The Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) met on April 19, 2013, at United States Mint Headquarters, to review and discuss observe design candidates for the 2014 Presidential Dollars, which will include Presidents Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. In attendance from the committee were Chairman Gary Marks, Erik Jansen, Michael Moran, Michael Olson, Michael Ross, Donald Scarinci, Jeanne Stevens-Sollman, and Thomas Uram, and Heidi Wastweet; Richard A. Peterson, Acting Director, Steve Antonucci, Betty Birdsong, Don Everhart, Gwen Mattleman, Bill Norton, April Stafford, Megan Sullivan and Greg Weinman were present from the U.S. Mint.
April Stafford provided the background on the Presidential $1 Coin Program, followed by an overview of the designs. There were seven design candidates for President Harding, five for President Coolidge, seven for President Hoover, and eight for President Franklin Roosevelt. The Commission on Fine Arts previously reviewed these designs, and recommended the seventh, fifth, fifth, and second designs, respectively, for each president’s set.
Per the committee’s practice, Chairman Marks ran through all 27 designs to see which had a degree of interest from any member, and which could be set aside and not considered for recommendation. After that ‘culling’, the only designs that would be reviewed were the third, sixth, and seventh for Harding, the third, fourth, and fifth for Coolidge, the first, second, and fifth for Hoover, and the first, second, sixth, and seventh for Roosevelt.
Warren G. Harding Design Candidates
Calvin Coolidge Design Candidates
Herbert Hoover Design Candidates
Franklin D. Roosevelt Design Candidates
Michael Olson started the committee discussion with a general statement about how “several of these images show a grumpy demeanor”. Specific to the Harding designs, he preferred number 7; he felt that the sixth “doesn’t show a bold image”, but suggested that was just “the way it is drawn”. He favored the fifth Coolidge design, stating that it “looks the most like what is presented on the presidential website”. For Hoover, which he pointed out was the only President from his home state of Iowa, he felt that the fifth design “comes closest” to the photographs he had received from Hoover’s presidential library, and he would support that one. Between the four designs for Roosevelt, he said that the second and sixth would get some support.
Donald Scarinci was next, and began with a pair of general comments as well. First, he remarked that with the exception of the Andrew Jackson design, the Treasury Secretary had selected designs that depicted each president during their time in office, and he thought that “is an important thing for us [the CCAC] to maintain in the series”. Second, assuming his self-described “amateur scholarship” is accurate, he agreed with the recommendations from the CFA with the exception of the Roosevelt design. While he acknowledged the reason behind the attraction to the seventh design being “that is what the man looks like in the contemporary culture because that is the image of the man you see”. He, however, was “very attracted to the Roosevelt with glasses, the mature, at the end of his presidency Roosevelt who has just weathered probably the toughest presidency since Lincoln.”
Michael Ross was third, and was sorrowed that the images of Harding looked “so glum”, considering the reason he was elected over Wilson was due to him being genial. He felt he would go with the third and seventh designs, as “the ones that look most like Harding if he was trying to look serious”. On Coolidge, he thought the fifth design “is the most accurate representation of Silent Cow. His forehead wasn’t that big”. For Hoover, he expressed that it is unfortunate the committee would probably go with a design from his Presidency, “which is a shame because Hoover was actually an extraordinarily dynamic man who had the misfortune of being President as the Depression sets in”. Lastly, he acknowledged Mr. Scarinci’s point on the Roosevelt design with glasses, but said that his look at the end of his time in office he was “looking weathered and beat up after all he had been through in three and a half terms”.
Thomas Uram was next, and “kind of” agreed with the previous comments, but made a special note regarding the second Roosevelt’s similarity to the existing dime design.
Jeanne Stevens-Sollman also agreed with her committee’s comments, but wanted to point out that President Harding’s eyebrows were a distinct characteristic of his. She admired the difficulty for the current artists to use other artist’s paintings or drawings as a basis, and complemented going directly to photographs, where available, for Coolidge. For Hoover, she liked the first design, commenting that he “looks like himself”. Lastly, she felt that the first and sixth designs for Roosevelt “give us what he was to the United States”. Mike Moran was next, and also saw a discrepancy between the “solid, solemn” images for the Harding coin and the understanding that he was “the original party animal”. He agreed with Ms. Stevens-Sollman on Coolidge, liked the first and second Hoover designs, and expressed a strong interest in avoiding images that resemble the existing dime.
Heidi Wastweet echoed Ms. Stevens-Sollman’s comments on Harding’s eyebrows. She had “a strong preference about the delineation at the bottom of the portrait as it lines up with the text”; she felt that it was the artist’s intention to pull the image away from the text, and it should be kept that way. She had “really nothing to add” on the Coolidge designs, and strongly agreed with Ms. Stevens-Sollman on Hoover, commenting that design 1 “would translate very well to a sculpture”. She also agreed with Mr. Scarinci regarding the glasses as depicted for Roosevelt.
Erik Jansen favored the stronger jaw line on Harding design 3 over 7, and on Coolidge design 3 over 5. He planned on voting strongly for design 1 as it offered a “slightly different perspective”, and to a round of laughter, indicated he was support Roosevelt design 1, in order “to make it look like a dime”. Chairman Marks finished the comments portion with a reminder for the others to examine the actual-size pictures of the designs, rather than focus on the roughly 10x photographs that may contain levels of detail that may not appear well on the actual coins.
Voting on the designs, and the committee’s recommendations, were as follows:
|Design 1: 0 points||Design 2: 1 point||Design 3: 15 points||Design 4: 0 points|
|Design 5: 0 points||Design 6: 4 points||Design 7: 21 points|
|Design 1: 0 points||Design 2: 0 points||Design 3: 6 points||Design 4: 8 points|
|Design 5: 19 points|
|Design 1: 12 points||Design 2: 5 points||Design 3: 2 points||Design 4: 0 points|
|Design 5: 17 points||Design 6: 3 points||Design 7: 2 points|
|Design 1: 17 points||Design 2: 11 points||Design 3: 0 points||Design 4: 0 points|
|Design 5: 0 points||Design 6: 10 points||Design 7: 1 point||Design 8: 0 points|