The only thing I could find after a quick search was this article

— http://www.chicagocoinclub.org/chatter/2004/Sep/ —

It appears to have been primarily a cost-saving strategy which, while I can understand in terms of cent and nickel production, I can’t understand it when it comes to the higher value coins given their high levels of seignorage.

I’m hoping one of the more technically informed members here will pick up this thread and share their knowledge or opinions on the lower relief and the tweaking of the existing designs that’s been done over the past twenty years. Would love to see a new article or be directed to an existing article that covers this issue.

I too have wondered about why the quality of our coins has declined so precipitously over the years. The relief changes that began in 1988 are the most noticeable, esp. on the half-dollar. I don’t get why the quality that existed in the early ’70s has not been replicated over the years. Has it been the lack of a chief engraver? It would seem to be a minor detail to add some concavity to the design. Relief itself is not so much the problem as the perception of it. This appears to be a world-wide phenomenon based on the foreign coins in my possession. Older ones have better eye-appeal in terms of relief (or its appearance of having it) than do more modern versions and it’s a shame really.

Although it seems clear that Mr. Barman remains a critic of the CCAC, I hope that my clarifications and corrections concerning the issues surrounding the CCAC and the CCAC’s recommendation to place Theodore Roosevelt on the quarter have helped to inform the collecting community. I have always appreciated a healthy and informative debate and I salute Mr. Barman for his spirited exchange with me.

Now, about the spaghetti hair: is anyone aware of links to already published articles about the story behind those changes in the 90′s? That and the lower relief and other design changes to the cent and half dollar, as well as the quarter. Spaghetti-fied hair on George is certainly a distraction, but the cent has gotten so flat over the years. Any good articles on the history, the motives, the reaction to these design updates?

Mr. Marks notes that the information is on the CCAC website. However, with no search capabilities and with information less than what is available to those who attend the meetings, it is difficult to sit and read back through past meetings to find the information. It should also be noted that as of this writing, the minutes from the last FOUR CCAC meetings have not been posted.

What should be obvious from my response is that there is a communications issue. While the information is there, its usage and accessibility is lacking, even using the basic technology tools available to the CCAC and the US Mint. It should be incumbent on the CCAC and the US Mint to fix these communications issues to provide the public a better view into their work.

Again, if the CCAC and the US Mint cannot perform these basic functions, then my conclusion on how they perform their function does not change.

This is my last work in this forum. I will have a full comment on this on the Coin Collector’s Blog (coinsblog.blogspot.com) this weekend.

“9. Reverend Meier mentioned to the committee that he, as a private citizen, is urging legislation to place Theodore Roosevelt on the obverse of National Parks Quarters, in tribute to President Roosevelt’s role in establishing America’s national parks.
10. Members expressed considerable enthusiasm for Reverend Meier’s idea. Several members pointed out that any such change would, be definition, be temporary, because the legislation creating the National Parks Quarter Program specifies that an image of George Washington will appear on the quarter after the program’s conclusion.
11. After extensive discussion about whether a sua sponte suggestion was within the CCAC’s mandate, the committee voted 8-0 to recommend to the Secretary of the Treasury that consideration should be given to placing an image of Theodore Roosevelt on the obverse of quarters issued as part of the National Parks Quarter Program.”

Mr. Berman then suggests that the CCAC has “coordinated” talking points because he has heard from two members concerning the idea of improving the “spaghetti” haired Washington image on the quarter. Wow, I’m not sure who Mr. Berman thinks we are, but I can tell you that our committee is made up of hard working volunteers — most of them coin collectors — who share many of the same thoughts, aspirations and concerns held by many in the coin collecting world. We are certainly not career politicians who sit around “coordinating” talking points. If Mr. Berman has heard the same thing from two of us its simply because that is an area the committee is now focusing on.

Mr. Marks then said, “The statement seems to suggest that Berman [sic] is unaware that the committee actually proposed it. But once we proposed it, it fell flat.” How would I know that that the CCAC proposed this? Where was the reporting? Better yet, with the various directives from the President on the executive branch toward open government, then why aren’t the CCAC’s documents available on the web? What is on the web is so sparse it is difficult to understand what happened at the meetings. Maybe, if the CCAC published their materials on the web the concerned public would be able to understand what is happening without relying on the word count limitations of a non-numismatic publication.

I have heard the comment about the new design being better than Washington’s “spagetti” [sic] hair used since 1999 from another CCAC member. I am glad to know that the CCAC has coordinated its talking points on this consolation prize. Of course Washington’s spaghetti hair would not be an issue if Teddy Roosevelt appeared on the quarter’s obverse.

For the record, I have “applied” to gain access to the artwork presented to the CCAC. Unfortunately, the US Mint, which manages this process, does not recognize bloggers in the same manner as journalists and my application was denied. Therefore, if the CCAC wants me to comment on the facts, provide them to me in a timely manner. Otherwise, you are a victim of your own bureaucracy which does not change my conclusion.

According to Berman, his opinion about the CCAC’s actions concerning the call to put Theodore Roosevelt on the obverse of “America the Beautiful Quarters” stems soley from his reading of an article entitled, “Debate rages in coin world: Theodore Roosevelt or George Washington on new quarter?”, published on January 20th.

Although he might have read the January 20th article, I was left to ponder if he might have misread or inadvertantly skipped over a part of it. His conclusions seem to suggest that he might have missed the following key sentence from the January 20th article, “Unfortunately, the change attracted no support in Congress, which initiates all changes in U.S. coins, including denominations, size, weight, metallic content and subject.” The key phase here is “the change attracted no support”.

Berman writes, “I am sure that members of the CCAC will ask that if there is no support for the design then why propose it?” The statement seems to suggest that Berman is unaware that the committee actually proposed it. But once we proposed it, it fell flat. No support materialized. Yet, Berman interprets the lack of support this way: “the CCAC wilted at the chance to refresh the sameness of the one coin’s design”. Did the CCAC wilt? I think not. We were the committee that started this discussion in the first place by making a bold recommendation! Yet, when no support materialized, the committee was faced with the option of “tilting at windmills” by trying to breathe life into an idea that was clearly and unfortunately dead, or to move on and consider doing something else to refresh the quarter obverse – like making improvements to Washington’s image. The committee is currently considering the latter.

Contrary to Berman’s interpretation of this situation, the committee did exactly what it was suppose to do – it provided independent advice based on what we thought was best for American coin design. But that advice was not taken.

Is refreshing Washington’s image an option with the same excitement as placing Roosevelt on the Quarter? Clearly not. Is it an idea that might actually have a chance of happening? Yes. Will it be an improvement over the “spagetti” haired Washington that currently exists on the quarter? Yes. On that basis alone, it is worth pursuing.