On Friday, I connected my iPhone to my computer and opened iTunes to sync everything together. During my sync, iTunes reported that there were application updates. One of the updates was the PCGS Photograde for the iPhone application. Since PCGS upgraded the application and PCGS Photograde website, so quickly after its initial release, I thought an update on the review was in order.

On both the website and the iPhone app, the home page now has entries for “Two & Three Cents” coins and divided the gold into “Small Gold Coins” and “Large Gold Coins.” The full look of the screen looks good and gives the website and iPhone app the impression that it is more complete. Seeing these new images suggests that PCGS added coins from the 19th century coins. But when tapping on the image for the Cents, I saw a full screen of cents starting wit the “Liberty Cap Large Cents” through the Lincoln cent. Not only did PCGS add 19th century coins but they went back to the first coins issued by the US Mint. After looking at the images, I confirmed that my favorite 1794 cent looks like PCGS’s 1796 cent that they grade PO-1.

After seeing how far back the images go, it was time to find out how modern PCGS gets. Because of size limitation, the iPhone app does not include years of issue, but the website does. On the website, says that the Lincoln Cent runs 1909 to Date, yet all of the coins imaged were pre-1959 wheat-back cents. There were no images of the Memorial cents nor images of the lowered relief coins. For those looking to put together high grade modern sets it is a serious omission.

In fact, after checking other coin images, all of the images of coins that are in circulation today do not have images of modern coins. Jefferson Nickels do not include mint state grading images of the current design, quarters and halves do not include the bicentennial images, and the quarters do not show the obverse of the State Quarters design. As for the dollars, the images end with the Peace Dollars. As I said in the first review, given that there were some circulation of the Eisenhower and Susie B’s as well as striking issues with the Eisenhower dollar, it would be nice to have an image reference of these coins.

The new images of the added coins are beautiful in all grades. Users of this applications will have a great tool for determining the grade of coins. However, I have the same complaint I made the last time on the use of toned coins. I understand some collectors like toned coins, but the toning does detract from seeing the subtle differences in between high grade coins.

PCGS has taken a great tool and made it even better. I like the iPhone application for being portable when I attend coins shows. For this upgrade, I give both the website and iPhone app a grade of MS67, a premium grade for their new additions but less than perfect for the omission, especially for not including the Eisenhower and Susan B. Anthony dollars.

Labels: grading, review, technology

Over on the Collectors Society forums, a member cracked out encapsulated coins and posted videos showing how he did this. While I do not advocate cracking coins out of slabs nor do I condone it, the following videos show one person’s method.

Cracking a coin out of a PCGS holder:


Cracking a coin out of a NGC holder:


Regardless of the method you use, please do not hurt the coin. It would be terrible to see a coin destroyed during a crack-out!

Labels: grading, video

Last week I had a public discussion with Gary Marks, a member of the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee about my comments about the CCAC on CoinNews.net. My initial comments were based on an article that Mr. Marks says misrepresents the work of the CCAC. After following up with asking for more information, Mr. Marks produced a quote buried in a document on the CCAC website that was lacking context. It is evident that Mr. Marks does not fully understand the issue.

The Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee is supposed be a conduit for the public to have input to the coin design process. The CCAC is supposed to work with the US Mint to create coin designs that represents the best of the best. It is a committee that is to do what President Theodore Roosevelt did as part of his “pet crime.”

New York Yankees limited partner John McMullen once said, “Nothing is more limited than being a limited partner of [George Steinbrenner].” McMullen has not tried to pry information from the CCAC and the US Mint!

Openness of the federal government was first codified in the Freedom of Information Act signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 4, 1966. At the time, it was referred to as the “Sunshine Laws.” Before the growth of the computer age, the purpose was to make documents that were not sensitive or classified available to the public. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama have mandated their administrations to expand the availability of government information as electronic capabilities have improved.

On January 20, 2009, the first day of the Obama Administration, President Obama signed the Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies which said that “agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government.” By August, the White House issued the Transparency and Open Government memo telling agencies that they have 120 days to report to the Office of Management and Budget how they would make the processes more open.

Rather than making the process more open as the President requested, the CCAC and the US Mint appears to be stuck in the mindset of the electronic world before the invention of the World Wide Web.

Although the meetings are open to the public, knowing when the meetings are being held is almost a state secret. Although announcements are made via a press release by the US Mint—of course everyone follows the US Mint’s press releases—the CCAC website has no information as to when meetings are held. Rather, the front page says to call a Washington, DC telephone number to listen to a recorded message about the meeting. Meeting announcements are not posted on the web site. Neither are the agendas in advance of the meeting. Instead of following the President’s executive order to be more open, the CCAC makes meeting announcements are technically legal but violates the spirit of open government.

