Val-Kill College was Mrs.
-- sorry, cottage was Mrs. Roosevelt’s family home.
Along with her friend, Mrs. Roosevelt started a
business at Val-Kill that manufactured furniture in
order to provide jobs during the depression.

39
Reverse 3 symbolizes Mrs. Roosevelt life’s work and
the global impact of her humanitarian initiatives.
Specifically,
it shows Mrs. Roosevelt’s right hand lighting a
candle with the glowing light rising over a stylized
Earth’s horizon. Adlai Stevenson said of her after
her death, “She would rather light a candle than
curse the darkness and her glow has warmed the
world.”
In reverse 4, Mrs. Roosevelt reviews paperwork with
her husband. She was considered the eyes, ears,
and feet for her partially paralyzed husband.
In reverse 5, Mrs. Roosevelt serves a meal at a
soup kitchen during the Christmas season.
And lastly, reverse 6 -- which was the
recommended design by the CFA -- it depicts Mrs.
Roosevelt as the United States delicate to the
United Nations and she chaired the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights.
That’s it, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Marks: Thank you very much, April.
Are there any quick technical questions?
(No audible response.)
Okay. With that, I want to go through our process
of culling out some of the designs. We can get this
down to the ones we would like to focus on. Okay.
We have a technical question.
Member Jansen: It’s less of a technical question as
it is a formatting question. Having this notebook
come to us is fabulous. This particular organization
in the notebook kind of required a complete
reshuffling. Because the monographs on the
background were back in section A or something,
and they weren’t near the actual artwork and so
forth. And the descriptions of the various, in this

40
case, the first spouses notable achievements were a
continuous stream. So if you want to kind of put the
comments about a given first spouse with the
drawings in order to digest it as a unit, you kind of
couldn’t.
So I would just ask in future organization -- the
organization is getting better every time, so that is
not my issue is. My issue is, in order to get it even
better yet, would be to kind of unitize.
Thank you.
Chair Marks: Okay. Thank you, Erik. Okay.
Just as a little pretext to our culling out. I want to
remind the Committee what the legislation says
about this program. It says, for the reverse,
“Images should be emblematic of the lifework of the
first spouse whose image is born on the obverse.”
Okay. Think about that. Emblematic. So we have a
really, a wonderful opportunity today with what the
artists have provided us with. You are all very
familiar with the fact that we, as a group, as a
committee, have, for years, called for our artwork
on United States coins, as much as possible, to
move towards the emblematic. The use of symbols.
Those sorts of approaches to design.
Today, what we have on the reverses of this next
year’s issue of first spouses are some story boards,
which are the things that we wanted to gravitate
away from and we’ve talked a lot about not wanting
the story boards. And we’ve talked about a lot about
the symbolic.
For each of these first spouses, we have been
provided at least one, of what I think, are symbolic
images that I think are a good first step in the
direction we want to go.
So I think, when we think about images that are
emblematic of the first spouse’s life, I don’t think
about a first spouse on the White House lawn with
her dog. I don’t think about her sitting in a chair at

41
the precursor to Camp David. And I don’t think she
would want to be remembered for sitting on the
porch as emblematic of her life’s work.
So with that, when we go through this culling
process, I’m going to ask us, as much as possible,
yet still honoring each member’s right to review
whatever they wish to, I’m going to ask you to think
seriously as I hold up each of the reverse designs, if
this is, if this is a story board, do we truly want to
spend the time looking at that today or do we want
to seize an opportunity here for the 2014 first
spouse coins to be presented with a set of
emblematic symbolic reverse designs? So with that,
we’re going to start with Florence Harding on the
obverses. Interest in obverse 1.
Participant: Yes.
Chair Marks: Yes.
Interest in 2.
Participant: Yes.
Chair Marks: Yes.
Three. What did you say?
Participant: Yes.
Chair Marks: CFA picked this one. Okay. In honor of
them, we continue that one. Moving to reverse
designs for Florence Harding.
Number one.
Participant: Throw it in.
Chair Marks: Number two. Okay. Putting two aside.
Number 3. This is what I would call a story board.
Putting it aside.
Number 4, another story board. Putting it aside.
Does it matter?

42
Participant: No.
Chair Marks: Okay. If you want it to, okay.
Five? Setting it aside.
Six?
Participant: Yes.
Chair Marks: Yes.
Member Jansen: Recap those six for me, would you,
please?
Chair Marks: I will recap them all when I’m done.
Going on to Grace Coolidge, number 1 obverse.
Setting it aside.
Number 2 obverse.
Participant: Yes.
Chair Marks: Three obverse -- that’s CFA right?
Number 4. Setting 4 aside. Number 5. Setting 5
aside.
Six. Setting 6 aside.
Moving on to reverse designs for Grace Coolidge.
Number 1. Setting it aside. Number 2. Setting it
aside. Number 3.
Participant: Yes.
Chair Marks: We’re keeping?
Participant: Yes.
Chair Marks: Number 4?
Participant: Yes.
Chair Marks: Number 5? Thank you.
Number -- excuse me -- moving on to obverses for

43
Lou Hoover.
Obverse 1.
Participant: Yes.
Chair Marks: Obverse 2.
Participant: Yes.
Member Olson: Yes.
Chair Marks: Obverse 3. Setting 3 aside.
Four?
Participant: Yes.
Chair Marks: Going to reverses for Lou Hoover.
Reverse 1. Setting aside.
Two? Setting that aside.
Three?
Participant: Yes.
Chair Marks: Four?
Participant: Yes.
Chair Marks: Story board number 5?
Member Jansen: Yes.
Any other comments?
Chair Marks: You didn’t go for my bait. Okay.
Member Jansen: I took your bait. Yes.
Chair Marks: Eleanor Roosevelt. Obverses number
1. Set aside. Number 2? Setting aside.
Number 3?
Participant: Yes.

44
Chair Marks: Yes.
Number 4? I’ll say yes.
Chair Marks: Five?
Participant: Yes.
Chair Marks: Six?
Participant: Yes.
Chair Marks: Seven?
Participant: Yes.
Chair Marks:
reverses.

Going

on

to

Eleanor

Roosevelt

One? Setting aside 1.
Two? Setting aside 2.
Three?
Participant: Yes.
Chair Marks: Absolutely, yes.
Four? Setting aside.
Five?
Participant: Yes.
Member Olson: Yes.
Chair Marks: Okay. Six?
Participant: Yes.
Chair Marks: Okay. That takes us through the
process and I will now, for the record, indicate the
totality of what remains. For Florence Harding, we
have obverse 1, obverse 2, obverse 3.
For Harding reverses, we have reverse 1, reverse 4,
reverse 6.

45
Going on to Grace Coolidge obverse, we have
obverse 2, 3. That’s all for Coolidge.
Going on to Grace Coolidge reverses, we have
reverse 3, and reverse 4. Just those two for her
reverse.
Going on to Lou Hoover, on the obverse, we have 1,
2, 4, which remain.
And then on her reverses. Again, for Lou Hoover,
we have reverse 3, reverse 4, and reverse 5.
Going on to Eleanor Roosevelt obverses, we have 3,
4, 5, 6, and 7.
Going onto the Roosevelt reverses, we have 3, 5, 6.
And that is what we have to look at for our
discussion.
So with that, I’m going to start with -- let’s start
with Erik.
Member Jansen: No.
Chair Marks: No? Okay.
Let’s start with Mike Ross.
Member Ross: All right. I’m going to save time and
just briefly mention -- I would hope everyone will
consider these within the context of what has come
before in this series.
And before, what has come in the series are a lot of
images of first ladies greeting their spouse,
receiving babies from carriages, or rolling Easter
eggs on lawns, those kinds of things. And we are
finally hitting first ladies who were titanic figures.
Eleanor Roosevelt is a titanic figure in American
history. In which history departments assign a
whole book on Eleanor Roosevelt that in a way that
maybe you didn’t do on Lucy Hayes.
And I recognize the interests here in having -- in

46
moving to symbolism over story boards. And I see
the value in that.
But when you look at this whole series, we’re going
to have all these domestic images and then we get
to the folks who really did big things and we have a
candle that is undermining our one chance to say
these first ladies who really changed American
history. So I’m a little concerned that the symbolism
comes in this series at exactly the wrong time when
we have all the story boards. So with that said, I do
think there’s been an effort made here that I
respect not to have -- Gary, you’re dead on on that
German Shepherd on the lawn and the repose at
the Val-Kill cottage.
In most of these, there’s an effort to say, well,
here’s some things that first ladies did that were
important and active. And even if they were the first
ladies who were trying to be respectful of their
husband’s
position
and
not
make
waves,
nevertheless, did important things, I applaud the
fact that some of this is changing. I’m a little
worried that the move to symbolism will come at a
time where we actually can show historical real
significance and we’ll switch to symbolism, and then
the other images will all be these domestic scenes.
Okay. Done.
Chair Marks: Okay. Thank you, Michael.
Oh, I’m going to make sure Michael Olson gets on
here early. So Michael, are you ready to go?
Member Olson: Yes.
Chair Marks: Okay. Go for it.
Member Olson: Okay. All right. Let’s see. Starting
off with the Harding obverse, actually, I’m going to
start off with a comment, maybe to the artist
maybe to the men, I do not recall seeing headgear
or hats on any of the first spouse designs before. I
may be missing one. Not opposed to the hats but I
guess for a hat to be included, I would ask that in

47
these particular first spouses, and maybe this was
more of a question for Mike Ross, were any of these
ladies known for wearing of hats on a regular basis?
Member Ross: I think for a good portion of
American history, everyone was known for wearing
hats on a regular basis. You know, I think in the
‘20s, everybody’s wearing hats on a regular basis.
The Victorian period, everybody’s in a hat.
But that doesn’t mean you represent them, if that’s
how they want to be represented in a portrait -Ms. Weinman: Mr. Chairman?
Chair Marks: Yes.
Ms. Weinman: Just a point of clarification, we have
featured first ladies wearing hats before in this
series.
Chair Marks: Okay. We’ve established that first
ladies wear hats.
So, Michael, continue.
Member Olson: All right. When I look at the Harding
obverses, the one that I’m drawn most to is number
2. I think that one portrays her in a very favorable
fashion. And then, the one that I would agree with.
The reverses, we didn’t get a whole lot to pick from
here. Gary, as you have indicated, it looks like
there’s possibly a little bit of recycling of some old
designs here. Replace it with some objects.
So really the only choice, in my mind, would be
number 6. It’s certainly an Art Deco piece but it has
a lot of things going on within a small sized coin.
But none of the other designs really make it. And
it’s too bad because I think there were some things
there that may have worked if depicted in a more
artistic fashion.
Coolidge obverse, the two that we’re considering

48
were number 2 and number 3. In looking at all six,
number 2 was my preferred design.
Number 3 is more of a portrait which I don’t really
favor. Some of these other ones, especially number
4, I don’t believe, you know, I’m not a Grace
Coolidge junkie, but I was looking at that portrait, I
can’t believe that would be a very favorable
depiction of her.
So number 2 would be the one that gained most of
my support.
On the reverses, number 3 is the most interesting
to me. Not only for the theme but also for the
execution. I think that is definitely something that
will get some attention if that is the chosen reverse.
Number 4, also has some interest but strongly
preferring number 3.
Onto Lou Hoover, I just want to mention that Lou
Hoover was born in my hometown. We both come
from Waterloo, Iowa. And there’s a school named
for her there.
I will expound on the obverse up here first. I think
number 2, is would be my preference with a little bit
of preference towards number 4 but stronger to
number 2.
I do want to make a comment on the reverses.
When we looked at these themes, proposed themes
earlier this year, the Mint came up of several worthy
themes. And I provided the Mint with several
themes that, I, myself, came up with and also in
conjunction with the Hoover Library. And I was
somewhat dismayed and disappointed to see that
what we have to pick from here is a story board of
one worthy controversy of Mrs. Hoover with Rapidan
Camp, and four other choices with just one of the
themes.
As a reminder, Mrs. Hoover was very engaged with
the Girl Scouts. I believe she was the first First Lady
that was the honorary president of the Girl Scouts.

49
And that tradition continues to this day. Very, very
involved with the historic preservation of the White
House and its furnishing.
A lot of good themes were missed here and a lot of
effort was placed on four designs that pretty much
all cover the same one theme.
I did have a question on number, I guess, number 2
is not in consideration so I’ll direct a question to
number 3. That appears to be a microphone but it
has rays emanating from the microphone. Could
someone explain that to me, please? Anyone?
Ms. Stafford: It’s just a representation of the
communication that came through her radio
addresses and was the artist’s intend to use that to
represent that.
Member Olson: Okay. Well, typically a microphone,
you’re talking into the microphone and on the
speaker
on
the
other
end,
you’ve
got
communication coming out. So I’m not sure those
rays really work going into the microphone. They
certainly would work on the radio on number 4,
which is an appealing design.
You know, given the fact that we’ve really got one
theme to choose from here and that’s the radio, my
support would probably be going to number 4
because that is a well-done design.
And moving on to Hoover -- or excuse me, to
Roosevelt. A lot of choices here.
My preference, when I look at these, in any real
portrait or depiction of a person, I think we have
discussion on the Committee before about teeth or
no teeth. There seems to be a lot of them here. For
that reason, the choices that we culled the
Committee down to, 6 would probably be my
preference because it shows less teeth. And it does
show her in what, I believe, is a very favorable
portrait or picture.

