Do you tweet? Tweeting is what you do when you post a message on Twitter, the popular social networking website where messages are limited to 140 characters. Twitter hosts many very active communities discussing everything from politics to sports to news to technical support and everything in between. Interestingly, breaking news spreads faster on Twitter than on many news organization’s websites!

Rather than reading every tweet on the single timeline, you would read your timeline which includes your tweets and the tweets of the people you follow. This way, you can create your own community and just watch the tweets of the people you are interesting in reading.

Those who run Twitter has let it evolve into its own culture with conventions that users adhere to communicate community of interests. The primary convention is one built into the Twitter software is using the “at symbol” (@) to identify a user name. By using the at-symbol in front of the user name, it allows the software to recognize the tweet as a message to or about that user. Direct replies to a user begins with the user name. For example, I use the username coinsblog for numismatic tweets. I would see references made as “@coinsblog” as part of my timeline.

Another convention using the user name is the re-tweet. A re-tweet is a message from another user that I am replaying for those users that follow me. If I tweet something you like and want your followers to read, you would send a message that begins with “RT” followed by the at-symbol prefixed user name followed by the message. This way you give credit to the original tweeter.

One useful way to use Twitter is to point to something on the web that further explains your tweet. For me, I will post something to the blog and tweet about it. However, URLs of the post may be too long to fit with the message in 140 characters. In order to fit the URL into the message, I would use a URL shortening service. A URL shortening service is a website that takes the long URL and shortens it to a few parameters. Two popular URL shortening services are tinyurl.com and bit.ly. Both will take a long URL and provide a shorter one that will be expanded when you click on the link. For example, the URL to my last post was shortened to http://bit.ly/2Nqyaw.

The final convention that I will talk about is the use of hashtags. Hashtags are keywords that begin with the pound or number symbol (#) to indicate that those interested in the keyword can use to search for similar tweets. Hashtags are created by the community. There is no organization managing these hashtags, which can cause interesting conflicts. So far, there has not been a problem with hashtag “squatting.” Currently, I am not aware of the use of hashtags for numismatic tweets but I am thinking of defining a few.

Today, I will be using the hashtag #followfriday, which is used on Fridays to announce who you follow that other people who share your interests should also follow. Users named on the #followfriday tweet will be prefixed with an at-symbol so that the software will recognize the user names.

Today’s #followfriday includes:

@ANSCoins	The American Numismatic Society.
@beautifulcoins	Is the user from beautifulcoins.com. I like reading the blog which features very interesting non-circulating legal tender (NCLT) coins from around the world.
@KPNumismatics	Krause Publications, the publishers of Numismatic News, Coins, Coin Prices, Bank Note Reporter, and many numismatic books.
@WhitmanCoin	The folks from Whitman Coin Expos who run a number of shows including the Baltimore Expo that I missed last weekend.

Twitter is another tool to help us communicate as a community. If you have not joined, join now and start following these people.

Labels: administrative, fun

With “Real Life” delaying the completion of my proposal to Reform US Currency, I wanted to take a brief moment to talk about the November 12th launch of the last of the 2009 Lincoln Bicentennial One Cent coins honoring Abraham Lincoln’s presidency.

The reverse design is an image of the US Capitol as it appeared on March 3, 1861 when Lincoln was inaugurated for the first time. With the Civil War imminent, Lincoln was asked whether the government should stop the construction so that the money would be used for the war effort. Lincoln was ever mindful of trying to keep the promise of the union said that the dome’s completion would enforce that view—making it an appropriate design for the last of this series. The reverse was designed by Susan Gamble and sculpted Joseph Menna.

In addition to the launch of the final 2009 reverse design, the design for the 2010 Lincoln Cent was introduced. The reverse of next year’s coin features a Union shield. In the context of symbolism, the union shield is an emblem symbolizing a national union fitting of the theme calling for the reverse to be “emblematic of President Lincoln’s preservation of the United States of America as a single and united country” as required by Public Law 109-145. Although this is not the first time a union shield has been depicted on US coinage, this is an interesting choice that I will discuss in the future. However, given the history of the Lincoln Cent, this will be the design for the next 50 years!