Even using the 20th century forms of communications, the CCAC is not updating their website. At this time, minutes have not been posted for the last four meetings. Not that it matters because the information is sparse and really does not explain what the CCAC is doing.

There is also nothing worth reading on their Press Room page.

Anyone attending the CCAC meetings are handed a package of papers with an agenda, support letters, and even images of the proposed designs being discussed. These packages contain a phenomenal amount of information that when combined with the sparse minutes provides a better insight into what the CCAC has discussed. But these packages are not available to the public. If you know someone attending the meeting, you can ask them to obtain an extra copy. When I called the US Mint to ask to receive a package, I was told that it could not be done but I could receive copies of the coin images if I signed a copyright release. More than a year ago, I submitted a request for the release. After my application was rejected because I could not provide a company name, I was told I would have to sign a form for each request.

Most of the meetings are held at the US Mint’s Headquarters in Washington, DC. On occasion, meetings have been held during the American Numismatic Association’s Summer Seminar, Worlds Fair of Money, and recently the Florida United Numismatics show. While I would like to attend these events, I have a full time job, not in numismatics, that keeps me close to home. However, if I had access to the meeting package and a way of listening to the conversation, I would be able to make educated judgements on their work without having to rely on a second hand source like a non-numismatic newspaper.

Even if the CCAC continues to use 20th century communications, the Department of the Treasury does have the capability of creating a teleconference bridge that can be outbound only and recorded. This teleconference bridge will allow people who are not local to the meetings to listen to the meeting. In my “Real Life”™ job, I have used this service. It requires the bureau to request the service in advance.

After the meeting, the audio can be posted on the website so that anyone who could not participate during the time of the meeting could download the audio and listen at another time.

If the CCAC and US Mint wants to step into the 21st century, there are Internet-based audio services that can be used with greater capacity than the Treasury’s teleconferencing service.

Would it be too much to ask for the CCAC to have a Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feed? RSS feeds allows for better communication by my RSS reader letting me know when the site has created updates by watching the RSS feed. RSS is really simple. There are a number of programs to help create feeds and services that help publish feeds. As the webmaster for my local coin club, I provide an RSS feed when the website changes. I also use it to remind members of upcoming meetings.

Also, it is possible to integrate Google search into the CCAC website to provide search capabilities to visitors. There is no cost for this service.

If the CCAC participated in the Open Government initiative ordered by the President and made its deliberations more open to the citizens, maybe there would be a better understanding between the committee and the citizens they are supposed to represent.

Labels: CCAC, policy, US Mint

I finally found a DC quarter in the DC area. I am working on a new project in Alexandria, Virginia and stopped by a local grocery store after work. Before shopping, I stopped by the in-store coffee stand for a warm beverage where I was handed a DC quarter in change. Although I was able to purchase these quarters at the US Mint headquarters building, this is the first one I found in change.

Almost a year after their issue, I am beginning to see 2009 quarters and the Lincoln Bicentennial Cents in circulation. I have yet to find 2009 nickels and dimes in change. With a production of 84.64 million nickels and 146 million dimes are the lowest mintage totals since the 1950s.

The US Mint’s Annual Report says that production of circulating coinage was down 70-percent and it is not anticipated that their primary customer, the Federal Reserve, would increase their purchasing of new coins. It might be more difficult to find 2009 and 2010 coins in pocket change.

Labels: coins, pocket change, US Mint

As many knows, the US Mint’s public view of technology barely makes it to the end of the 20th century. While other government sites have used the change in administration to refresh their websites, the US Mint is now beginning a “study” as to what they should do. The way the US Mint’s administration manages themselves, it would surprise me if they change their website before the end of the current administrative term.

Miraculously, the US Mint does offer RSS feeds. Of the four feeds they offer, two have been updated on a quasi-regular basis. The US Mint Press Release/Public Statement feed is updated when the Mint ’s press office publishes another release. They also have a Product Information Update feed when new items appear in the online catalog.

After finding a service that will take an RSS feed and post it on Twitter, I decided to add the ability to take the US Mint’s RSS feeds and post them to the blog’s Twitter feed, @coinsblog. If you do not understand how to use RSS, you can either follow me on Twitter or see the tweets on the left side of this page where it shows my last five tweets.

If the US Mint is not going to take advantage of technology to keep you informed, I will do what I can to bring the information to you.