50
On the reverses, we’ve got 3, 5, and 6 that we’ve
culled it down to. I believe I agree with the prior
comment on the candle. I kind of like the platinum
design we just looked at. That’s really hard to
interpret having a cheat sheet. But I don’t really
know if I can support that one or not.
Number -- let’s see. The next one is number 5. That
one, while it is a story board, it speaks to the times
that she was serving as First Lady. That possibly
could have been depicted in a more artistic format
or allegorical format. However, that one is going to
get some votes from me just based on the fact that
that was a pretty significant, the depression was
very significant during the Roosevelt presidency.
When we get to the United Nations, number 6, very
important contribution by her. I wish there was a
way that that could have been depicted without
putting it right there in writing off of her right
shoulder. So I guess on this one, I’m a little
conflicted. I will hear what the rest of the
Committee has to say before I really put some votes
towards that.
That’s all.
Chair Marks: Thank you, Michael. Jeanne, are you
ready?
Member Stevens-Sollman: Okay. On Florence
Harding, I’m going to take her hat off even though I
know hats were very common. I were one myself.
There’s something quite calming about number 1. I
just think she has a lot of confidence, a lot of
presence here. And I know the artists are going to
be maybe a little nervous about doing glasses. But I
think that she’s just depicted quite lovely here.
So my -- I’m going to look at number 1.
And on the reverse, I did think that number 2 was
important for the times. However, I think we have a
story board here and number 6 it’s just
outrageously wonderful. It’s powerful. I think this is

51
something that the Committee has been looking for,
it’s symbolic. And I have my vote on this one.
Grace Coolidge. I’m sorry that on number 3 is too
wispy for me. I think, I’m going to go with number
2 because she, again, has confidence. She has a
straightforward presence. So I’m forgoing anything
else but number 2.
And number 1 on the reverse, I like the fact that we
have a very simple camera. But again, I think we’re
not going to understand that. And so I have to look,
again, at number 3 and number 4. I like number 3
but, you know, U.S.A. on their wrists are kind of, to
me, like a tattoo. I don’t like that so much as I like
the symbolism of what it says. Maybe we can put
U.S.A. someplace else. I know you want to say that
that’s what those, the signage is. But I wish we
could do it a different way.
Ms. Stafford: May I interrupt?
Member Stevens-Sollman: Yes, please.
Ms. Stafford: Actually, the CFA, when they did
recommend this, they actually said the exact same
thing.
Member Stevens-Sollman: Good.
Ms. Stafford: Referring to the letters as tattoos.
Member Stevens-Sollman: Yes.
Ms. Stafford: So their recommendation would -- if
this design were to go forward would be to remove
the letters U.S.A.
Member Stevens-Sollman: We have an empty field
below there. Would U.S.A. maybe be there, if you
wanted to make people understand what it was
saying. I just think it is more like a tattoo.
And number 4 is, although it’s a story board, it’s
quite lovely and I commend the artist for the
sensitivity to help us to understand that this is a

52
blind child. I thought it was very well done.
Going on to Lou Hoover, I think we have a -- I think
I’m going to only address number 4. And I believe
that was a CFA choice.
Member Jansen: I think their’s was 2, wasn’t it?
Member Stevens-Sollman: Was it 2? Well, I’m still
going to go with number 4.
Ms. Stafford: Yes.
Member Jansen: I think -Member Stevens-Sollman: She looks rather wise
here.
And on the reverse, again, I’m going to go with my
colleagues that number 4 is the preference.
Eleanor Roosevelt, could you go -- could you -- I’m
going to go to -Participant: Where do you want me to go?
Member Stevens-Sollman: -- yes, I wanted to go to
number 4, please.
In all of my -- the context that I have always seen
Eleanor Roosevelt, this seems to be the most, to
me, recognizable. She’s -- I know it has teeth and
people don’t necessarily like that. But I think this is
a quite convincing portrait of Eleanor Roosevelt.
And then going on to the reverse, number 3 is truly
what we’re looking for in terms of symbology. I
have to say it says everything. I’m not quite sure if
the horizon behind the candle says it’s the edge of
the world but I do like the candle.
Thank you.
Chair Marks: Thank you Jeanne. Tom?
Member Uram: Thank you, Gary.

53
I, on Florence Harding, I do like number 1. I think
that it does depict a person who is determined. And
I like the style. And I kind of do not care for that
side view of the hat as it relates to that. Going to
the reverse for Florence Harding, I thought that the
paper boys were a nice idea.
However, number 6 is just, I think, I think that’s a
home run in my opinion because it puts together a
whole lot. And to put together a whole lot, I think
that we’ve been trying to do some things with World
War I and the veterans and so forth, and all of that.
And I think that it really, it really, really is a home
run. And I would have loved to have seen
something like that as determined on the last topic
that we discussed. So of all these designs, I really
really think that this strikes home.
If the -- I just thought of something and if the
Chairman would allow -- going on to Grace
Coolidge, I think the number 2 obverse, I like the
stylistic of that and the modernism of that -- and if
this Chairman would allow, I’d like to make a
comment on number 2. And I know it’s not one of
the ones under consideration, although I’d like a
point to be made on the reverse number 2.
And that is committed to civic causes, next year,
2014, obviously it’s the 50th anniversary of the
Kennedy half-dollar, and so forth, and the
assassination. And this coin might fit well into that,
in regards to the civic causes that we are going to
be looking at as it relates to that commemorative
events.
And I think you’re going to see a lot of coins or a lot
of promotions with the John F. Kennedy as it relates
to giving back to the community and doing things.
And this might be one to bring back to the table to
think about as it relates to civic causes for that
purpose. So if the Chairman allows, I’d like that to
be -Chair Marks: I allowed it.

54
Member Uram: -- consideration.
Chair Marks: I allowed it.
Member Uram: Thank you.
And then the other one that -- I do like reverse
number 4 as well in regards to that.
Going on to Lou Hoover, obverse number 2 or 4, I
think are stylistic and have great depiction there for
Lou Hoover. Going to the reverse, I kind of lean
towards number 3. Let me find it here. I like the
idea of the older looking versus the radio of number
4. I kind of like the idea of the what it might have
looked like in the depiction.
Moving on to Eleanor Roosevelt, design number -let’s see here -- I like number 3 as it relates to the
style. And number 4 in particular. In this case, I do
like the hat because you saw her in so many
depictions with the hat. So I kind of lean towards
the image here with the hat. I think it’s appropriate.
And then on the reverse, I’m leaning towards
number 6 because it does say exactly that one of
her main contributions to the presidency and to
being First Lady in that, that she was that delegate
to the United Nations. I do like the symbolism of the
light and the candle, but I think if we’re going to
portray something that she actually accomplished, I
think that number 6 is the way I have to go with
that. As much as I like the candle, and the
symbolism, and all of that, I think depicting exactly
her contribution, and a major contribution, as there
were numerous ones, but certainly the United
Nations makes a point.
Thank you, Gary, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Marks: Tom.
Michael Moran.
Member Moran: Yes. For Florence Harding, I would
support number 1. I think it’s got the right look to

55
it.
Number 2, I can’t get past the fact that in the eye
expression, she’s looking at Warren, you did what
and with whom?
Member Ross:
actually.

Which

is

the

appropriate

one,

Member Moran: Yes. I’m not into hats at all and it
colors my thinking on all of these in terms of my
choices. For the reverse, 6 is excellent. I wish we
had one as good as that for Eleanor Roosevelt but
I’ll get to that. Moving to Grace Coolidge, I think
number 2 strikes the right balance in terms of the
age that she was and the look when she was in the
White House as First Lady.
On the reverse, I would have a suggestion on
number 3. I think 3 is one that is not the story
board but the White House does nothing for that.
You don’t need it there. You had the opportunity, if
you dropped the White House out of there and
change that background a little bit, you can move
the tattoos up there and put it into the field. Just a
suggestion there. But my vote is going to go to
number 3.
Lou Hoover’s, I did not like the hair arrangement in
number 2. I thought it was a bit off from the
historical pictures. My vote is going for number 4.
It’s a good, dignified look. I think it’s a, I think it
will coin well. I think it will look good.
I am, on number 4, for the reverse. The radio
waves, I think they need to come out of the radio
and not into the microphone.
Finally, we get to Eleanor. And Eleanor, she had
bucked teeth, she had a receding chin -- bless her
heart she was no Bo Derek. And a result of that, I
threw out any of them that had profiles of her. And
that got me to number 6. I think that gives her the
right dignity and that’s where I went with that one.
I understand where you’re going with 5, but I’m not

56
a hat man.
Member Ross: Bo Derek, really?
Chair Marks: He’s showing his age.
Member Moran: Yes, I know.
On the reverse, I think we could do better. With the
ones that I have here, I’m going to vote number 3.
But it’s not apparent that that’s the earth. I don’t
like the idea of the hand coming down with the
match. Again, it’s a personal preference. I think you
could have done so much more with the symbolism.
You could have taken the United Nations’ symbol
and put a lighted candle next to it for hope. There
was just so much more on Eleanor Roosevelt than
what we’ve got here on these reverses. But it is
what it is and I’ll vote for 3.
Chair Marks: Thank you, Michael. We’ll move to
Erik.
Member
Jansen:
Briefly,
Florence
Harding
illustration number 3 is a fun, fun picture. But it
would be interesting to have a little photo support
on this so that we could, at least, have a little easier
link to authenticity. Otherwise, we’re kind of
defaulting into the kind of comments I’m hearing
such as, well, that one looks like she’s in charge or
that one looks like she’s making charges or
something. So a little photo support on these more
modern ones would be helpful in the information
package.
I am going to go with the flow on this one and
probably go with number 1. Although number 2 is
not bad as well. When we go to the Florence
Harding reverses, number 6 is a geewhiz wow. Two
thoughts here. The sculptor is going to have an
interesting challenge here because there is so much
three-dimensionality to where the victory and -- or
excuse me, where the veterans in the world war,
the WW comes up. That’s just going to become a
jumble. And, so I’m not sure how the sculptor

57
actually makes this one happen the way it can
happen.
Don, as always, the optimistic Don saying worry not
my friend. So 6 gets my support.
I will say the following: to the artist who chose to
focus on that newspaper item, a newspaper is an
iconic symbol. And a newspaper could have been
shown on a doorstep being delivered. We could
have followed the newspaper thread here with a
symbol. And so I want to stand up and say no to
storylines. And I’ll vote for 6.
When it comes to Grace Coolidge, these are some
pretty cool images. Photo support would have been
interesting to know where 4 and 6 came from. I just
love to see those original photos. Lady Gaga would
appreciate number 4, I think.
Member Ross: Except it would be made out of meat.
Member Jansen: It would be what? Pardon me?
Member Ross: Nothing.
Member Jansen: Okay. That’s what I thought you
said.
So I’m probably going to go for number 2. I like the
full on as opposed to the side portraits. I think the
CFA defaults to side portraits and throws the rest of
the bath water out sometimes. And so I’m going to
go with number 2.
On the Grace Coolidge reverse, I love the three
hands. I don’t see a tattoo. I like the White House.
If you want to drop U.S.A. down into and create a
bit more activity down into that blank field below
there, maybe if -- and I suspect that image number
3 will be chosen -- we want to make a motion to
modify that, I think to remove those three letters is
kind of a, seriously? I mean, you take those three
letters out of there and unless you’re part of the
deaf community, I’m not sure you’re going to figure

58
this isn’t a, you know, the Cub Scout sign, the fist of
anguish, and then I don’t know. I don’t know what
you’re going to make of it.
Participant: Part -Member Jansen: Yes. It’s Rochambeau coin. I’m not
sure. So I think U.S.A. needs to be preserved but if
we want to move them because people feel they are
tattoo-ey , so be it.
I like number 4 as an emoting image. I don’t like
the excessive use of grayscale in the artwork
because I think it puts a challenge in front of us to
select a piece of artwork that may not get sculpted
the way the artist is showing it to us. So I would say
to the artist, back off on the grayscales, please, and
give us more line art in a symbol.
Lou Hoover, I’m torn between which of the three
pictures of a woman do I like better, because I have
no photo support for this. And that makes it a very
difficult choice, because I don’t know which one of
these authentically carries the woman’s sense of
presence. I feel blind.
Lou Hoover reverse, I love the artist who stepped
forward and used the technique to show the sound
emanating or going into the microphone. I’m
probably going to vote for number 4 just because I
like the symbology, sound coming out of the
speaker makes more sense than the other way. And
I get that. I think it was Michael who made that first
comment. Number 5 would work. Although number
5 would carry, I think, less social involvement over
the radio than perhaps the impression that she’s
stumping for her husband over the radio.
On Eleanor Roosevelt, I am torn here. And I wasn’t
torn until I heard Mike Moran speak because when it
comes to the Roosevelt issues, Mike knows this like
nobody else in this room. And I was an advocate for
image number 4. The fact that he likes image
number 6, you know, I got to stand up and say,
“Mike, I’m voting for number 6.” Reverse on Eleanor

59
Roosevelt, you know, Mike Ross, other than your
sense of humor which is totally lacking, which is of
course what I’m saying -Member Ross: You remind me of Bo Derek, by the
way.
Member Jansen: I took the mustache off, that must
have been what happened.
Member Moran: That’s what happened when you
went through menopause.
Member Jansen: Let’s leave those comments to
Heidi.
I think we could have done a lot more with the
symbol here. Someone -Member Ross: She’s most important First Lady in
the 20th century, and we’re going to have a candle.
Member Jansen: And we’re going to have an unlit
candle. Yes. And so I am, I’m kind of, I’m kind of
sad here. And in that sense, I’m probably going to
vote for number 3.
Number 6 would work. I think the little microphone
things coming out of the desk are highly distracting.
And as this coin shrinks down, they’re going to
become even more distracting. And the United
States placard will disappear into the physical
dimensions of the planchet. So number 6 kind of
comes apart on me. Although, it could have worked.
But a UN kind of backdrop on image number 3 could
really pop that thing up. And to that end, I think
image number 3 is going to get chosen here, just
from the feel of it. And I’m going to probably -- if
someone else does not -- move to suggest, modify,
put emotion in to somehow put a little more power
there. So Mike Ross get your humor mojo going
here and give us some guidance, if this gets
selected because I’m going to ask you for it.
Chair Marks: Thank you, Erik. I’ll just preface my

60
remarks first by saying as far as the obverses go, I
look for designs that have presence and have
dignity. And I think if you have both of those
qualities you also have confidence. And so that’s
what’s kind of guided me here. I know some of you
will disagree with some of these choices but on
Florence -- oh, and then let me say on the reverses,
I’m really hoping for a quadruple play here for
symbology and I’m going to make my case on each
vote.
So on the obverse for Florence Harding, 2, I think
best fits the criteria that I used. Not a lot needs to
be said about reverse 6. I think that has solid
support from the Committee and it will have mine
also. Grace Coolidge on the obverse, I think 2 is a
very dignified look for the First Lady. And I think
that’s what our first ladies would want. They would
want dignified images that show them with
presence and confidence. On reverse number 3,
which I’m supporting, my suggestion there, first of
all, I’ll say with the younger generation, if were
trying to entice them into collecting, they are all
into body art, folks. I say that kind of jokingly but -Participant: Not when your son comes home.
Chair Marks: -- I don’t know if it’s all that much of a
problem. However, I don’t think it would be too
difficult to adjust this design around a little bit. You
could move the hands up a little bit. They would
overlap on the White House slightly more than they
do now. You would create more space below the
hands. And you could put U.S.A. in that blank field
and justify the fact that you have a blank field
there. That’s just a suggestion. Or you could totally
remove them. And I’m sure the Committee will
resolve that as we go through the process as far as
a recommendation.
On Lou Hoover, I believe number 1 would be the
right choice. I think she looks very dignified there,
very much the First Lady. On the reverse, I like
both 3 and 4. Like someone else has said, I like the

