At a meeting held on October 20, 2011, the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) reviewed design candidates provided by the United States Mint for the 2013 America the Beautiful Quarters. These coins feature White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire, Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial in Ohio, Great Basin National Park in Nevada, Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine in Maryland, and Mount Rushmore National Memorial in South Dakota.
The America the Beautiful Quarters Program began in 2010 and is scheduled to run through 2021, featuring a national park or other federally designated site in each of the 50 states, 5 U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. An image representative of each site is presented on the reverse of each coin, while the obverse contains the John Flanagan portrait of George Washington.
The design selection process for each coin involves an initial identification of source materials by a Federal official serving as a liaison for each site, from which three to five design candidates are prepared by the United States Mint. After another consultation with the liaison, final design candidates are submitted to the Secretary of the Interior, the chief executive of the host jurisdiction, the Commission of Fine Arts, and the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee for review and comment. Following these reviews, the Director of the United States Mint makes a final recommendation to the Secretary of the Treasury, who has the final authority to select designs.
This article will cover the recommendations of the CFA. The final design selections likely will not be known for a year or more.
For the White Mountain National Forest Quarter, the CFA made a recommendation for design candidate #1 “due to the simplicity of the composition.”
No recommendation was offered for the Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial Quarter. The Commission described compositional problems with each of the design candidates: “the complex layering of design elements in alternative #1 would be incomprehensible at the scale of the coin; the row of flags in alternative #2 has the effect of flattening the perspective view; and the large area of negative space in alternative #3 is unbalanced and excessive.”
For the Great Basin National Park Quarter, the CFA recommended design candidate #1 citing “the legibility of the composition with a single major design element.” At the present and previous meetings, the CFA has stated their concerns regarding excessive design complexity on the small size of the coin. In the past, they have expressed a preference for designs that highlight a unique feature for each site, rather than landscapes which might be difficult to differentiate.
No recommendation was offered for the Fort McHenry National Monument Quarter. They criticized the “crowded compositions and excessive emphasis on the human figures rather than the fort itself” and instead made a recommendation that an elevated or plan view of Fort McHenry should be considered.
Finally, the Commission recommended design candidate #3 for the Mount Rushmore National Memorial Quarter, calling it the “strongest design.”
CaptainOverkill says
November 9, 2011 at 6:50 pmI’d have taken number 2 for White Mountain. Not really thrilled with any designs for most of the other coins. #2 for Perry’s Victory seems least bad. I didn’t like any of the Great Basin or Mount Rushmore designs. Design #2 for Fort McHenry doesn’t seem too bad.
Good thing we have plenty of time until 2013 to find replacements for most of these turkeys.
VABEACHBUM says
November 9, 2011 at 10:02 pmI also like the White Mountain #2. For a committe that is emphasizing simplicity and uncluttered, #2 certainly seems like the no-brainer over #1. The minimal amount of trees frame the opening and direct the focus towards the point of emphasis. Even #3, without the deer, would be a better option than #1.
Perry’s Victory is a tough sell, since the park is dedicated to a sailing ship battle that occurred upon Lake Erie. Maybe looking beyond the pillar post and flags towards a 3-masted schooner on the water?? Having grown up in Ohio, I always thought that Cedar Point was the national park!!
Great Basin – Meh!!
I guess we get to see alot of Fort McHenry over the next 2 years, since that’s also part of the consideration for the Star Spangled Banner Commemorative in 2012. Between both programs, they certainly should have plenty of designs to consider. The new Maryland “1812” license plates might be a good place to start.
Finally, while I like the consideration of the engineering feats related to the actual construction of Mount Rushmore, the two skulls seem to overwhelm the presentation area. Although redundant of so many previous renditions, I think the view from the MR Visitor Center is the best: Looking up and into those faces with nothing but blue skies and the occassional cloud overhead. Simple, yet emphatic.
Gary says
November 10, 2011 at 5:07 amI like the White Mountain Moose!! I would be a buyer of that one in a 69 DMPL!!
Also like the SD 1 Mount Rushmore….all the other arent impressive??
Two Cents says
November 10, 2011 at 6:59 amHere are my (ahem) two cents:
1. White Mountain – All of the designs are great. It’s been a while since all five designs for one coin have all been nice-looking. The recommended NH-01 seems a bit crowded, and I wonder how it would look like on a small quarter. In NH-02, the mountain is nicely framed with the trees. NH-03 shows a nice nature-oriented scene in the foreground – with the trees, lake, river, deer, it shouts “National Park!” HN-04 has a very attractive close-up of the bird, with trees in the background. And like Gary says, the moose in HN-05 is very likeable, kind of reminds me of Bullwinkle.