Labels: administrative, technology

There once was a saying that you should not argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel. In this case, maybe Gary Marks of the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee should consider how they deal with a blogger with an active blog. Mr. Marks commented on my response without understanding the point that if the CCAC had better communications outlets, we may not be having this discussion.

Here is the follow-up from CoinNews.net:

Mr. Berman [sic]wants to know how he would have known about the CCAC’s recommendation to put Roosevelt on the quarter obverse. Actually I known that it received prominent coverage in Coin World. He also asks why the CCAC’s documents are not on the web. Well, actually they are. Please go to ccac.gov and you will find them — right out there for the public to see. In fact, if you go to the January 27, 2009 CCAC meeting minutes you will find the following excerpt concerning the Roosevelt recommendation:

“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 [sic] 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.

To which I responded:

With all due respect to Gary Marks, I tried to subtly point out that you are spelling my name wrong by including “[sic]” in the quotes from his response to indicate that the previous word is not a transcription error. Mr. Marks responds to my comment by continuing the same mistake in the spelling of my name. Respecting the name of the person you are conversing with is important to having disparate points of view discussed in a respectful manner. Therefore, if Mr. Marks would like to continue this discussion, I would appreciate that he spells my name properly!

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.

Stay tuned!

Labels: CCAC, policy

My last blog entry, CCAC Dropped the Ball... AGAIN! appeared on CoinNews.net and generated an interesting response from Gary Marks, a member of the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee. Mr. Marks writes:

As a member of the CCAC, I read Scott Barman’s article, “America the Beautiful Quarters, CCAC dropped the ball again” with great interest.

According to Berman, [sic] 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 [sic] 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 [sic] is unaware that the committee actually proposed it. But once we proposed it, it fell flat. No support materialized. Yet, Berman [sic] 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 [sic] 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” [sic] haired Washington that currently exists on the quarter? Yes. On that basis alone, it is worth pursuing.

In my response to Mr. Marks, I followed up with:

I read the article correctly, Mr. Marks. I read the statement you emphasized and drew my conclusion from the statement and the information in the article.

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.

I invite the CCAC, including Chairman Mitch Sanders and representatives from the US Mint, to an open discussion on the issues of open government and how that could best provide their materials to the numismatic public for a better understanding of why filtered information garners responses they do not agree with.

Labels: CCAC, coin design, policy

While catching up on the weekend’s reading I came across an article Debate rages in coin world: Theodore Roosevelt or George Washington on new quarter? The article is about how the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee debated whether to recommend that Teddy Roosevelt be placed on the obverse of the new America the Beautiful Quarters.

Introduced in 1932, the Washington Quarter was intended to be issued as a one-time circulating commemorative to honor the 200th anniversary of George Washington’s birth. The quarter was born of controversy when Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon chose John Flanagan’s depictions over what had been determined to be a more artistic version by Laura Gardin Fraser. Although Mellon was a collector of great fine art that was later donated to the National Gallery of Art, many knew he was a sexist and refused to consider that a woman’s work was better than a man’s.

As the Great Depression deepened, no quarters were struck in 1933. Toward the end of the year, US Mint director Nellie Tayloe Ross was asked by the Federal Reserve to produce more quarters for circulation. Rather than use a new design, Ross ask the Treasury Secretary William Woodin for permission to continue to use Fraser’s design. Since Ross and Woodin did not want to undergo a new design competition, the Fraser designed continued until it was “updated” in 1999 for the 50 State Quarters Program.

Numismatist see Teddy Roosevelt as the father of the coinage renaissance when he tried to conspire with Augustus Saint-Gaudens to bring classic design to American coinage. Roosevelt call this his Pet Crime. Roosevelt was instrumental in the Mint using Saint-Gauden’s designs for the $10 gold eagle and his famous design on the $20 gold double eagle coin that continues to be celebrated today. Add the wonderful work by Bela Lyon Pratt on the gold quarter and half eagle coins along with Victor David Brenner’s Lincoln cent and the stage was set for a period of timeless classics.

Under his presidency, Roosevelt made conservation a national priority. He placed more land into the public trust than any other president and created the US Forest Serive to care for that land. Roosevelt elevated the importance of the National Park Service to be more than a caretaker of public land but make it accessible to everyone while protecting its beauty. His service to conservation has not been matched by any president since.

With his work on coinage and the lands that will be featured on the new series, it would be a natural recommendation to have Roosevelt adorn the obverse of these quarter. However, the article reports that the CCAC backed down because of the alleged lack of support by congress.