61
bravery and showing the idea of sound going out
from both of these devices. I’m thinking that maybe
4 might be a little more in the category of being
able to be interpreted by folks. Because I think,
intuitively, we think about sound coming out of
something not sound going out -- or coming at you
rather than the device conveying it to the radio. I
hope that makes sense. Anyway, but I’d be happy
with either of those preference going to number 4.
On Eleanor Roosevelt, I like number 4. And I think it
would be a novel one, just the fact that she’s
wearing a hat. I think it casts a very pleasant light
on her. I believe she’d be pleased with it too, but I
can’t really say. Now on the reverse, I’m going to
take a little different tack than the rest of you. And
I’m going to make a strong case for number 3. So
please hear me out.
I hope you’ve read the little narrative. If you
haven’t, I’m going to read it to you. It says, “Mrs.
Roosevelt’s right hand lighting a candle, a glowing
light rises over stylized graphic of the Earth’s curved
horizon.” Now why would that be? UN. Do you
remember there was the talk about, well, it would
be nice to commemorate her service to the UN and
therefore to the world. That’s what the artist is
trying to tell us here. But doing it at a very symbolic
way, which is what we’ve been telling everybody
that’s what we want. Okay. So then it goes on and
it says, “Adlai Stevenson said of her after her death,
‘She would rather light a candle that curse the
darkness, and her glow has warmed the world.’” It’s
a wonderful statement about her, which I think
justifies where the artist was going with this.
The design symbolizes her life’s work and the global
impact of her humanity or her humanitarian
initiatives. I submit to you that number 6, I think it
is, with her at the UN, that doesn’t really say much
more than she’s sitting at the UN. And it’s a so
what? It’s a so what? I mean, we’ve seen images
like this of first ladies on the other issues that have
come out, where, you know, like we had one sitting
in the gallery of the Senate and, you know, we

62
know from history that the first spouse she was
there to keep track of what was going on in the
Senate, I suppose, for her husband. But she’s just
sitting in the UN. Why not -- a coin is a work of art,
folks. It’s not a photograph. It’s a work of art. And
that’s what they’re giving us here with this candle.
I think this is one of, probably the best of the
reverses that we’ve been given today. And it’s so
much, it’s so much, goes right to what we’ve been
asking our artists to do. I think we err seriously if
we pass this one by and we send a mixed message
if we send them a story board. So with that -Member Ross: Gary, can I ask you a question?
Chair Marks: If you must.
Member Ross: That candle, could it be used for any
of the first ladies in the series for their life’s work?
That can only be used for Eleanor Roosevelt?
Chair Marks: That’s not the question. That’s not the
question. I mean -Member Ross: If we are missing -Chair Marks: No, no, no. That’s not the question.
The question is, is it relevant -Member Ross: -- all have -Chair Marks: No, wait a minute. We’re trying to be
emblematic of the life of Eleanor Roosevelt. The
other first spouses don’t matter in this case. It’s
Eleanor Roosevelt. And she lit a candle for the
globe, let’s say. That’s what the artist is trying to
tell us here. And if it causes numismatists or others
in the public when they view this to want to
investigate American history and find out more
about Eleanor Roosevelt, great. Maybe they’ll go to
school and be your student. That would be a
wonderful thing for the University of Maryland.
Member Ross: Inspired by that candle.

63
Chair Marks: Yes.
But I think that’s a wonderful image. It’s something
we haven’t seen before. I think it’s absolutely,
absolutely a home run. It’s what we’ve asked the
artist to do. And even if we don’t pick it, I hope the
artist understands, this is really, this would be a
missed thing for our Committee, that this is what
we want to do. So with that, I will recognize Heidi.
Member Wastweet: Back to the beginning.
For Florence Harding, I’m not opposed to the use of
hats. First ladies are often looked to for their
fashion. But I don’t think it’s emblematic of the way
she looked while she was the First Lady. I think 1
and 2 do that beautifully. On the reverse, I want to
say briefly on number 1, with the newsboys, I think
this would have worked if we didn’t have her in the
background. If we had just this nice arrangement of
newsboys, that would have been symbolic of her
contribution to the paperboy routes. I think that’s
really a nice symbolism but we missed the boat here
because we have her here in the background. It
becomes a story board. It becomes a double
portrait. We’ve been asking, let’s stay away from
double portraits. So that misses the boat.
CFA pick number 4, I think, on the pallet of a coin,
physical gesture is really important. And this
physical gesture, it may be accurate to some
historic code, I don’t know. But what it says to me
is,\ she doesn’t really care. She’s just flopping the
ballot into the box. And she has no enthusiasm. It
doesn’t say anything to me. And number 6, I think
it’s got a lot going on but it still hits the mark. Grace
Coolidge, I really like obverse number 3. I think it’s
just elegant and graceful. And we like to see
profiles. This is a really great profile. It’s
emblematic of the way she looked as she was the
First Lady. This is really nice. Reverse, I’m fine with
the letters being on the wrist. I’m fine with them
being down in the field. But it is, it’s a good symbol
for her contribution. Kudos to the artist on number

64
4, but I do prefer number 3.
Lou Hoover, obverses, I’m actually fine with any of
the three. They’re all very nice. I am leaning toward
number 2. On the reverse, I think that the
microphone here is not immediately recognizable as
a microphone as much as the radio. It really is
immediately recognizable and gets the point across
very well. So I like number 4.
Eleanor Roosevelt seems to be our controversial
one. I, as a sculptor, looking at these designs, I say,
which one of these would I want to sculpt? And I go
to number 3. I think number 3 is a really lovely
portrait. It would coin very well. It would be nice to
sculpt. She may not have been a classic beauty but
she was still an incredibly beautiful human being.
And I think this puts her in a nice light. It’s a nice
facial expression, soft eyes but confident and strong
and sweet. I like this one very, very much. I
absolutely hate teeth on coins. As a sculptor, it just
drives me nuts. I cannot stand them, and so I’m
vehemently against 4 and 5. On number 6, I think
this drawing is very very nice. It shows a very
realistic depiction of the way she looked. It’s not
something I would want to sculpt. There’s a lot of
emphasis on the wrinkles on her face. And the way
metal reflects light on a coin, I don’t know that
that’s going to come across as well on a coin as it
does in this drawing. So I am going to stand against
the tide here and be in support of obverse number
3.
On the reverses, I am in strong support of what
Gary said about this. Of all of the designs that we
are looking at today, this is the one I was most
excited about. And I am disappointed that we don’t
have a greater support among the Committee for
this design. We’ve been asking for symbolism and
this is symbolic.
When we go with story boards, we actually limit
what we are saying about her. If we show her
serving soup in a soup kitchen, to me, it says that’s

65
the only thing she did, that’s the most important
thing she did. If we see her sitting at the UN desk, it
just shows her sitting there. And it’s so lacking in
symbolism that the artist needed to put the words,
“Delegate to you the United Nations.” That tells us
that the image itself is not even necessary. We
could take the image off and just have the words,
“Delegate to the United Nations.” The image itself
isn’t adding anything to the design.
Eleanor Roosevelt was a spectacularly complex and
intellectual person. In the language of coins, lamps
represent
knowledge
and
education.
Light
represents wisdom. And she empowered women by
showing what an intellectual woman can do in this
world. And I think number 3 hits all of those points
with her. She was an incredible light on this world.
And I strongly support number 3. And I hope that I
have swayed some other opinions to go in that
direction, because I think this is a beautiful coin that
says more about her than any of these story
boards.
Chair Marks: Okay. Thank you, Heidi.
Donald.
Member Scarinci: You know, it was, I think you
definitely, you know, made me step back, you
know, and look at, you know, the question that Mike
had asked earlier, Mike Ross had asked earlier
which is, in the series, we’re now going to make a
dramatic jump to symbolism, just as the first ladies
really become important. And you know, I kind of,
you know -- and I thought about, I’ve been thinking
about what you said.
And I kind of think that maybe that’s exactly why
we should move to symbolism now. Because the
first ladies do become important. And maybe what
our charge to the artist should be for the rest of this
series, because for the rest of the series, the first
ladies, you know, are significant. And maybe our
charge then should be give us symbolism now. And
let’s symbolize why they’re important.

66
And I also think when you, you know -- the reason
for the candle, you know, and, you know -- I think
in the series the candle on the rounded Earth is
profound. And I think, you know, if I were to ask
you, who do you think was the most important First
Lady? I think I know the answer to that, right? It’s
Eleanor Roosevelt.
Member Ross: Yes, it’s Eleanor Roosevelt.
Member Scarinci: So, you know, she should stand
out among the first ladies. And standing out with
the depiction of a candle, of a symbol, of a candle
on the Earth certainly makes her stand out among
the first ladies.
So I think that it’s, and I think it is exactly -- and
for all the reasons other people said -- you know,
you know, I think that the story board, you know,
and I think in general, I think the message, you
know, that I want to certainly convey to the artist, I
think that they’re hearing from all of us today is,
you know, we’re just going to -- you can submit us
all the story boards you want, we’re going to delete
them.
So you know, give us -- and I really think that’s part
of the problem you’re having with the CFA, even if
they didn’t articulate it quite that way. I think, you
know, keep it simple, keep it symbolic, make it
powerful. And some of the images here are
powerful. I, you know, so I mean, in general terms,
I just wanted to say that.
In specifics as to Florence Harding, with the
specifics, as to Florence Harding and Grace
Coolidge, you know, over the years I’ve come to,
I’ve come to learn that, you know, that, you know,
the two people on this Committee who, you know,
Mike Olson and I live in different Americas. And
when we agree, you know, you know it’s the right
thing. So I, you know -- and I’m sitting here and
I’m reminded to take more time with Florence
Harding and Grace Coolidge. You know, Mike and I,
if Mike I agree that Florence Harding obverse 2,

67
Florence Harding reverse 6, you know that’s right.
Grace Coolidge, you know, obverse 2 and Grace
Coolidge’s reverse 3, you know, and then hopefully
the Chair will entertain a motion to consider
conforming, you know, our recommendation with
the CFA on this one by removing U.S.A., but that’s
for later. You know, but so on those two I think
we’re there. In fact, I think on Lou Hoover, you
know, Mike’s alternative position. I hope you’re on,
Mike -- Mike’s alternative position -Member Olson: I’m on.
Member Scarinci: Okay. -- Mike’s alternative is
obverse 4. I think his first choice, if I recall, was
zero. Because I was just mesmerized by his picks
on this one. And I picked the obverse 4 as a Lou
Hoover. I also picked, you know, reverse 4 as a, as
I think we’re all kind of gravitating to for the
reverse for Lou Hoover.
On Eleanor Roosevelt, you know, I generally don’t,
you know, I generally don’t go for the images that
are -- for these coins and for the president series -I generally don’t go for the images that everyone
knows is the person. I mean, the most common
image of the person that you think of when you
think of the person, you know, and in the president
series, you know, I think I was really -- I think it’s a
very significant thing what we’re doing there. And
but for Andrew Jackson, who the Secretary
personally, you know, picked that one because that
is the image of Andrew Jackson that you know,
that’s commonly known. And that’s the only image
of Andrew Jackson in the entire series that’s not of
Andrew Jackson at the time he was the president.
It’s a portrait that everybody knows, but it’s not of
the time he was the president.
You know, with Eleanor Roosevelt that’s never a
problem because, you know, because the president
was a president for four terms. So, and this is the
common image that you see. But I think because
the Eleanor Roosevelt, because Eleanor Roosevelt, I

68
think, is the turning point, probably the role model
of future first ladies, I think -Member Ross: Some of the first ladies.
Member Scarinci: Some. And you know, and I think
because of that, let’s give the people the image they
know. And I think obverse 4 is that image. That’s
the image in all the pictures. And I, of course, you
know, for the all the reasons I said, you know, the
candle and the Earth, you know, reverse 3 is my
preference on that.
Chair Marks: Okay. Michael.
Member Bugeja: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We’ll start with Florence Harding obverse 1. I
wanted to comment on this, even though it’s my
favorite and it’s the favorite of many others. Every
now and then it’s important to have the portrait
look straight in the eye of the viewer. And this one
does that and it’s elegant. I totally embrace this. If
you go to number 2, she’s, you know, looking
beyond you. It really looks like an academic
supervisor ready to give an annual review. Let’s go
to 3. You know, the hat, the hat and the side view
in the portrait, it makes the person an icon rather
than a person. And I really dislike that it’s a figure
in stones.
Then we go to Florence Harding reverse number 6. I
think that’s very beautiful. The only comment I
have on this is to make sure the, that the shades of
the, the shades of all the devices here are relatively
the same. It gets lighter naturally as it goes up
towards the torch. But I’d like to see maybe some
different background, not background, some
different texture on the voting ballot and the
camera and all just to make the images pop. I like
this design, but there’s a flatness to it. And if you
just consider small technical devices, you have a
torch that’s light, that’s going to naturally be darker
towards the bottom, but you also have wood versus
leather or plastic. And if you could just bring out the

69
textures a little bit more, I think it will give a little
depth to it.
These are fine touches. Nobody needs to -- I mean
the artist or Don would know far better than I how
to do that. But we have several devices of different
materials. And if we could just think about that to
distinguish them a little bit more from each other,
we would add some depth.
Can we go to Grace Coolidge number 2 obverse? I
think it’s another one looking right at you, very
pleasant. That’s all I wanted to say on that. If we
can goes to reverse 3 on Grace Coolidge. Now, I
don’t have any problem with U.S.A. The problem
that I have is numismatic. In this particular design,
we have, “The legend” stated 3 times. All right. We
have the legend above, we have the legend in
symbol, and then we have the abbreviation of the
legend. That, to me, is sometimes a little much. If
you remove the U.S.A., which I prefer, from the
hands, and you moved the legend to the bottom of
the coin, and the other -- I know that we’re
violating symbols -- it would actually reflect a little
bit more.
It looks like it’s going to be the design. So I just
have trouble with the legion repeated three times. I
would prefer the U.S.A. not be there.
If we could go to number 4. Number 4 is very
intriguing to me, and the reason why it’s intriguing
is: very very seldom in our coins do we have the
sense of touch. And coins are all about the sense of
touch. It is, it’s beautiful. I have somewhat of a
problem with an obverse and a reverse having the
same type of portrait. But I wanted to speak in
favor of them number 4 because of the numismatic
dearth of images that reflect touch. I thought that
was quite beautiful. If we could go to Lou Hoover
obverse 1, she’s looking askance, but I think it’s a
nice, it’s a nice portrait. If we could go to Lou
Hoover reverse 3, reverse 3. The thing that bothers
me about 3 is that we look like we’re

70
commemorating April the 19th, 1929. And from a
numismatic perspective, again, you’re having two
dates compete with each other, heads and tails.
If we can go to number 4. You know, I’m wondering
if there’s something that can be said under that that
doesn’t have to say, “First public address,” but it’s
hard to do. I just wanted to mention that, I mean,
number 4 is my favorite, but I have a little bit of
trouble; it looks like a commemoration of a radio
address. And of course, we had stations operating in
1929.
If we could go to Eleanor Roosevelt, number 3. This
is my favorite from a very fine point that’s going to
have, I think, some big impact. If you’re going to
have two heads on a coin, they might as well tell a
story.
And I’m not certain this Committee really
understands the difference between story and story
board. So if I want to make a story, this definitely
would be my choice. Now, if you could go to number
6 reverse. I get what Michael Ross is saying. I
understand what he is saying. The problem that I
have with this has been said by other people. But
that’s not what she did there. What she did there
was Chair the Declaration of Human Rights. On
December 10th, countries all around the world are
going to be celebrating the Declaration of Human
Rights. If we knew that this was going to come up
and we had -- there’s a beautiful picture of her
standing by the Declaration of Human Rights and it
was her, she thought, her crowning achievement,
and if you took a look, it’s a really big declaration,
you wouldn’t even need her. And then you’re not
adding script to it because that’s the title of it, The
Declaration of Human Rights. And if you had that as
the symbol with the story of her younger portrait, it
would be a coin that would be treasured by people.
There is a difference between story and story board.
So I understand what Michael Ross is saying. Given
this, this is terrible for all the reasons that we said.