2. None of the Perry’s Victory designs impresses me. Statues (unless heroic) and monuments are usually static and boring choices. In my opinion, a sea battle would be a better design to commemorate “Perry’s Victory.”
3. For Great Basin, another set of great designs – it seems it’s hard to go wrong with a strong and central tree element (look at the Connecticut “Charter Oak”). Compositionally, NV-01 shows off the tree best, while the mountains in the background would detract from the gnarled roots on the actual coin. The ram’s head in NV-04 seems strangely juxtaposed next to the tree.
4. For the Fort McHenry coin, the emphasis should be on the fort, as the design committee said. A symmetrical design of the fort’s pentagonal star-shaped perimeter could be used, or perhaps an angled view of the fort from above.
5. For Mount Rushmore, SD-01 looks too familiar, as that is the memorial’s most common viewpoint (already used on other coins too). SD-02 and SD-03 gives an unusual but pleasing perspective, though SD-02 gives the impression of ants crawling on a face. I give points for creativity for SD-04, which shows all four presidents as if they were alive, but it is a bit jarring to see men from different eras together, and Teddy’s head seems to be floating disembodied like a ghost.
CaptainOverkill says
November 10, 2011 at 11:09 amTwo Cents, agree with all your comments. I should have added that I liked all the White Mountain designs and thought they were exceptionally good.
Two Cents says
November 10, 2011 at 1:08 pmOops, point #3 in my post should have read:
3. For Great Basin, another set of great designs – it seems it’s hard to go wrong with a strong and central tree element (look at the Connecticut “Charter Oak”). Compositionally, NV-01 shows off the tree best, while in NV-03 the mountains in the background would detract from the gnarled roots on the actual coin. The ram’s head in NV-04 seems strangely juxtaposed next to the tree.
Pf70 says
November 11, 2011 at 12:29 pmDon’t like the Fort McHenry but I will buy since I am from MD. What about British ships/ the Fort with Star Spangled Banner Flag in the foreground. Our National Anthem was born here. I think they need to reconsider the Fort McHenry.They are using soldiers, but they should be in action defending the fort. These designs have no imagination.
Gary Cooper says
November 13, 2011 at 9:24 amIt seems easier to create great designs when the National Park being commemorated celebrates it’s special geography and natural history. When the Park happens to be a preserve of a war battle site it gets more problematic. Depicted original buildings is probably a good choice except buildings are fairly static objects unless an interesting perspective is used. A very bad design element is to use an existing monument or statue. The “Perry’s Victory” would look good with an “action view” of Perry and his men on the deck of their ship prepared to battle a British ship(s) in the distance. This same approach might be used for the “Fort McHenry” coin as well, rather than the boring “marching band”. An “action view” of a cannon being prepared to fire upon a distant British ship might be a good perspective. Designs like I have suggested would could breathe life and meaning to the significance of the Park.
PIERRE GRONDIN says
November 14, 2011 at 6:10 amWhite Mountain National Forest Quarter : NH04
Perry’s Victory and International Peace Memorial Quarter : OH01
Great Basin National Park Quarter : NV02
Fort McHenry National Monument Quarter : MD01
Mount Rushmore National Memorial Quarter : SD01
Zaz says
November 20, 2011 at 3:42 amNH01: will be crowded on a 1″ coin, but would make a magnificent bullion coin. For a circulation coin, NH04. Save the moose for Voyageurs/MN.
OH01: would work better without the windowed lattice, looks like a photo from the NP brochure of the site. Probably all designs need to be scrapped per the CFA. Will be keen to see what the CCAC recommends.
NV03: best use of perspective and shows the exposed root system of the Ponderosa Pine, and the general desolate and arid nature of the greater portion of Nevada’s territory.
MD: all of the designs are too specifically factual, i.e. taken from photographs of re-enactors, perhaps? They need to take one of the rejected schooner and fort designs for the 2012 Star Spangled Banner commemoratives and use it for the Fort McHenry reverse.
SD01: simple and evocative of the site. SD02 and SD03’s perspective is interesting insofar if could show a partially worked on Lincoln with a completed Washington and Jefferson further away.
Decent designs on what are difficult subjects to portray in a artistic and arresting manner. 2013 is kind of the swing year from portraying popular national parks and well known sites to more obscure sites. Hope the quality of the designs stays high despite the obscurity, although the bar has been set pretty high the first three years of the program.
jack weinman says
May 2, 2012 at 1:28 pmfor fort mchenery i think they should have the cannons of fort mchenery and have the american flag as the background
barry1817 says
December 7, 2012 at 2:40 amwas supposed to be one quarter for each state, now it will be 2 coins for each state, and will this collection never end??????