Comments on: 2018 American Innovation $1 Coin Design Candidates and CCAC’s Non-Review

By: allison

allison — Wed, 10 Oct 2018 19:18:55 +0000

“In god we trust” really needs to go…for one, it’s not representative of the country, and second, it takes up room that could be used for attractive and meaningful designs.

By: tom thumb

tom thumb — Tue, 07 Aug 2018 00:30:04 +0000

I hope the warehouse they are storing the presidential dollars in is large enough to hold these too.

By: Joe C.

Joe C. — Mon, 06 Aug 2018 20:20:36 +0000

How about an engraving of GW turning over in his grave? That’s what I think about these designs.

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 06 Aug 2018 15:25:52 +0000

The whole thing is one hot mess. For the heads they need to reduce the $1, get a better angle on the statue of liberty and get rid of “In God We Trust” because it really is not what George Washington or any of the Founders would have wanted anyway. As for the back not of those presented are worthy of being put on a coin. Maybe Ai-R-06 but really why is Washington’s name even on there? He simply signed the first patent along with Jefferson. It was Samuel Hopkins who improved a manufacturing process on which patent they signed. This should be a coin for the inventors or innovators. None if it makes any sense. I bet this series never makes it as long as the Presidential Dollars unless they do some major reworking.

By: Piedmont

Piedmont — Mon, 06 Aug 2018 06:14:30 +0000

In reply to Seth Riesling. With all the requirements added to the Bill, there wasn't much room left on a coin, barely larger than a quarter, to create a design that the original proposed bill intended. If the denomination was moved to the obverse to create room for any design, Congress negated this by requiring George Washington's signature. The artists' hands have definitely been tied with this one. Good luck.

By: Seth Riesling

Seth Riesling — Sun, 05 Aug 2018 21:41:15 +0000

“George Washington Slept Here” ( & signed his name too!). Lol

-NumisdudeTX

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 05 Aug 2018 21:30:17 +0000

Why in the world did Congress approve this? The need for them is non-existent. Also, the design ideas are appalling (03 is I think about the best, though no one looking at it will understand what this is all about, not that they will circulate anyway). When we buy sets are we going to get 4 of these plus a Sacagawea dollar? (Right now I get double dollars because of buying clad and silver proofs each year…triple with the reverse proof, and there will probably be other things like that in the future.) The mint will hype them up and nobody will care. What a waste.

By: Salivate Metal

Salivate Metal — Sat, 04 Aug 2018 00:14:40 +0000

Though I agree with the sentiment of the take on the meeting, I only heard it at the tail end where one of the members reminded them of their purpose, the legislation does NOT require the Mint to produce this coin this year. It says the Mint MAY strike a coin for this year. I think it’s safe to say that it will be too late to submit new designs, get them reviewed and minted unless Mnuchin steps in. Highly unlikely that will happen. I posted a video about this the day the meeting happened.

By: Chas Barber

Chas Barber — Fri, 03 Aug 2018 19:06:25 +0000

Such amazing designs!! (not….where is our “St. Gaudens”……?]

By: cagcrisp

cagcrisp — Fri, 03 Aug 2018 15:04:25 +0000

Excellent article. I especially Agree with the take on the CCAC meeting…