71
But if we could -- she considered that, Michael, am I
not right -- her most important achievement or at
least one of her most -Member Ross: Well, one of her favorites.
Member Bugeja: -- one of her most important
achievements. And it’s still celebrated December
10th.
So and then you get rid of the story board by just
having that document and then you get rid of the
text because it’s right on the document, you have a
marvelous coin. So if you’re not going to do that
and if it were I, and this is Eleanor Roosevelt, that’s
very important.
Now, if you can go to number 3. I wanted to
comment on number 3. I like number 3 for all the
reasons that people are saying. I dislike number 3
because she hasn’t lit the candle yet, and we have
brightness everywhere. Now, imagine if the candle
was lit and her hand being withdrawn from the
candle, you would have what her contribution is. So
those are my comments and take them or leave
them.
Chair Marks: Thank you, Michael. Okay.
We’ve reached the end of our evaluation. I’m just
going to ask you all to fill out your voting sheets.
And while you’re doing that were going to go to
lunch.
While you’re doing that I’m going to report to you
the results of the platinum evaluation for -- these
were all reverses of course; for design number 1, it
received four, design number 4 received two, design
number 5 received three, design number 7 received
three; designed 8 received eight, design 11, which
is our recommendation, received 23 of a possible
30, I’ll note. And then of interest, design number
12, which was CFA’s choice received zero from the
Committee. So --

72
Participant: Here, here.
Chair Marks: -- and all the others, the number
designs I didn’t mention were those the Committee
eliminated so we would assume those are all zero.
So with that, we have the issue of lunch now. We
are scheduled to come back at a quarter after one.
We are, right now, a half-hour late in going to
lunch. How does the Committee feel about a 45
minute lunch and we’d be back at 1:30?
Participant: Absolutely.
Chair Marks: I think it could bring us substantially
back on schedule.
Participant: Absolutely.
Chair Marks: And I think 45 minutes, I hope, would
be enough. We’ve got lunch on premise. So if that
seems to suit everybody, with that, that will be our
plan. We’ll be back here at 1:30.
And we are in recess.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled
matter went off the record at
12:41 p.m. and went back on the
record at 1:31 p.m.)
Chair Marks: The first item I want to cover is the
minutes and the letter from October 18th. Those
were passed out earlier in the meeting, the minutes
were. The letter was in your packet. So if you are
prepared, I’d like to entertain a motion to approve
both of those.
Oh, first of all, before we do that I need to say that
we need to correct Mr. Jansen’s name appearing
twice. I incorrectly spelled it should J-E-N-S-E-N,
which it should be J-A-N-S-E-N. So as you approve
it, we’re assuming with that correction. So if there is
a motion to approve the minutes as corrective and

73
the letter, I would take that now.
Member Ross: Second.
Chair Marks: Okay. It’s been moved and seconded
to approve the minutes and letter. The motion was
by me, seconded by Michael. So with that, all those
in favor please say aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
Opposed.
(No audible response.)
Motion carries.
Also, I’ll circle back before we get to the tally and
ask all those on the phone if you would identify
yourself so we will know you’re there.
Member Ross: Michael. Did you get my vote?
Chair Marks: Yes, we did.
Member Olson: Okay.
Chair Marks: Who else is on the phone?
Mr. Menna: Yes. Joe Menna, in Philly.
Chair Marks: Hello, Joe.
Mr. Bernardi: Tom Bernardi is here as well.
Chair Marks: Anyone else?
(No audible response.)
Mike, thank you.
Mr. Menna: Mike is here, too in Philly. I think he got
cut off by the other Michael.
Chair Marks: Okay. Hold on for just a minute.
Mr. Gaudioso: I’m Mike Gaudioso. I’m right here,
sorry, I had it on mute.

74
Chair Marks: Okay. Hello?
Mr. Gaudioso: Hello.
Tally of First Spouse 2014
Chair Marks: Just a brief pause here. We’re about to
read the results of the tally for the first spouse 2014
coins, as soon as we get all the sheets an order.
Okay.
For Harding, Harding obverse, design number 1
received 18 of a possible 30 and is the runner-up.
The recommended design is number two with 23.
Moving to the Harding reverse, number one
received two votes. Reverse number two, which was
out of contention, received a vote.
Participant: I wonder who.
Chair Marks: Reversed three, which was out of
contention, received two. Reverse 4 received three
points. Reverse six is the recommended design,
with 28 of the 30. So, Coolidge. Coolidge obverse,
we have number one, which was removed from
contention, received three votes. Number two is our
recommended design, with 24 of the 30 possible.
And then three received four.
Coolidge reverse, again, number two, which was
eliminated, received three. And reverse three
received 29 of the 30. Nearly perfect. And that is
our recommended design. Okay. And number four
received 13. Okay.
Moving on to Hoover, on the obverse, number one
received 10 points. Number two received eight. And
number four is the selected design with 20. 20 of 30
possible.
Going on to Hoover reverse, out of contention
number one received three. Design three received
four. And number four is our recommended design,
with 28 of the 30 possible. Strong showing for that
one.

75
Moving on to Roosevelt. Roosevelt obverse, obverse
number three received six. Obverse four is our
recommended design with 21 of a possible 30.
Obverse five received one vote. Six received 11.
And seven received three.
Moving on to the Roosevelt reverse. The selected
design or recommended, I should say, is number
three, with 27 of the 30 possible. Fairly strong
showing for that one. And then number five, reverse
number five received five. And the CFA preference,
reverse number six, received nine points from our
Committee.
So if you missed any of those, we’ll be happy to go
over them again after the meetings. I have received
a note, which I think is appropriate, that at two
o’clock could we observe a moment of silence for
the late President John F. Kennedy. As you all know,
that’s approximately the time, I believe, that he was
assassinated exactly 50 years ago today. So if
someone would, if I forget if, someone would
remind me as we approach the two o’clock hour, I’d
appreciate that. I’ll probably be able to handle it
though.
So at this point, staff, is there anything before we
move on, on the agenda?
(No audible response.)
Okay. Then the next item on our agenda is the -actually, we’re going to look at that, the last item on
the agenda. So if we can -- thank you for, by the
way, thank you Megan, thank you, thank you. Folks,
she tore off at lunch to make this happen. This will
be relevant when we look at the visual definition.
For those on the phone, we’re looking at a visual of
the civil rights obverse number 10 that this
Committee recommended but was not coined. And
we’re going to revisit that image as part of the
visual definition later on in this meeting. But for
now, we’re going to look back at our agenda, and
then we’re going to have our discussion on the 2015
March of Dimes Commemorative Coin Program. And

76
I look to April for her report.
2015 March of Dimes Coin Program
Ms. Stafford: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The March of Dimes Commemorative Coin Act of
2012, public law 112–209, requires the Secretary of
the Treasury to mint and issue not more than
500,000 silver dollar coins in recognition, and
celebration of the 75th anniversary of the
establishment of the March of Dimes Foundation.
Subject to section 5134(f) of Title 31 USC,
surcharges received from the sale of these coins will
be paid to the March of Dimes to help finance
research, education, and services aimed at
improving the health of women, infants, and
children.
Regarding the design, the legislation states that,
“The design of the coins minted under this Act shall
be emblematic of the mission and programs of the
March of Dimes, and its distinguished record of
generating American support to protect our
children’s health.”
On each coin minted under this Act we have
required inscriptions. I’ll designate those for you.
For the obverse, we have: the year 2015, the
inscription Liberty, and in God We Trust. On the
reverse: One dollar, E Pluribus Unum, and United
States of America. Also, the legislation states that
the design for the coins minted under this Act shall
contain motifs that represent the past, present, and
future of the March of Dimes, and its role as a
champion for all babies. Such designs to be
consistent with the traditions and heritage of the
March of Dimes.
So the United States Mint consulted with our
liaisons at the March of Dimes and we received
additional information from them suggesting design
concept for our artists’ consideration. They include,
primarily, the idea to convey the history of the
March of Dimes on one side and to represent their

77
current mission on the other. So images might
include for the mission of today: a mother and a
baby, a baby’s face, a doctor or researcher in an
isolette, and the large logo symbol. Possible
inscriptions they suggest might include, “March of
Dimes,” and “Stronger, healthier babies.”
Regarding representing their history, they suggest
designs to represent the victory over polio.
Suggested images including depictions of Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, and Jonas Salk, poster child, a
field of trial children, and President Roosevelt in a
wheelchair. Possible inscriptions: “Victory over
polio,” and “Celebrating 75 years.”
We have with us today, we are very honored to
have representatives from the March of Dimes. They
include Cynthia Pellegrini, Senior Vice President for
Public Policy and Government Affairs, Kristy Lysik,
Director of Special Events Revenue Development,
and David Rose, archivist. So if it’s okay with you,
Mr. Chairman, I’d like to pass the microphone to
them to -Chair Marks: Please.
Ms. Lysik: Thank you very much. I’m David Rose,
archivist of the March of Dimes. And just a word to
start about the history of the March of Dimes. As
you all know, it was founded by President Franklin
Roosevelt in 1938, as the national foundation for
infantile paralysis. The March of Dimes was the first
name of our fund-raising campaign, which was a
successful campaign. It led to, really, the public
being so attracted to that it became the name of the
foundation itself later on.
We were committed to lead, unify, and to direct the
fight against poliomyelitis. And through the
development of the Jonas Salk polio vaccine and
Albert Sabin polio vaccine, the March of Dimes
effectively ended the polio epidemics in the United
States. Due to that, we had a cadre of volunteers
across the country that we didn’t want to lose. And
we changed our mission to birth defects prevention

78
in 1958, utilizing those volunteers to help us with
that.
During the 1960s we set up birth defects treatment
and evaluation centers. And then went on to the
field of perinatal health and genetics, to the point
where, in 2003, we started a campaign against a
premature birth, which was on the rise in the United
States since the early 1980s. So our mission today
is strongly characterized by the campaign against
prematurity, promoting stronger healthier babies,
and that, in sum, is what the March of Dimes is all
about.
So, thank you very much.
MS. PELLEGRINI: Thank you, again, for having us
here. The March of Dimes was absolutely thrilled
when we managed to successfully pass the
legislation leading to the creation of this coin, which
we think is an especially wonderful and fitting way
to honor our 75th anniversary, given the fact that
we have a coin in the very name of our
organization.
It was a long and arduous road but, like the polio
campaign, it was our volunteers who put us over
the top in getting the coin passed. I would like to
just add to what David said about our current
campaign to, which is broadly around maternal and
child health, promoting healthy pregnancies and
healthy babies. But very specifically, right now,
around pre-term birth. Pre-term birth rates peaked
in the United States in 2006 with one in every eight
babies born premature. So 12.6 percent -- 12.8
percent, excuse me, of all infants were being born
pre-term.
Since that time, we have managed to reduce rates
more than a full percentage point. So then now they
are well below 11 percent.
And we have benchmarks for every state and
nationwide that we are working hard to drive preterm birth rates to by the year 2020.

79
We spend tens of millions of dollars in research on
this goal every year. And scientists, our scientists
are telling us that we will put an end, or at least,
understand fully pre-term birth and have more
interventions for it within our lifetimes for the vast
majority of causes of pre-term birth. So with that
idea in mind of commemorating our past with polio,
and our present with pre-term birth, and healthy
babies we really look forward to working with you
on making this as successful a program as possible.

Ms. Lysik: Very impressive, colleagues.
I just want to say thank you for having us.
We, as you can tell, we have a very long and rich
history. And we are doing some impressive work
now and moving forward. So thank you for having
us today and I will turn it back over to April.
Ms. Stafford: So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Back to the Committee for a discussion.
Chair Marks: Okay. There was material provided to
us in our packet calling out the details of this coin
and detailing some possible suggested images. So I
trust that we’ve all had a chance to look at that. I
was just trying to refresh myself on this log. And
I’m wondering if the staff or our guests might be
able to address for me. I read this somewhere, that
a long time ago, but the origin of the March of
Dimes itself, the idea of the coin being a part of
your name.
Mr. Rose: The phrase “March of Dimes” was coined
by the vaudeville comedian, Eddie Cantor, for the
first fund-raiser of the National Foundation for
Infantile Paralysis. So that name is used from the
very beginning of our organization in 1938.
Later on, after Franklin Roosevelt passed in April of
1945, a polio club located in Virginia, it was

80
affiliated with a March of Dimes Chapter, I believe in
Norfolk Virginia, petitioned a Virginia Senator to
introduce legislation putting Roosevelt’s likeness on
the dime. And that was passed within the year.
And I believe it was in 1946 that the first Roosevelt
dime was coined or minted. And we, of course,
because Roosevelt was such a firm supporter of the
March of Dimes and as a founder that his likeness
on the time was really intrinsically and symbolically
related to the organization itself.
Chair Marks: Okay. Thank you. With that, I guess
I’m going to start the comments. The legislation
does indicate that a surcharge will be placed on the
sale of these coins and that would then be paid to
the March of Dimes.
With that, I’m sure the March of Dimes would like to
see lots of these coin sell. And in that frame, as a
panel, most of us here, we’re not coin collectors. We
have an intense interest in coins. And there are
several of us who are coin collectors, numismatists
if you will, and we are the people who buy these
things.
And there’s like 32,000 others who belong to the
ANA. That’s going to be mainly your customer base.
Surely, there’ll be some from your own organization
and those who support you.
So I say this because with the idea or the theme of
March of Dimes, and your marketplace is going to
be a marketplace where numismatists will be -your title is a big bonus to you. The mention of dime
in your name. I think we’d be remiss if we didn’t
end up with a design that somehow had some, even
some element of a dime on it. I don’t know if it’s -maybe the dime size diameter itself somewhere on
the silver dollar that had the obverse because that
wouldn’t call out a nomination -- which would be a
confusing issue -- but perhaps the obverse of the
dime actually goes on the March of Dimes dollar. Or
maybe the traditional portrait of Roosevelt in the
midst of a modern design. Something of that

