The only problem I forsee is the fact that the one with the arrows doesn't have an eagle in the design. By law, that would mean they'd have to have a new obverse design including an eagle somewhere. I just wish they would come up with a bi-metal coin
No eagle this year & as far as bi-metal the 2009 is a composition of 77% copper, 12% zinc, 7% manganese & 4% nickel , and the 2010 will be a composition of 88.5% copper, 6% zinc, 3.5% manganese & 2% nickel
Pappy, I think Dan was refering to something like this.... http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/commemoratives/index.cfm?action=LOC
I prefer, by default, the arrows/belt design because it appears the trees are not designed well enough to be 'iconic' and also the eagles are simply lost in these designs. The 'belt' in the upper left design is also undefined. These are lost design opportunities which seem to have hoped to include natural objects (trees) as a defining, symbolic device. I appreciate the attempt at including sacred natural elements in the design. However, in this case, the arrows and belt are much more dynamic and symbolic. I also like the inclusion of the device 'HAUDENOSAUNEE' on US coin.