During a meeting held on September 22, 2014, the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) reviewed and discussed the design candidates for Civil Air Patrol and Lake Superior Fond du Lac Chippewa Code Talkers Congressional Gold Medals. In attendance were Chairman Gary Marks, Dr. Michael Bugeja, Robert Hoge, Erik Jansen, Mary Lannin, Mike Moran, Donald Scarinci, Jeanne Stevens-Sollman, Thomas Uram, and Heidi Wastweet, as well as members of the U.S. Mint staff. At the beginning of the meeting, Deputy Director Richard Peterson swore in Dr. Herman Viola as the committee’s new specialist in American history.
WWII Civil Air Patrol Congressional Gold Medal
After the designs were presented by April Stafford of the Mint, Chairman Marks led the committee through its culling process to limit their discussions only to those designs the members wanted to discuss. The results of that action were as follows:
Obverse: designs 1, 2, 6, 9a, 13, 14, and 15
Reverse: designs 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11a
There was one technical question from Ms. Lannin: she noted that Caucasian figures seemed to be the focus of the designs, so she made sure to include a design “with a more ethnically-diverse” appearance.
Dr. Bugeja indicated obverse design 2 was his preference, calling it a “great scene, doesn’t repeat symbols”. He wanted to make sure the designs did not mirror symbols between the obverse and reverse. He also liked the way the planes were flying overhead in reverse design 6, and mentioned that he liked the depictions of humanitarian missions. Mr. Hoge said the designs seemed to be busy to him, with duplicated images between obverse and reverse; he had no strong preferences, but was against the representations of the patches. Mr. Scarinci noted that he approached this task by starting with the reverse designs, and tried to find an obverse that worked well. This resulted in his preferred design pairing of obverse design 14 and reverse design 1, but with the omission of “Act of Congress 2014” on the former. Dr. Viola liked obverse design 2, and liked the idea of obverse design 15; he also liked reverse design 4. Mr. Uram called these “tremendous designs”; he liked the appearance of movement on obverse 14, but liked the quadrants on obverse 15. He commented that reverse design 4 had a cleaner look than reverse design 6. Ms. Stevens-Sollman also noted her awareness of the diversity issue, and was “disturbed” by the images of young people as represented in obverse design 2, and felt that obverse design 15 would “better represent the owners of the planes”. She liked reverse design 1, but found the border “disturbing”.
Ms. Wastweet complimented the creativity of the artist of obverse design 1, and indicated she wanted to see an emphasis on the civil aspect, rather than the military. She said obverse design 9a was “too glamorous”, and obverse design 14 had “charming characters”; she was appreciative of the details in obverse design 15. She said she gravitated towards reverse design 9 as it was unique, with a “clean, concise design” that included text that “explains without being busy”. Chairman Marks liked obverse design 13 over 14, calling the former “cleaner, with lots of definition”, whereas the latter was “busy”. He also liked obverse design 15, and acknowledged the collage comment of Ms. Wastweet; he liked the propeller and the ethnic diversity. He concluded his comments by saying he liked the way reverse design 3 is presented. Mr. Jansen was taken by the sheer number of designs, calling them “wonderful images” and asked for “more of your work”. He loved the feeling of obverse design 2 as well as obverse design 14, and said obverse design 14 felt “so volunteer”; he also liked the ethnic vagueness of obverse design 15. He found reverse designs 4, 6, and 9 to be his favorites. Mr. Moran liked the banking of the plane in obverse design 2, “denotes motion”, but also liked the concept of taking off as seen in obverse design 14, noting the one-third/two-third divide in the design; his favorite of the reverse designs was the ninth, noting it was a “nice contrast to the obverse”. Ms. Lannin said obverse design 15 was a “tad busy” for her, but liked the ethnic diversity, and she said she didn’t mind the “Act of Congress” on obverse design 14. It was also her opinion that obverse design 2, paired with reverse design 11a “shows what they would see”.
Obverse: 1 – 3 points, 2 – 18 points, 6 – 2 points, 9 – 2 points, 9a – 3 points, 13 – 11 points, 14 – 24 points, 15 – 17 points
Reverse: 1 – 10 points, 3 – 18 points, 4 – 10 points, 6 – 8 points, 9 – 17 points, 11a – 8 points
Ms. Wastweet made a motion to remove “Act of Congress 2014” from obverse design 14; it passed on an unanimous 11-0 vote.
Lake Superior Fond du Lac Chippewa Code Talkers Congressional Gold Medal
After the designs had been presented to the committee, along with the knowledge of which designs were the preference of the Commission of Fine Arts and the organization for the Code Talkers, Mr. Scarinci made a motion to adopt the latter’s preferences, obverse design 1 and reverse design 1, as the committee’s recommendations. Mr. Hoge asked that the firearms and radio equipment be checked for accuracy; Betty Birdsong of the Mint responded that the Department of Defense would be consulted to verify the accuracy. The motion carried on a unanimous 11-0 vote.