81
nature, I think is important.
And I think would lend to sales of this coin. It would
just make a lot of intuitive sense. If you are the
March of Dimes and you have the honor of having a
silver dollar minted by the United States Mint, it
seems to me the dime should be on there
somewhere. And I know that that would motivate, I
know it would motivate me to buy it. I don’t buy all
products. I only buy the ones that I like and that
have some meaning to me. And I don’t know,
something about that, intuitively, I think that ought
to be there. You could put just simply the dime on
there and fill the rest of the face with some
complementary image. So, or maybe some focus
on, as you’ve suggested here images, of a mother
and baby or, I don’t know. Anyway, I guess those
are my comments.
Jeanne, are you ready?
Member Stevens-Sollman: Yes. I’m not sure if this
is on. It’s on.
Just to carry on with Gary’s suggestion. And I may
really be amiss in asking the Mint this or the
Committee this but if we have a dollar March of
Dimes could we not take that same imagery and
make a dime out of it? I mean, is it possible to
actually have a dime minted with that same image,
a smaller -- we can’t do that?
Participant: The law won’t -Member Stevens-Sollman: The law won’t let us.
That’s too bad. I’m sorry. Okay. Sorry.
Member Jansen: Question.
Chair Marks: Go, Erik.
Member Jansen: I don’t think the law specifies how
the product is merchandised. So maybe a question
for April, is it possible that this dollar coin could also
be offered in a special set with a genuine proof 2014

82
dime?
Ms. Stafford: The United States Mint Sales and
Marketing Department absolutely explores -Member Jansen: Yes.
Ms. Stafford: -- lots of those options for special -and what will encourage the sale.
Member Jansen: Okay.
Ms. Stafford: For their understanding of the theme.
Member Jansen: All right. So here’s a maybe odd
question that probably hits Steve and Greg. Could a
die be constructed that would actually create a
cavity, a blank cavity, on the silver dollar upon
which a clad dime could be spot welded?
Chair Marks: Steve doesn’t think you’re serious.
Member Jansen: Steve thinks I’m a nut.
Mr. Antonucci: I love the way your mind thinks.
Member Jansen: My mind doesn’t think, Steve. It
just kind of rolls in strange ways.
Chair Marks: I have a suggestion. Why wouldn’t you
put the dime on there and raise it up as a raised
item on the design itself?
Member Jansen: Well, why don’t we just put it in
there and let it brockeridge itself, you know? I
mean, there are all kinds of ways of looking at the
situation.
Chair Marks: I can see the missing dime error now.
We have to weld it on there.
Member Jansen: We know creating scarcity is not
something the Mint does on purpose. But it is an
open question. I mean, you’ve done curved
planchets, you’ve done all kinds of things, could you
predictably and would the regulations here allow,
potentially, a cavity be too struck into the --

83
Mr. Antonucci: Blank cavity. You mean a void?
Member Jansen: I mean a whole that we stick a
dime in.
Chair Marks: You want a doughnut.
Member Jansen: No, I don’t necessarily mean a
doughnut. I don’t want to fabricate a bi-metallic -Mr. Antonucci: Well, that’s what -Member Jansen: Maybe we can procure one. I don’t
know. Maybe that's an alternative form of the
question.
But knowing the planchet thickness of a dollar is
approximately double that of a dime probably, 22030 percent or something, could you, I mean, it’s a
dialect question -- could you strike a cavity and
insert a dime?
Ms. Stafford: Mr. Antonucci.
Member Jansen: Fortunately, it’s not a sculpting
challenge.
Mr. Antonucci: That’s a highly technical challenge. I
don’t know. I don’t know. I’d have to take some
time to -- I can’t -- I don’t want to say yes and then
get held to that.
Member Jansen: And Greg, would that walk on the
regulations?
Ms. Weinman: Once again, the coin would be the
struck coin would become -- we, as an numismatic
element, to include a dime into it, isn't necessarily a
-Member Jansen: It’s not including a time. It
incusing a dime.
Ms. Weinman: I would have to take it under
advisement as well.
Ms. Stafford: Just for clarity, are you saying to

84
actually make the commemorative coin with the
cavity so that a customer would insert their own
dime?
Member Jansen: There is even a more provocative
interpretation, taking my point further. I was just
assuming the Mint would add the dime. But maybe
you sell it in a, you know, BYO-dime.
Member Olson: What if you have the cavity of the
dime as an incused negative space on the coin, like
you said, and the customer could put their own
dime in there and then you also have the
celebration of the original design in contra relief as
an artistic element?
Member Jansen: And you say it so more eloquently
than I am capable of.
Chair Marks: Okay. You know what? This is really a
technical question. If staff is going to answer it, I
want you take the time that you need to answer it.
So let’s -- if you would take that under advisement Mr. Antonucci: Absolutely.
Chair Marks: -- and perhaps communicate
something back when that is appropriate? That
would be great.
I’m going to recognize Mike Olson on the phone.
Mike, are you there?
Member Olson: Thanks, Gary. I want to understand
just a little bit on what I was hearing of the idea
that was just proposed and offer one of my own.
When I think of the March of Dimes, I recall the
dime boards that would be up on the merchant’s
counter that would be full of dimes. And when they
became full, I’m sure someone from the
organization collected them and deposited them to
provide for the good of that the organization does.
The idea that I was hearing talked about, about a

85
slot or a space in the silver dollar for a dime ties in
with the organization as well. And I would
encourage the Mint to look into that.
The other thing that came to mind as far as a
design aspect is if we were going to incorporate, not
a slot for dime but maybe a life-size image of the
dime on the silver dollar, exactly the way that a
dime looks, that part of the design of the dollar
maybe some aspect of the board. And maybe a
hand putting the dime into a board.
But the other -- that’s just a design concept -- but
the other business concept that I was thinking of,
the silver dollars have a maximum mintage of
500,000. I can’t remember the last time that the
Mint came close to even selling half of that much. It
benefits everyone to have as many sales as
possible. People buy these coins because they like
the design or because they have an affinity to the
organization. You’re going to get those sales
regardless.
The way you could get some additional sales, and I
heard some talk around the fringes of this, is think
back to 1996 when, to commemorate Franklin
Roosevelt a special dime was included only in the
Mint set, which you could buy from the Mint, with a
W Mint mark. You couldn’t go to the banks. The only
way you get them was to buy the Mint set. Those
coins I believe now are selling for upwards of $20
apiece for a dime.
Chair Marks: Mike, Mike, Mike.
Member Olson: Yes.
Chair Marks: Can I get you to pause for just a
minute?
We need to have our moment of silence. Two
o’clock has arrived. And so at this moment we will
observe a moment of silence.
(Moment of silence.)

86
Okay. Thank you.
Mike, please continue.
Member Olson: Okay. Yes. It’s hard to remember
where I was 50 years ago because I was a month
old. But definitely a very emotional time here today.
Getting back to the discussion on the Roosevelt
dime. If there would be some consideration to
making some type of limited dime available, you
know, I read a lot of the internet, a lot of the blogs
that some of the other collectors here do. And
sometimes the Mint, fairly or unfairly, gets tainted
with hey, you’re making these expensive coins for
the rich guy on some of these issues that have
come out and there’s nothing for the little guy. Well,
you could really serve both constituencies here very
well by considering a special dime to be included
with the set. And the only way you could get this
dime would be along with the purchase of a March
of Dimes dollar.
We don’t need to go into it all here. It could be a
silver dime, it could have a special Mint mark,
whatever. And limit the mintage of the dime to
100,000. I’ll bet you’d would sell every one of those
sets.
I’m interested to hear what everyone else has to
say but that’s my comment.
Chair Marks: Greg.
Ms. Weinman: Yes. I just want to clarify something
from an earlier point. The question that Erik asked
was, could we, as part of our manufacturing
process, manufacture a dime into this particular
coin as the coin? The answer would be, no. Because
legislation is actually very specific that it must -- the
coin we produce must weigh 26.73 grams, must
contain 90 percent silver, and 10 percent copper.
And so -Member Jansen: And why not a dime on a 90

87
percent silver/10 percent copper planchet?
Ms. Weinman: Could be as an aftermarket
numismatic item of some sorts. And that’s a
separate question.
Chair Marks: Okay. Donald.
Member Scarinci: Yes. I really appreciate that the
sponsoring committee is here today at this stage.
You know, it really creates, and regardless of
everything you’re going to hear here, it really
creates an opportunity for us to communicate to
you something that is, you know, that is very
important that you really have to consider. And
you’re going to be interfacing with the Mint’s staff
and they will listen to you.
And what you have to consider on your end, when it
comes to discussing a design, is really very internal.
And I’m not asking the question because I don’t
want a response. I think you have to ask
yourselves, is your objective to make money for the
organization? Is your objective to have some
commemorative of the organization, for the
organization, regardless of whether it makes money
or not? Or do you want to try to do both?
And I think if you can internally answer
question for yourselves, you’ll be, you know,
effective in the way you communicate to the
and the way the Mint communicates back to
But that’s a fundamental threshold question.

that
very
Mint
you.

And what you’re hearing from us is, you know, and
you’re going to want to, you know do, a little
homework, you probably already have, about
mintages and what that means to your surcharge,
you know, and what that means to your economics.
And I think what you will find is that your core
buyers are, you know, collectors, essentially.
And you know, while, you, the organization, are
going to sell these things, and push these things,
and promote these things, the people you push

88
them to and promote them to will buy them
regardless of what they are. Right?
The collectors, on the other hand, are going to be
very very more, are going to be much much more
selective. Especially, you know, what you hear with,
that some people collect, there’s so much product
each year that they pick and choose what they’re
going to buy. They don’t buy everything. I buy
everything. Right?
But most people don’t buy
everything.
And you know, so you know, I think you’re going to
want to really appeal to that market because that’s
your core at the end of the day. And what you’re
going to sell, you’re going to sell anyway. And
people are going to buy it because they support,
you know, they support you.
So collectors will not buy it just because they
support you.
So I think that, you know, there are some
opportunities. It is a dollar. But I think if you do
something that’s same old same old, you’re going to
get the results that we have been, that the Mint has
been getting over recent years; same old same old,
the collectors aren’t buying it.
If you can do something, you know, different
creative, and what we’ve been trying to
communicate to the artists is give us, you know,
give a symbol, give us art, give us something that’s
pretty, give us something that’s a work of art,
because when it is a work of art, people buy it. And
then it crosses other circles where people buy. If it’s
going to be just another image, you know, an image
of, you know, a baby and, you know, a mother well,
you know, a lot of those. You know, not only here
but all over the world. So there’s nothing special
about it.
If you’re willing to be bold and different this is
probably the time in the Mint’s history that’s -they’re doing bold and different things, you know,

89
with -- and if it were ever possible to do things like
bi-metallic coins or coins in parts, in multiple parts,
the kinds of things, the kinds of coins that get
awards for most innovative in other categories as
we’re going to talk about later today, when we look
at some of these things, these are the people,
especially that guy over there, they can do this.
So you have to really -- because this is your coin,
and in the end -- so you guys have to really think it
through, talk to the Mint, you know, you’re going to
find from us, you know, that the more creative you
are, the more excited we’re going to be.
And you know, we like symbolism.
We don’t like pictorial images. Images of, you know,
in fact we just had that today, earlier today. I think
we rejected most of the designs for the first spouse
coins that had, you know, pictorial depictions,
pictures on metal.
You know, art exciting things, different things,
you’re going to get people excited.
And something that could, if you could get them to
do something that’s a first, people collect firsts. So I
just wanted to pass that on.
I don’t have any comments on the specific, on the
specific design and nor do I particularly believe in
coin design by committee. I believe in letting the
artists be the artists and see what they come up
with. And give them as much as rope as you can
give them because they think in coin. And we don’t.
So they think in a multi-dimensional sculptural
image and we don’t.
So I thank you for coming at this early stage for us.
And you know, I don’t have any specific comments
other than to just give you that suggestion.
Chair Marks: Thank you, Donald. Who would like to
go next?

90
MS. PELLEGRINI: Is it possible just to -Chair Marks: Please.
MS. PELLEGRINI: -- add just a little bit of
information that might be helpful to you all as you
think because your points are very well taken. And
they are things that we’re already discussing, and
researching, and trying to plan ahead for. And so
just a couple of thoughts. From the information
we’ve been able to collect and glean so far, it seems
like the collectors are usually responsible for
between, somewhere between 100,000 and
200,000 sales of coins for each commemorative
coin. Somewhere in that neighborhood.
We’ve been authorized to sell up to 500,000. So it’s
our assumption that, as an organization, we’re
going to be responsible for generating the sales of
at least half, and probably more than half. So how
do you balance these not irreconcilable, but
certainly challenging different issues, between what
is appealing to the coin collector and what is
appealing to our audience?
So it might help you to know who our audience is a
little bit more. We have well over 3 million active
volunteers nationwide. These people, in general,
generally our families, often their moms, usually
they are parents of a preemie, a child with a birth
defect or their families have lost the baby to one of
those things, or the friends and close, you know,
close friends and family members of those folks.
So we’re also looking at this and saying, what will
be most appealing to these people who are already
supporting us? They’re already usually, you know,
they’re walking in our walks, or they’re participating
in special events, or they’re sending us donations.
What can we give them that would incentivize them
to support us in this additional way? So it’s not a
first, probably not going to be a first way to support
us for most of these people that we’re going to be
contacting. It’s a second or third or fourth way that
they’re contributing to the March of Dimes in that

91
year.
Chair Marks: Thank you very much. Someone else?
Any thoughts? Did we get it all set up?
Member Olson: Well, Gary, this is Mike Olson. I
believe that was a March of Dimes representative
that was just speaking; is that correct? Chair Marks:
Yes, yes, it was.
Member Olson: Okay. The only suggestion that I
might make to you is you got three million folks that
are committed to your cause and are volunteering.
You need to be thinking of the way you can drive
the message down that these coins are available
down to that last person.
With some of these other groups that we’ve seen
here in the past, I’m not sure if the entire interest
group even knows the coins exist.
So you’re going to want to have a good plan for
communicating and then how to order them.
Chair Marks: Thank you, Mike. Are there any other
comments?
(No audible response.)
Okay. I’d like to thank our guests for coming and
being a part of -(Applause.)
-- part of this discussion. And most of all, I want to
thank you for the service you provide to our nation
through a very worthy organization. And I hope that
you’ll come back when we see these designs as real
designs. And we’ll be very eager to get your input
on those designs at that time.
So thank you for being here. Okay. Next -- well,
let’s just pause for just a minute. We’re not
recessing. Just let our guest collect their stuff and
exit the room. All right.