The CCAC is supposed to be an independent organization that is supposed to recommend what is best for the design of American coinage. It is supposed to be a non-partisan and non-political organization that apparently succumbed to the politics of the day. Rather than doing what is right, the CCAC wilted at the chance to refresh the sameness of the one coin’s design in the same way that Roosevelt bristled at the designs of Charles Barber in the early 20th century.

I am sure that members of the CCAC will ask that if there is no support for the design then why propose it? Because at some point, it is more important to do the right thing than taking the politically expedient path. It would put congress on record as being against a populist idea, albeit a small population of populists. It would show that the CCAC was an organization that understand the issues of coin design and not a rubber stamp body of sometimes bland coin designs.

The CCAC must re-evaluate their role as and advisory committee and advise. If this is not possible, then the CCAC only duplicates the role of the Commission of Fine Arts and should be disbanded.

Labels: coin design, history, national park quarters, quarter

For a light hearted start to the weekend, how about a little “Dollar Art?” An artist who identifies himself as Rj55.com has taken high resolution photos of one dollar US Federal Reserve Note from different angles and perspectives. Artists call this series a study of the object.

As part of the study, the artist compares elements between the reverse of a 2007 or 2009 Presidential Dollar on top of the note to compare elements. In one photo, the national motto is compared to the the national motto on the note. It is a very interesting picture.

On a different page, the artist presents Pennies on the Dollar. In the context, the page contains high resolution images of pennies on top of dollar bills. As a numismatist, the last image is the most interesting. It shows a 1966 cent next to a 2009-D cent. The first thing I notices is a difference in the rim. Then if you compare the portrait, there is a significant difference in the relief and its size. It might be interesting to do a study of the Lincoln Memorial Cent to watch the changes as the US Mint adjusts their dies.

Just for fun, here is the artist’s conception of a colorized Eye of Providence with dramatic music in the background:



Have a good weekend.

Labels: fun, video

With my background in computers, I love technology. When technology can be used to enhance what we do, I am one of the first people there to participate. This week, I downloaded my first coin-related iPhone application, PCGS Photograde for the iPhone.

While reading an article reviewing PCGS Photograde website, I noticed they included a banner announcing that the information was available for the iPhone and iPod Touch was available via the iTunes App Store. Excitedly, I clicked the link, read the information, and downloaded the application. After syncing my iPhone with iTunes, the app appeared on my phone.

Unlike other iPhone apps, PCGS Photograde starts and stays in landscape mode without an option to change that. Even with that minor nit, the app starts right at the home page no splash screen (a good thing), with an image similar to the one on the website. Although PCGS does not use key date coins for the initial image, the coins used do a very good job in representing their section.

The first limitation I noticed for both the web and iPhone app is that the coins listed were struck in the 20th century. Even if the series started in the 19th century, no series that ended before 1901 was listed. Further, modern coins are not listed unless the series started before the change to clad coinage in 1965. This means that there are no grading images for the Eisenhower, Susan B. Anthony, or Sacagawea dollars. Given that there were some circulation of the Eisenhower and Susie B's as well as striking issues with the Eisenhower dollar, it would be nice to have an image reference of these coins.

As with the website, the user taps either the obverse or reverse image of the coin representing the series to show a page for you to pick the coin type. One more tap displays the coin in various “common” grades, usually from G04 through MS65. The app shows three images at a time and you can scroll left or right by flicking your finger across the screen. To see the details close up, you can double tap the image you want to see and it will expand to show the entire coin on the screen. If you want to see more detail, use the pinch motion to adjust the size.

Once you expand the images, you will find that coin images are beautiful. Even when looking at lower grade cents or high grade silver, the images clearly show the criteria for the the grade. The only complaint I have for the images is the use of toned coins. While some people like toned coins, I am not one of them. To me the images with the toning detract from the coins beauty and does tend to obfuscate some of the differences between grades especially Mint State grades which can be difficult without toning. For example, the MS67 and MS68 Kennedy Halves are toned coins which makes it difficult to tell the differences between the two grades.

One advantage the iPhone app has over the website is that while viewing coin images there is a button to back up one page. On the website there is a “[home]” link. Although you can go back a page by using your browser’s navigation buttons, having a “go back” link would be helpful.

Both the Web site and iPhone app are very useful. But I like the iPhone application for being portable and being able to come with me to shows or coin shops to help me with coin grading. I give both the website and iPhone app a grade of MS64, a common high grade for being very well done but could be better.

Labels: grading, review, technology