... CCAC forms subcommittee to recommend deck chair rearrangements. Details here: http://bit.ly/9pq6Od . I posted this to my blog earlier in the month but in light of recent meetings I don't think the topic of U.S. coin designs will soon go away. From my perspective this is as much about process as it is design quality, which always has been and always will be subjective. Agree or disagree, would like to hear the opinions of others. I've been known to be wrong on occasion ...
I might get tired of their "complaints" if they didn't make sense or seem rational. What I'm tired of is the mint's lackluster designs and politically correct collages.
statequarter guy: no link that I know of but I'll try to compile and post the list this weekend from the Coin World article. I have two primary issues with the CCAC's effort. The first is that several members apparently believe that it's possible to 'force' good design by process. I disagree. Second, when two currently active 'committees' with input on coin design, the CFA and CCAC, apparently cannot produce the desired results, the answer is another committee? CCAC member Donald Scarinci, with whom I've had email conversations, believes a committee is the only way in today's government. I disagree (the French Mint recently hired a fashion designer as artistic advisor and coin designer, for example). Each of us has modern coin designs we like or don't like. That is partly my point. Design is subjective, and the Mint is after all a factory, a coin factory. But will the current very public effort by the CCAC encourage excellence from current U.S. Mint designers, or will it be counterproductive? Director Moy could perhaps make a difference; on that I agree with the CCAC. Look at how the great early 20th-century coin designs came about: strong personality, recognition of excellent designers outside the Mint, bully pulpit, and willingness to go outside of regular channels. The only thing the CCAC seems to be focusing on is the 'bully' part.
touche. Whatever happened to allegorical themes. However, what really bugs me is that the CCAC has no say whatsoever in the design of these coins. The mint seemingly ignores their stances. They basically echo everything the Fine Arts Commission says. And I assume they are federally funded somehow? How much taxpayer money does their operation consume every year?
Well, if there is a list of the CCAC coin guide reference images online I can't find it. There are photos on page 62 and 80 of the July 19 Coin World issue. Looking more closely this time, the list is of either or both coin obverses and reverses; for example both sides of the U.S. $20 Saint and the Indian Head nickel are included. Contemporary coins include the U.S. 2005 Jefferson nickel, the 2003 Sac, and the 2007 Segregation commemorative. World issues include the UK 2009 five-piece shield set, the 2008 Holland Architecture coin, and the Australia Kookaburra. Hopefully you can find a copy of Coin World to see all of the images. I seriously doubt that any five CoinTalk members selected at random would agree on whether or not the coins in this reference set are examples of design excellence; which is my point. The CCAC has recently notified the Mint of factual errors on proposed new U.S. coin design, and of that I have no problem; seems to be a legitimate advisory body effort. I'm not convinced that defining coin design excellence will be as easy, hubris-free, or ultimately fruitful.
What's interesting to note is the inclusion of the $20 Saint and the Indian Head nickel. Those two coins' designs, as well as the WLH have been reused on modern bullion, so someone at the mint recognizes their appeal. Now, why can't the mint either hire artists or go outside the mint to find new comparable designs? I suspect one answer is what's found in most organizations, a need to justify their existence in order to keep and increase funding levels. Another answer could be government hiring practices have much more to do with meeting quotas than selecting the best. Another point, which has been mentioned, no two feel the same about what is good art. So, does any one know if the designs mentioned above and recognized as good art, received equal criticism when they were introduced, as they were new and not like previous designs?
The Saint-Gaudens and WLH designs came to the Bullion coins while Elizabeth Jones was still the Chief Engraver. Same person who gave us the 82 Washington Half, the $5 Statue of Liberty, and the 1988 $5 gold obv. (go look at them folks) She knew coin design, at least for commems. That's why they came up with the artist infusion program some 14 years ago. Since then they have had a bunch of Graphic artists coming up with the coin designs. Yes they did. I'm not sure any design has not been panned when it was first introduced. In most cases new designs were ordered to improve the "poor quality existing designs" and in every case once the new designs came out they were criticized as not only not being an improvement but actually being worse. Basically what it comes from is people don't like change. They get uncomfortable when something is different from what they are used to.