92
Next item on the agenda is the thematic discussion
on the 2015, and I believe, 2016 First Spouse
Coins. And there’s material in the packet.
April, did you have a report for us?
2015/2016 First Spouse Themes
Ms. Stafford: No, sir. It was just simply, we can do
this one of two ways. Either we can just give the
court reporter a copy of the activities and interests
as listed or I can read it into the record. Whatever
your preference, that we’re simply going to receive
your -Chair Marks: We did receive the material in the
packet. I believe that most or all of us have looked
that material over. So I think what I want to do, I
want to go to our strength on the Committee for
these sorts of discussions. I want to start it with
Michael Ross, who’s our historian.
And Michael, if you’re ready, I’d like to understand
your thoughts on this.
Member Ross: Sure. I like the fact that we’re being
included on this end because I think we can save a
lot of the artwork that everyone seems to be
rejecting on a regular basis of first ladies hosting, of
first ladies at the summer retreat, of first ladies with
dogs on the front lawn.
And even though some of these things in the past
that first ladies do, so it is part of who they were as
first ladies, I would like to propose that we very
quickly just go through each and just scratch them
out so no artist spends any time coming up with
artwork that has anything to do with those topics.
And instead, focuses on things that can be
portrayed symbolically in an inspiring way. And I
think we can do this very fast. All right.
Bess Truman. This is the woman who hated the
duties of the White House. And they have her in
there as the greatest of White House hostesses. She

93
hated it. She went home to Independence whenever
she could. The fourth line down, “Re-instituted the
formal White House and considered the hardest
worker of all the White House hostesses.” Great.
She hated it. Whenever she could, she got out of
Washington. She hated Washington. She liked
Independence. She had been the accountant for her
husband’s haberdashery. And she’s considered the
First Lady who was least changed by the White
House and kept her simple small-town values, and
simplicity, and lack of pretension.
So if there’s a way to convey something about her
as the person who kept her small-town heart at the
White House, it would be magnificent. But that
should go.
You know, “Worked as a paid staffer on her
husband’s seventh -- helped campaign with her
husband on the Whistle Stop Campaign,” that’s
virtually every first lady from 1865 on. “Participated
in food rationing at the White House during World
War II,” well not bad but something symbolic about
a simple woman with straightforward taste who
indeed Harry consulted with her on the Atomic
Bomb, we don’t need to go into that. But something
like that.
Mamie Eisenhower. We do not want her decorating
27 different Christmas trees. We do not want her -you get what I’m getting at. What she was probably
most -- her largest impact -- she deliberately took a
secondary role, she thought that was appropriate -but her largest impact after Eisenhower has a heart
attack, she becomes this kind of national
spokesperson for the American Heart Association,
raises $70 million, or raises their income 70 percent
and makes heart health an national issue. That’s a
nice storyline. Jackie Kennedy, yes, she gives that
that famous tour that we see over and over again of
her touring people around the White House. But
that’s not how Jackie Kennedy, I think, wants to be
remembered. I think if when you think of Jackie
Kennedy and her input into Camelot, it wasn’t just

94
her beauty and style, but it was the fact that she
was the driving force behind one of the key points
of Camelot, which was the arts. She’s the one that
invites Pablo Casals into the White House. Kennedy
didn’t even want to see Pablo Casals. She’s the one
that made sure that at all these dinners, there were
the artists and the musicians. And that whole image
of Camelot as the era of culture is all Jackie
Kennedy. And that can be symbolized, I think, quite
nicely.
But if we do things like co-founded the White House
Historical Association -- scratch. Insisted on
remaining at her husband’s side during the Cuban
missile crisis. What are we going to do with that?
Scratch. Gave a televised tour of the White House -scratch. Authored the first historical guidebook of
the White House -- scratch. Worked to secure a loan
for the Mona Lisa fits into a larger theme but unless
we’re going to have her standing next to the Mona
Lisa -- scratch.
You get the idea. And look for something that, a
theme that symbolizes what her key contributions
to the Kennedy mystique was.
Lady Bird Johnson. Very active First Lady. One of
these people that her own Press Secretary, her own
Chief of Staff. But it is true that the thing she is
most remembered for is Lady Bird’s Bill, the
Beautification of American Highways. She’s an
environmentalist, conservationist but hated all the
billboards and clutter and garbage. And that’s a real
contribution.
And I think you can do something symbolically with
her commitment to the beautification of America’s
roads that represents her correctly.
But kept a diary of her life in the White House -scratch. First Lady to hold the missal for her
husband's squaring in -- scratch. First Lady to
campaign for her husband in her own speeches, it’s
not bad but you get the idea.

95
Pat Nixon is the most traveled First Lady in the
history of first ladies. She becomes her own,
essentially, American representative and taken very
seriously. And all of the places that she went
without her husband she’s not just following her
husband around. I think that idea of a world
traveling representative of America, great. But used
her position as First Lady to advocate for volunteer
service, she did do that, all right fine.
And then, Betty Ford, I think if you don’t have
something to represent Betty Ford’s candor about
her breast cancer, and her alcoholism, and her
efforts to then help other women escape from
alcoholism and to cure breast cancer, I think that’s
at the core of who anyone who thinks of Betty Ford,
those are the things you immediately want
symbolized. Rather than personally the First Lady to
deliver a concession speech for her president’s lost
reelection bid.
So you get what I mean. Just pare it down so we
don’t get a story, any kind of story board enough so
something every first lady ever has done, hosted
the White House, decorate trees, added extra roses
to the Rose Garden. Cut.
There. Done.
Chair Marks: Fabulous. Fabulous, Mike. That’s why
we have this guy on the Committee.
For me, personally you nailed it. That’s the kind of
thing we want to see. I think those are the sorts of
things that will honor these ladies in a way that I
would guess that they would want to be
remembered. Excellent.
Anyone else have something to add to that?
Member Wastweet: No cuddling -Member Ross: No cuddling panda bears.
Member Scarinci: I think it’s impossible to add to

96
that. I think he said it -Participant: Yes.
Member Wastweet: That was very good, Michael.
Thank you.
Chair Marks: I will emphasize the last part. I mean,
he distilled down those important things for each of
those ladies. And the other part that he said at the
end, but now let’s represent those symbolically. You
know, I don’t think I want a picture of Pat Nixon
stepping out of an airplane because she’s a world
traveler. That’s a story board. I’d like some
creativity to represent world traveler, you know.
How you do that in a symbolic way?
Member Wastweet: Passport stamps.
Member Scarinci:
community.

I

think

engaging the global

Chair Marks: Yes.
Passport stamps, I don’t know. Heidi just suggested
-- but those sort of symbolic ideas, they’re going to
convey great. And by the way, we’ve started the
symbolic theme on the first spouse today. All four of
the reverses ended up being symbolic designs. So
we’re on a roll here. I’d like to keep us on that role.
Mr. Ross, just teed us up perfectly for that.
The artists aren’t in the room, are they?
Participant: Could I just -Chair Marks: No, when they get back in the room -are there any artists on the phone?
Mr. Bernardi: Yes.
Chair Marks: It’s been suggested that if you have
any questions for our historian at this point it would
be great if you wanted to send them his way.
Mr. Bernardi: I would appreciate it in advance of

97
having a more concrete narrative to the views of the
point of reference. It’s a little early for that, for me
anyway.
Chair Marks: Understood.
Member Ross: Yes. My concern here is we’ve -- on
these narratives -- what we’ve done is gone to a
few websites and pull out a few items that these,
you know, the Wikipedia and the White House
Historical Association list as achievements. But it’s
seldom taking a step back from the person and
getting at their essence, at the heart of what they
represented, and how they’re kind of fixed in the
American imagination.
And I think we need to make more of an effort to do
that rather than lining up these dreary mothball-ish
lists of decorating 27 trees at the White House.
Chair Marks: Okay.
Member Jansen: I’ll throw a thought out there. First
of all, that isn’t to say the work that was done here
isn’t appreciated. It is.
Member Ross: Oh, sorry.
Member Jansen: No, that’s all right. No, I’m the
master of brutality myself a few times.
Chair Marks: Yes, you are.
Member Jansen: So I’ll only, you know, try to atone
for my own sins there.
Chair Marks: I think some of the artists are going to
put a contract out on you Erik.
Member Jansen: It’s already happened but I live so
far away that, you know, they can’t touch me.
Member Ross: If they find you.
Member Jansen: They will eventually.
What I was going to say is because we’re getting

98
into the modern age here, where there are
assistants to these folks and some folks who may
have known them well, would it be within a budget
or a conceptual possibility that one of those folks
that knew them might actually be interviewed?
Ms. Sullivan: Going that route wasn’t something we
considered but I have reached out to all of the
presidential libraries in trying to get in touch with
family members, trying to get in touch with
anybody possible.
Member Jansen: Good.
Ms. Sullivan: It’s still ongoing. The communication
has been kind of slow -Member Jansen: Yes.
Ms. Sullivan: -- in getting to the right people.
Member Jansen: Yes.
Ms. Sullivan: But I do, I do think there are some
family members, actually, interested children and
grandchildren that may want to contribute some
more ideas. We just haven’t hit that -Member Jansen: Well, we get to this modern age
and that’s a possibility.
Ms. Sullivan: Right.
Member Jansen: And whether it’s a call that
interested artists can just dial into or whether it’s
recorded and made playable, the world changes
when you get to the modern era.
Chair Marks: Go ahead.
Member Scarinci: Yes, I guess, you know, not what
I was going to say but, you know, when we get to
the presidential medal, the Barack Obama medal -the only one sculpted from life was the Truman
medal. And you know, it would be a great thing. I
mean, if you could pull that off, getting an Obama

99
medal sculpted from life. So -- although he hates
medals. He didn’t even sit still for his inaugural
medal, twice.
The thing I want to say is you’ve seen us, you’ve
seen us as a group evolve and coalesce. And I think
what you saw today was the beginning of, you
know, don’t show us pictures. And when you do,
we’re just going to delete them and we’re not going
to look at them. So the people, the artists who are
doing them are really spending a lot of, you know,
time and energy doing something that we don’t
want to see.
And I suspect, having been here for a long time,
you know, that between now on the next meeting
this will become more and more of a hardened
position because that’s what this group tends to do.
So you know, I think take, you know, what
happened today with the pictorialism and, you
know, let’s really focus on, you know, different
choices of symbols.
And that, you know, that again, you know,
challenges, really, the staff more than the artists
because I think the artists think in symbolic terms
anyway. You know, but I think you want to give
them, you know, more of an opportunity to be
creative on major themes, picking symbols, and
working on symbols. And then take a chance and
throw us stuff, even if you don’t think, even if you
don’t think, you know, it’s going to fly. And hear
what we have to say.
I think other than Erik, no one on the Committee is
shy.
Chair Marks: Right. Thank you, Donald.
It seems like we’ve said it all. Is there someone who
wants to say more?
(No audible response.)
Okay. Then we’re --

100
Member Olson: This is Mike Olson.
Chair Marks: Yes.
Member Olson: I know we’re going to talk about the
visual definition of coin design excellence later.
But now I think would be the appropriate time for at
least for me to bring up the fact that when I went
through our nominations this year and I saw some
very good designs that we had nominated. And I
picked most of them.
The thing I was struck by is when I will looked at
the foreign designs, the quantity of good foreign
designs that are exactly what I believe our
Committee is telling the Mint that we’d like to see,
there’s a great body of work there.
So let’s try to catch up here and make some
progress.
Chair Marks: Okay. Thanks.
The next item on the agenda is completing our
discussion on our fiscal year 13th annual report.
When last we discussed the annual report, which
was back in July, we had completed all of the basic
recommendations we wanted to put forward except
for the commemorative recommendations for the
year 2018.
We had a short discussion at that point about three
potential programs that we were thinking about
recommending. There are two slots open.
So the three that we were looking at was, the first
one was the 100th anniversary of the U.S. Airmail
Service. The next one was a commemoration for the
nation’s fallen firefighters, which would be similar to
the 1997 National Police Officers Memorial Dollar
that was done for police officers. And then the last
one was the 100th anniversary of the end of World
War I. That one happens to be in Bill form right
now. It’s a bill that’s being pushed by ANA. And I

101
think one of their premises is that it’s the forgotten
war of a sort in U.S. coinage.
I put forward a proposal, which is a little different
than the ANA’s. It’s a $2 program. One would be a
traditional high relief 2018 version of the peace
dollar coupled with a modern dollar coin
commemorating the end of the war and honoring
those who served.
So those are the three items. And I want to ask
Michael Bugeja to bring us back up to speed with his
recommendation for the U.S. Airmail.
Member Bugeja: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I feel very strongly about this particular
commemorative. In 1918, the U.S. Postal -- what
became to the U.S. Postal Service started delivering
airmail and it was a very hazardous job at that time.
Lots of brave pilots risked their lives to deliver mail.
And we take airmail for granted, all of us do. And
we rely on it every day, perhaps more so than any
other -- any other government or postal service.
The thing about the airmail service that is important
to me is that the USPS is financially challenged all
the time. Rather than get into why it’s challenged,
you can understand that it is because we are in the
process of deciding whether to end Saturday
service. Saturday service is absolutely critical to the
rural community. It’s especially critical to the
newspaper industry which relies on Saturday
delivery. Coming in here for this meeting, I passed
the old post office and there’s a statue of Benjamin
Franklin out there. Benjamin Franklin was the first
postmaster of the United States. But before that
and continuing after, he was a journalist.
It is important that the Post Office remember the
vital quality of Saturday service. And in when they
consider their budgetary challenges.
However, when you look at how these challenges
are being addressed, as I look at it, in our local post

102
office in the middle of town in Ames, Iowa, which is
in the middle of the state of Iowa, which is in the
middle of the United States, and you look at the
products that they’re selling, you have U.S. Postal
Service bags. It says, “The United States Post
Office.” Little bags that you could put groceries in,
made in China. They have different types of stuffed
animals, all made in China. They have watches,
trinkets, all made in China. I bought every
peripheral in Ames, Iowa. And the only one I found
on the day that I purchased it was a pack of
postcards that were made in the United States.
It has come to my attention as well that the U.S.
Mint has often taken a look at how can we vend our
products, because the Postal Service has all these
products, why aren’t U.S. Mint coins there?
Well, here is an opportunity to have a surcharge for
a coin that serves a couple of purposes. More than a
couple of purposes. One, it will go some way toward
easing the financial burden of the post office.
Two, the newspaper industry and the media will be
clearly behind it. I’ve had inquiries from editors
across the country concerning this because I have
posted on our ethics website all of the products I
bought at the post office that were from China.
And then if we had a commemorative for airmail
service that could be vended through the vast
distribution centers of the U.S. Post Offices, closing
many of those as we speak particularly in rural
America, this could be a beginning to use the Postal
Service as a vendor of U.S. Mint products.
But if we don’t make an attempt to approach the
Post Office at this critical juncture, we will miss this
narrow window of opportunity.
Mr. Chairman.
Chair Marks: Thank you, Michael. All right,
Committee. Those are the three proposals before
you. The task today is to decide which of those

103
three, two of those three that you want to include in
the annual report.
Once we accomplish that today, I know the agenda
says approval or final approval of the annual report,
but I think I want to put that off to the next
meeting where I can get you a clean copy version of
the entire annual report.
But this is the last piece of work that has to be done
to allow me to put that together for you.
So let’s have the discussion. You’ve heard the three.
Which two do you want to put into the annual
report? Anybody?
Member Scarinci: What are the three again?
Chair Marks: Okay. The three -Member Scarinci: The airmail -Chair Marks: -- U.S. airmail, fallen firefighters -Member Scarinci: Fallen firefighters.
Chair Marks: -- World War I.
So Michael Olson, are you on the line?
Member Olson: Yes.
Chair Marks: Did you want to make any comments?
I don’t want to overlook you. We can start -Member Olson: This is for 2017, is that correct?
Chair Marks: 18. 18.
Member Olson: 2018. Okay.
You know, I really like your idea of the World War I
with the peace dollar concept. That has every
hallmark of our winner. And to re-issue a modern
day peace dollar that you could continue your
collection with decades after the last one was made,
that is an exciting concept. And I think it would be
very well received. And above and beyond that, the

104
commemoration of the soldiers that fought in that
war is long overdue. So for that reason, I would
certainly support your idea for that.
I know, Gary, you have been very gracious in the
past to acquiesce the fallen firefighters’ slots to
allow others to fill in. And that is another one that I
feel is long overdue.
So I guess, I’ve heard what Michael Bugeja has had
to say and I don’t disagree with anything he’s
saying. It all makes sense.
But for 2018, the firefighters and the World War I,
they’re long overdue. And we’ll lose our opportunity
to commemorate the 100th anniversary of World
War I after 2018. So I think that one, in my view, is
a certainty with the firefighters just edging out the
airmail slightly.
Chair Marks: Thank you, Michael.
Member Olson: That’s it.
Chair Marks: Someone else?
Member Scarinci: You know, I’d like to speak in
favor of the airmail because, you know, one of the
things that we had talked about a long long time
ago was to -- and now obviously is not the time
with the United States Postal Service to talk to them
about anything that doesn’t involve Harry Potter,
you know or any of that stuff that they’re doing -but at some point it would be good to re-engage
the, you know, our equivalent in the Post Office.
And attempt to do what a lot of countries, coin-ish
countries in the world are doing. Which is, you
know, the concept of joint numismatic philatelic
items. Where we issue a commemorative coin and
simultaneous with the release of the U.S.
commemorative coin, there could be a U.S.
commemorative stamp. And the stamp coin could
be a set. You know, which is stamped for the first
day. So that’s something we really, you know, we
touch on it, we have these neat little president

105
dollar things, and we’ve done in the past but it’s not
really a numismatic philatelic item in the sense of,
here’s the stamp that’s issued simultaneous with
the coin. I think, you know, doing something like
this, if we use it as a gesture to -- and we have
plenty of time to deal with it and we can chairmanize someone here to go to the Postal Service -- you
know, that might create an opportunity to break the
ice on this issue. And do it.
So I kind of like the idea, I kind of like the idea of
this.
On the other coin, if there’s any risk that were going
to reproduce something, I’m going to go with the
fallen firefighters.
Chair Marks: Okay. I have a suggestion that I think
could make it a lot easier for us to complete this
item and allow the postal issue to go forward.
Last year, I deferred to the Alaska Commemoration
when I presented fallen firefighters. This year, I will
willingly defer to the Postal Service if the Committee
would be gracious enough to include in your motion
that the 2019 year, which we will address in our
next annual report, automatically, a slot goes to
fallen firefighters. It will be an established fact when
we look at that report.
Member Stevens-Sollman: Gary, I think that’s a
great idea. It will help all of us to make a better
decision.
You know, when we are faced with 100th year
anniversaries, you know we can’t move that around.
That’s what they are. And I like the fact that we
might be able to work in conjunction with the Postal
Service.
Chair Marks: Yes, the firefighters are not a year
specific commemoration.
Member Stevens-Sollman: Correct.

106
Chair Marks: And we’ve got to the -Member Stevens-Sollman: Yes, exactly.
Chair Marks: We’ve got World War I, which I think
we would be remiss to not include that in some
way. And the postal idea is a good one. So -Member Stevens-Sollman: Could I move? Could I
move that we -- propose we do the 100 year postal
anniversary coin and the 100 year World War I coin,
and then put Gary’s fallen firefighters definitely on
2019?
Member Uram: I’ll second the motion.
Chair Marks: Okay. It’s been moved and seconded.
And so it’s on the record and I’ll say it so it it will
make it into the record. That when we look at next
year’s annual report, we’re all going to know that
fallen firefighters are going to get their -Member Stevens-Sollman: Yes.
Chair Marks: -- recommendation from us.
I have, being in my profession, I will be able to
bring a lot to bear to push that one when the time
comes.
So with that, I’m going to call the question. All
those in favor, please raise your hand. We have a
unanimous vote. Michael, what is your vote?
Member Olson: I am raising my hand.
Chair Marks: Okay.
Member Jansen: Who seconded your motion?
Chair Marks: Tom did. Tom seconded it. Okay.
So it is, indeed, a unanimous vote.
And I’m very pleased that the repeatity of the last
couple of agenda items will allow us some extra
time for the visual definition. And that’s the item

107
that we will move to now.
The question is will the artists in Philadelphia be
able to see any of these materials?
Ms. Sullivan: They’re all, they’ve all called in. I don’t
know that they have access to the -- I don’t think
we’re streaming it to them right now.
Chair Marks: Okay.
Ms. Sullivan: On the video system.
Ms. Weinman: But if you give me your presentation
on the drive to share with -Chair Marks: Okay. And I want them to see this.
This is, there’s some interesting stuff in here. So -Mr. Bernardi: We don’t have access to that. This is
Tom speaking from Philadelphia.
Visual Definition of Design Excellence
Chair Marks: Okay. Just a little preface to all of this.
In 2010, this Committee issued the blueprint report
which was our kind of call to modernize the design
process. There were a number of recommendations
made in there.
And one of them was to move the artists out of the
basement into the facility they’re in now.
Another one was to involve this Committee earlier
on in of the thematic discussions.
Both of those have been accomplished. We’ve made
some great strides in design. We saw that today
with the symbolic representations that we were
provided. And that we also approved.
And at that time back, in 2010, as part of the
blueprint we adopted what we call the Visual
Definition of Coin and Medal Design Excellence. And
we appended it to the end of the blueprint report.
So if you’re interested in seeing what we did back

108
then -- because today is an add-on. We’re adding
designs that have been issues since 2010. So if you
want to see that original work, if you go to the
CCAC website, ccac.gov, go to the tab about us.
And then once you’re there, go to the tab special
reports, and you’ll see the blueprint. If you’ll then
scroll to the bottom of that, you’ll see the designs,
the three categories one being classic American
designs, another being more modern American
designs, and then a third category of foreign.
So with that, today we’re looking at the years 2011
through 2013.
Prior to this meeting, I asked the Committee
members to provide me with their nominations for
designs that individual members, I’ll stress that,
individual members felt were worthy of being
included in the Visual Definition of Coin and Medal
Design Excellence. So what we’re going to see here
are what individuals put on here.
The objective today is ultimately for us to tabulate
our votes as a Committee on which one of these
designs presented will be inducted, if you will, into
the visual definition. We received 58 designs. So I
want to -- we have some extra time, which is good.
But still I don’t want to, I don’t want to go too
slowly through this. But also spend enough time to
really look at what we’ve got. I’ve asked the
members to study ahead of time to make notes to
themselves, pre-vote if you will, on the designs they
like and others that they felt should not be included.
And for the artists in Philadelphia, there are several
here that are American designs that we’re going to
be considering.
So with that, whoever’s controlling the PowerPoint,
if you could go to the next page.
The first category is the American being the U.S.
Mint products. Okay.
The first one, actually was pointed out to me after

109
we put this together, it’s the 9/11 medal both
obverse and reverse. It was pointed out to me
earlier, and it’s correct, that the Committee already
included this one into the definition. We did that as
an individual add to the definition with an individual
vote. And it was a couple of years ago. I think it
was about the time this was issued. So both of
these obverse and reverse designs are already a
part of the definition. If we can go to the next page.
Here, we have the New Frontier Bronze Medal
reverse and the 2013 America the Beautiful Fort
McHenry reverse quarter dollar.
Next. We have the America the Beautiful Great
Basin reverse quarter dollar. And the America the
Beautiful Hawaii Volcano reverse quarter dollar.
Member Jansen: A question.
Chair Marks: Yes.
Member Jansen: Backing up to U.S., what I think is
U.S. five, I knew there’s some discussion about the
difference between maybe the artwork we originally
looked at and then how it was practically sculpted.
And I think US-05 is an example here where I know
there has been some discussion about, hey, those
leaves in those trees, or the needles on those trees,
or something -Chair Marks: For those on the phone, we’ve got a
letter and number identification of each of these
designs. Erik is speaking about the Great Basin
reverse.
Member Jansen: US–05. And this is kind of like, it’s
kind of like the spaghetti hair that begot George
Washington on the quarter a couple of decades ago.
I think we’re going to have spaghetti needles on this
tree. Where the needles were sculpted fairly simply,
for whatever reason. And I’m not sure the original
artwork had that on it.
So how are we to think about this, Gary? What do
you --

110
Chair Marks: Well, individually, we’re each going to
vote.
Member Jansen: Okay.
Chair Marks: And what we did last time was we had
a super majority, actually it was unanimous at the
time, we created the first definition. But we’re going
to have a super majority/two-thirds vote, any of
these designs that reaches that level we’ll deem as
worthy, if you will, of being added to our definition.
Member Jansen: So once we go through this, or
sooner if you feel you’ve already made your
decision, just send me your votes and I’ll try to
tabulate this real-time yet this afternoon. And if,
once I give that back to you and you want to
change your mind, just come to me and I’ll
annotate my tab. And then I’ll circulate the results.
And then if -- are you thinking we’ll do approvals
today based on that?
Chair Marks: Well, we’ve got quite a bit of time.
Let’s see how it goes.
Member Jansen: Okay.
Chair Marks: If we can do it all today, that’s great.
If not -Member Jansen: Okay.
Chair Marks: -- then from a practical sense, we
might have to put that, the results off.
Member Jansen: Okay.
Chair Marks: Okay. So the next one is our only
2014 add, and that is the Native American reverse.
Again, for 2014 of the one dollar coin. That one is
up on the screen now.
Also the 2013 Girl Scouts of the USA Centennial
reverse.
Member Scarinci: Before we -- are we commenting

111
on any of these or -Chair Marks: Well, how do we want to this? I mean,
my idea was that after I went through all of these,
we could do it as I have them up on the screen or
we can have each member make their comments -Member Scarinci: Yes.
Chair Marks: -- as they want. I’m assuming and
really really hoping that you don’t all want to
comment on all designs. We don’t have enough time
in the day to do that. So pick and choose carefully
which ones are really powerful that you want to
convey, and we’ll circle back and do all that.
Member Scarinci: Well, actually, all I wanted to say
about the Girl Scout piece -Chair Marks: Go ahead.
Member Scarinci: -- here, the problem with it is it’s
not really, it’s really the logo designed by the Girl
Scouts. So I’m not sure it belongs here.
Chair Marks: Well, I think the thought here is that it
was represented in a stylistic way that is, indeed,
unique to this dollar coin.
Member Scarinci: Yes, no, no. And it’s a great
design. But it’s -Chair Marks: The point of the program was to
commemorate the Girl Scouts.
Member Jansen: I don’t think we’re attributing who
owns the image. I think we’re attributing the quality
of the image to our -Chair Marks: Okay. Point taken, Donald.
Member Scarinci: Okay. No problem.
Chair Marks: And again, each of, we’re each going
to vote on these. And if we don’t get to two-thirds
then it doesn’t make it. So, but point well taken,

112
Donald. Thank you.
Next item here is the 2013 American Bison obverse
and reverse. Of course, this comes from the original
James Earle Fraser American Bison design which
was on the nickel from 2013 to -- no, 1913 to 1938.
This image, maybe not in a $50 denomination, but
this image early exists under the classic category of
the definition. I personally believe that’s where it
belongs but to honor our process I asked for
nominations. It legitimately is a 2013 coin. It’s up
here on the screen for you to look at. Next. The
next one is the obverse and reverse of the 2013
Edith Roosevelt First Spouse coin.
Next. We have the 2011 platinum Ensuring
Domestic Tranquility reverse and the 2013 platinum
to Promote the General Welfare reverse.
Next, we have the obverse and reverse of the StarSpangled Banner silver dollar for 2012. Also we
have the obverse and reverse of the five dollar gold
Star-Spangled Banner.
Now we’re shifting into the foreign category. We
have some entries from Australia. We have 2013
Australian Antarctic Territory Emperor Penguin
reverse and the 2012 Australian Southern Cross
coin which is the concave coin that I think a lot of
us on the Committee are familiar with. The Australia
2011 Australian Kangaroo reverse which is a one
dollar coin as well is that 2013 Kangaroo at Sunset
reverse one dollar coin.
Next. The Australia 2012 Kangaroo in Outback
reverse one dollar coin. Lots of Congress.
Member Ross:
Australia?

Yes.

They

have

kangaroos

in

Chair Marks: I think they do. I think they’re proud
of it too.
Next we go to Austria 2013 Prehistoric Life Triassic.
I don’t how you pronounce that. Also, the first and

113
reverse of the Austrian 2013 Stefan Zweig. Is that
the current next pronunciation?
It’s the obverse. A writer -- and anyway.
So next, please. We have the Canada 2012 Farewell
to the Penny one cent one ounce silver which is the
well-known reverse of the Canadian penny with the
gold leafing on the maple leafs.
And also we have from Canada the 2011 Year of the
Rabbit reverse $15 coin. It’s a scalloped coin.
The Canada 2011 Canoe reverse. It’s a $20 coin
which shows a canoe on the water and it’s supposed
reflection which is not, indeed, a reflection if you
look at it hard.
Then we also have the Canadian 2012 Polar Bear
reverse for their $20 coin.
Next. We have an entry from Cook Islands, 2012
Windows of the World Titanic obverse and reverse.
We have from the Czech Republic, a 2011 Jan
Kaspar reverse 200 koruna.
We have from Finland obverse and reverse of the
Hella -- I cannot pronounce that last name -Wuolijoka, a €10 coin.
From Germany, the 2012 100 Years of the German
National Library, €10 coin, obverse and reverse.
From Germany, the 2011 200th Anniversary of the
Birth of Franz Liszt, obverse €10.
Another familiar image is one from Great Britain of
the 2013 silver Britannia, reverse £2. That’s kind of
the counterpart to our silver eagle.
So then we’re moving on to the British 2012
Olympic Swimming 50p coin which is a seven-sided
coin.
Next would be from Greece, 2013 Plato’s Academy

114
obverse €2 bi-metallic coin. Next. Next is from Italy,
the 2011 500th Anniversary of the Birth of Mr.
Vasari, Giorgio Vasari, obverse reverse €10. And I’ll
admit to putting this one on here. The reason I put
it on here was I felt, particularly with the obverse
but also with the reverse, I felt that it was a very
creative way of putting a traditional image forward
in a little bit of a modern context. Next. Next is from
Latvia 2012 Latvian Sculptor Karlis Zale, one lat.
From Latvia, obverse and reverse of 2012 Riga Zoo,
one lat coin.
From Lithuania, 2013 January Uprising 1863 to
1864, obverse and reverse, 5o litu coin.
Also from Lithuania, obverse and reverse of the
2011 Lithuania Culture Theater, obverse reverse 10
litu.
Also from Lithuania, the 2012 Olympic Sailing
reverse, 50 litu.
From Luxembourg, the 2013 European Honey Bee
€5 coin which is bi-metallic.
From Malta, 2013 Self-government obverse €2, bimetallic.
New Zealand, we have the 2013 Maori Art Koru
reverse $1 coin.
From Niue -- am I saying that right? Niue, 2014 -oh I misspoke earlier. This is a 2014 coin. This is
the second one. 2014 Year of the Horse reverse,
five ounce gilded silver. The horse image, for those
of you who can’t see it, there’s a horse image on
here on a silver coin and the horse is gold, a $8
coin. Interesting denomination.
Also from Niue is a 2013 Birds of Prey Osprey, $2
coin.
Slovakia 2013, 20 Years of National Bank of
Slovakia, reverse €10.

115
Also from Slovakia, 2011
Composer John Cikker, €10.

Centennial

Birth

of

And that is it.
Oh, yes. And I asked the staff, Megan in particular,
if she could scare up the design for the obverse
number 10 that we selected and recommended for
the Civil Rights coin. As I think some of you are
aware, we talked about this earlier before the
meeting, that image was not selected, ultimately.
And at least some of us felt very strongly that this is
one of the better pieces put out recently, put before
us. So I asked that it be brought forward. It’s not on
our ballot. But I think it would be wholly appropriate
if the Committee felt, as I do, that we would add
this and also the reverse of this same coin, which is
being used. It has the stylized torch on it. And if
you saw that earlier today, the Mint did a fantastic
job of the toning of the various mirrored and frosted
images.
Member Ross: What did they go with on that? With
the reverse?
Chair Marks: The reverse was that torch image, if
you recall that one. And we recommended they pair
it with this obverse image. They paired it with the
protest image of three individuals carrying protest
signs. So, that doesn’t mean that the design that
wasn’t chosen ultimately isn’t an excellent design. I
think it is. And I think it’s one that we would like to
memorialize in our collection of visual excellence as
something that we’re very interested in seeing
similar things in the future.
So with that, if there’s any discussion on any of
these designs, let’s do that now. And I think I’ll just
take people as they are wanting to talk.
Heidi.
Member Wastweet: I wanted to say that we’ve had
discussions in the past about colorization and all
these little add-ons to coins. And the answer that

116
we’ve come up with repeatedly is that may be
something we’d admire in other mints and some of
us like those, some of us don’t like them. We’ve
come up with up the answer that we don’t
necessarily want to see that from the U.S. Mint at
this time.
So I think, in the interest of sending a clear
message that we not include those colorized coins in
this particular list even if they happen to be
appealing. Just remember that you’re sending a
message that this is the kinds of things that we
want to see from this Mint in the future. So keep
that in mind as we’re picking these coins.
Chair Marks: Anyone else? Donald.
Member Scarinci: A couple of coins, you know, a
couple of things I want to point out in some of these
coins.
And I guess, first of all, you know, I would urge as
you take another look at these coins to vote, you
know, some of them are pictorial and we’re saying
on one hand we don’t want to see pictorial. And if
we submit these, you know, in our design
excellence we’re really confusing everybody. So you
know, I really ask you to take another look at, you
know, at these things for pictorial. I also want to
point out, you know, a couple of specific designs
that, you know, are interesting. One being the
Australian Kangaroo at Sunset. The 2012 Kangaroo
at Sunset. You know, this, you know, this use of
proofing for the shadow, a very, a very simple, a
very simple design. You know, very successful in its
simplicity.
And I think, in the theme of less is more I want to
move you to, from there to the Latvia coin. The
theater coin. Okay. You know, we see that same
kind of simplicity, simplicity by the way, with the
Lithuania Uprising coin. The Latvia one lat Riga Zoo
coin is just an awesome perspective and, you know,
very different, very interesting. But the simplicity of
the Lithuania Theater obverse, you know, that’s

117
just, you know, nice lines forming, you know, a
subtle yet powerful image. And communicating
exactly what the coin is without using any legend to
describe what it is because you know what it is
when we see it. So that’s the Lithuania 2012 Culture
Theater obverse.
So I just want to, you know, wanted to, you know,
use some of these.
Now coins like the Malta Self-government, you
know, I mean, I really don’t think we want to see
that. And you know, and in reality, and I actually
have seen this coin, you know, it’s everything, it’s
everything -- you know, I mean, we used to say
that when coins are on a small planchet with so
many images they look like bugs. And that’s exactly
what this coin looks like. It looks like a bunch of
bugs on a small tiny planchet. And it just -- not a
nice coin in person. And I could understand when
you see a picture of a coin, you know, we have that
problem here. When you see a picture of a coin and
then you see the actual coin, you say, “Oh, my
God.” And like, it doesn’t look like it’s picture. You
know, and in this case, that is the case. In this
case.
And there were a few others like it. Some of which I
actually, I actually bought because I thought the
design was interesting. And when I got it, I, you
know, just, you know, it was just, you know,
actually just didn’t work.
So I just wanted to point this things out. You know,
my thing being simplicity and clarity, the image
should be a symbol without words. And it should
live without words. We’re stuck with words but it
should live, it should be, stand on its own as an
image.
That’s all.
Chair Marks: Anyone else?
(No audible response.)

118
Okay. If you still have your ballot, you could get
that into Erik.
Member Ross: Erik, I didn’t ballot. This is not my
area of expertise. I would just skew the results
based on -Member Jansen: Well, being a mere historian, we
can see how your opinion would probably not be
valid -Member Ross: Correct.
Member Jansen: -- so we appreciate it.
Member Ross: Good. Excellent.
Member Scarinci: I screwed with the -Member Jansen: Again?
Member Scarinci: -- I didn’t -Member Jansen: Just a pause here.
Member Scarinci: -- I didn’t do the ballot. I x’d the
ones I want, the ones I like -Member Jansen: So that little thing means a yes,
and nothing means no. Okay.
Member Scarinci: Nothing means -Member Jansen: Okay. Thank you.
Member Olson: Gary?
Chair Marks: Yes.
Member Olson: It’s Mike. I couldn’t get the mute
button off, but I do have a few comments.
Chair Marks: Okay. Go ahead. And Mike, if you
could resend your ballot.
Member Olson: Okay. As soon as I’m done I will do
that.

119
Chair Marks: Okay. Thank you.
Member Olson: You know, again, as I look through
these and I first want to complement anyone who
sent in the foreign designs. I don’t collect foreign,
so it was nice to see some of these designs that are
very good ones that are being done elsewhere. One
of the constraints the U.S. Mint has that it’s
apparent that some other mints don’t is the
requirement for the devices and inscriptions that
must go on our coins. The medals are not as
restricted but I believe only two medals made this
list.
I agree 100 percent with Heidi. Colorization is a
gimmick that I don’t think we want to go down.
Good designs and good work will show themselves
on a traditional coin without the need to colorize. I
think colorization, for the most part, is a distraction.
And again, the American ones that we, that made
the list, I was pretty much in favor of almost every
one of them. I think they stack up very well with the
foreign designs.
And I’m hopeful that the next time there’s a call for
a list like this that the American designs are a little
more in balance with the foreign ones we see.
That’s it.
Chair Marks: Thank you, Mike. I’ll just point out that
given that we had many nations, I think the largest
contributing nation to our collection here is, in fact,
the U.S. Mint. So while the numbers, because there
were so many countries, the number of countries
and their designs outweigh the products of the Mint
here, still the American coins were the largest
contributor to our nominated list.
So with that, Erik is tabulating the results.
I wanted to circle back while he’s working on that.
During our discussion on First Spouses, I know that
there was at least one design we wanted to,

120
perhaps, have some more discussion on. And that
was the reverse with the U.S.A. on it. That was the
reverse that was approved or recommended by our
group. And I didn’t want to get away here today and
Erik’s been very good to keep reminding me we
need to circle back to this.
So on that U.S.A. -- help me out guys, which one
was that?
Member Jansen: It’s the three
symbols on the White House --

sign

language

Chair Marks: Yes.
Member Wastweet: That’s right. The tattoo.
Chair Marks: Grace Coolidge. Our recommended
reverse design for Grace Coolidge. Did we want to
put any further recommendations concerning the
U.S.A. letters?
(No audible response.)
There was discussion earlier that one of the options
was just to recommend that they are eliminated.
Another was to, kind of mess around with the
design and get them back on there without putting
them on people’s wrists.
I’m not seeing a lot of interest.
Member Bugeja: I’m thinking if we try to fiddle with
the design it might not go over very well at this
point because it’s the overwhelming majority, I
think, that people wanted it. We should probably
just leave it.
Chair Marks: Okay.
Member Stevens-Sollman: Yes, but I believe,
Michael, that it was recommended that we move the
U.S.A. to the open field.
Member Bugeja: Yes.

121
Member Stevens-Sollman: Take it off the wrists
because it’s a tattoo thing. I don’t like it. The tattoo
-Member Ross: Body art. Gary referred to it as body
art.
Member Stevens-Sollman: Body art and whatever.
Chair Marks: So are you making a motion?
Member Stevens-Sollman: Yes. I’ll make that the
motion if we can recommend to the Mint to remove
U.S.A. from the wrists and put it in the open field
below, I would think that that would still make it
understandable that that’s what it says.
Chair Marks: Okay. That’s the motion.
Is there a second?
Member Stevens-Sollman: No one cares.
Member Ross: Second. Second.
Chair Marks: Okay. It’s been moved and seconded.
Member Jansen: Wait a second.
seconding an artistic opinion?

A

historian

Member Ross: I was told to second it.
Member Jansen: Are you married?
Chair Marks: Order, folks. Before I called the
question on that -Ms. Weinman: Just as a point of information. It was
mentioned earlier, but the CFA specifically also
recommended simply removing U.S.A. from the -they didn’t recommend moving it anywhere they
just simply recommended removing it, removing the
letters.
Chair Marks: Well, in the interest of variation in
making things interesting for all of you, we want to
remove it but we also want to add it back to the

122
field I guess. Well, I should say if this motion
passes.
Member Stevens-Sollman: Correct.
Chair Marks: So with that, raise of hands, all those
in favor of this motion, please raise your hand.
Member Jansen: Read the motion again, please?
Chair Marks: The motion is to remove U.S.A. from
the wrists of the Grace Coolidge reverse that we
recommended and add those letters to the open
field below.
Member Jansen: And add them?
Chair Marks: Yes. And add them. All those in favor
please raise your hand.
Member Scarinci: Well I may make another motion
to remove the letters and not add them back.
Chair Marks: Okay. Five. So five.
All those opposed?
Michael Olson, how do you vote?
Member Olson: I vote with the five majority.
Chair Marks: Oh, six.
Member Olson: Whatever that is.
Chair Marks: Motion carries as 6 to 3. Okay.
Are there any other motions to be made today on
any of the designs that we are recommending?
(No audible response.)
Okay. Then, Heidi, did you have something?
Member Wastweet: We talked a little about the
platinum reverse. Some of us didn’t like the road.
We could just simply remove the road. If there’s
some interest in that, I would make a motion to do

123
that.
Chair Marks: Your motion is taken and I will second
it.
Member Bugeja: Second.
Chair Marks: Okay. So it’s moved and seconded to
remove the road from our recommended platinum
reverse for 2014.
All those in favor, please, raise your hand.
One, two, three, four, five, six.
What’s your vote?
Member Ross: My vote is to make liberty a
confident adult.
Chair Marks: Olson. Michel Olson.
Member Olson: Yes, I’m raising my hand.
Chair Marks: Okay. So that’s seven in favor.
Those opposed?
Okay. One opposed. One abstention. The motion
carries. That is a motion made and adopted.
Is there any other?
(No audible response.)
Okay. Here’s the plan folks. We’re going to try to
finish the tally on the definition. Technically, I’m
going to recess this meeting. For all practical
purposes, the meeting will be done but I’m going to
come back on just briefly to report the results of the
visual definition. And that will be part of our record.
So just, I don’t know, five minutes and we’re going
to come back on the record.
Member Jansen: Do I have everyone’s ballots?
Chair Marks: And report this in.

124
Member Jansen: I think I’m missing -Chair Marks: We’ll get that Erik. So we’re in recess
for the next 5 to 10 minutes.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled
matter went off the record at 3:12
p.m. and went back on the record
at 3:24 p.m.)
Chair Marks: Okay. Can we put the images up on
the screen? This doesn’t count. It was already put
on.
Member Jansen: I just count the tabs baby, you -Chair Marks: Okay. U.S. 1 one and 2 which is the
9/11 medal was previously put on the definition.
Interesting result, the reverse got re-put in, the
obverse didn’t. So I don’t know how we sort that
out. But anyway, it probably shouldn’t have been on
here in the first place. But let’s see.
Member Jansen: It’s a hanging chad thing.
Chair Marks: Yes. Go to the next one please. Those
didn’t make it.
Go to the next one. Those did not make it.
The next one, please. Girl Scouts made it. The other
one didn’t.
Member Jansen: Yes, it did.
Chair Marks: Yes, yes, yes, yes. Both of them.
Member Jansen: U.S.-07 made it.
Chair Marks: Yes. Both of those on the screen which
is the Native American reverse for -Member Jansen: 2014. Yes.
Chair Marks: -- and the Girl Scout reverse made it.

125
The next one that made it, if you go down to 2013
platinum.
Member Jansen: U.S. 14.
Chair Marks: Yes. 14 made it. The next one would
be -Member Jansen: U.S. 16.
Chair Marks: -- 16 made it.
And go -- let’s see, where do we go now?
Member Jansen: Australia.
Chair Marks: Go through Australia. Go to Kangaroo
at Sunset, which is -Member Jansen: 4.
Chair Marks: -- that made it.
Go to CA-3, Canada 3. Canada 3 -Member Jansen: Can you reflect who made it?
Chair Marks: -- and the polar bear -Member Jansen: Made it.
Chair Marks: -- made it.
Next let’s go to -Member Jansen: Keep going. FI-1.
Chair Marks: Finland -Member Jansen: Finland 1.
Chair Marks: -- 1, got in.
The next one would be -Member Jansen: I highlighted -Chair Marks: -- go to --

126
Member Jansen: Latvia 2.
Chair Marks: -- Latvia 2, yes.
Member Jansen: Bingo. On the left.
Chair Marks: Latvia 2 made it. Then go to Lithuania
1. Lithuania 1 on the left there.
Member Jansen: That’s all she wrote, baby.
Chair Marks: Those are it, guys.
Member Jansen: That’s it.
Chair Marks: Everything else fell.
Member Bugeja: Gary, will you send that out -Member Jansen: I’ll -Chair Marks: Yes.
Member Jansen: I’ll -Chair Marks: Yes.
Member Bugeja: All right. Thank you all.
Chair Marks: Good man.
Member Bugeja: -- for a wonderful meeting. Thank
you, Gary
Chair Marks: We are adjourned.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled
matter was concluded at 3:26 p.m.)