If you missed the launch, you can see some of the ceremony, the crowd, the designs, and part of the exchange in the following B-Roll video from the US Mint:



Coin images courtesy of the US Mint
B-Roll video from NewsInfusion

Labels: cents, coin design, US Mint, video

My motivation for recommending the restructuring of the US Mint was when they announced that proof silver and gold American Eagle coins will not be produced in 2009. The logic of the decision in the context of what we know of the US Mint’s operations was unpalatable.

Restructuring the bullion program is to first acknowledge that it is a profit center for the US Mint. Its sole purpose is the buy precious metals and create bullion coins for sale at a significant profit. In the 2008 Annual Report, the profit on bullion issues was 22-percent over all costs, more than circulating currency or commemorative coins.

The anchor of the bullion program are the American Eagles, which has been the most successful bullion program since its inception in 1986. The program started with silver and gold American Eagles. Platinum bullion Eagles were first struck in 1997. American Silver Eagle coins are one troy ounce of 99.9-percent pure silver. American Gold Eagles contain 22-karat (91.67-percet) of gold balanced with silver and copper struck in 1/10 ($5), ¼ ($10), ½ ($25), and one ($50) troy ounces. American Platinum Eagles are struck using 99.95-percent platinum in 1/10 ($10), ¼ ($25), ½ ($50), and one ($100) troy ounces. This program will not change and the US Mint will continue striking coins to meet the demand.

Under the current law, it is not required that the US Mint strike proof versions of these bullion coins. This restructuring will change this to require a minimum mintage of these coins. For the future, the US Mint will strike proof coins to meet the demand with a maximum number in ounces of metals used. For this policy, it is proposed that 1 million troy ounces of silver be used for proof coins meaning the production will be limited to 1 million coins. Gold will be limited to 500,000 troy ounces of gold across all sizes. Finally, platinum will be limited to 100,000 troy ounces in proof coins.

I am not proposing changes to the 24-karat (.999 fine) Gold Buffalo program.

To complete the transformation, the First Spouse program will be transfered to bullion issues and continue using the same rules as it does today.

This year, the US Mint introduced the 2009 Ultra High Relief Coin. This coin brings to life the Augustus Saint-Gaudens proposed high relief design for his $20 Double Eagle design that 1909 technology could not create. The coin has been praised for its beauty and should be a future Coin of the Year candidate.

The concept of creating special bullion coins like the Ultra High Relief coin is something that a new bullion program can do. The US Mint, with direction from the CCAC acting as the US Mint’s Board of Directors can authorize new bullion coins that will allow the US Mint to create new collectibles that could be marketed to a wider audience. In addition to special strikes, the new bullion program can include coins with privy marks, special reverses, enameled coins, even coins made from multiple materials.

Examples of what could be accomplished can be seen in the 2007 Coin of the Year and 2008 Coin of the Year candidates. Although there are wonderful single metal coins, there are some wonderful coins using other design elements. In fact, the the 2009 Coin of the Year award was given to the 2007 Mongolia Wolverine coin with diamonds for eyes that is very intriguing when seen in hand!

It is not my intent to tun the US Mint into the non-circulating legal tender (NCLT) producer like the Royal Canadian Mint who is known to produce a large number of bullion-related issues. The CCAC should limit the introduction of bullion issues to a few a year and limit the number of coins that could be produced for each type. But if the US Mint can find influence in more areas than classic US coinage to produce beautiful collectibles using bullion metals.

Before I forget, these coins are bullion collectibles sold as a profit for the US Mint. They are not commemorative coins and not subject to the fundraising considerations proposed for commemorative coins.

Although the US Mint has been the focus of this series, we cannot reform America’s currency without considering paper money. Next, I will look at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and what to do with Federal Reserve Notes.

Labels: bullion, foreign, gold, silver, US Mint

We are going to take time off from restructuring the US Mint to look at coin news from the United Kingdom. While reading other news from the British Broadcasting Company, I found two interesting articles.

In the first article, Are coin fairs the new investment clubs? BBC reporter Carolyn Rice attends a “coin fair” (coin show) last February following attendees who are more interested with coin investments than collecting.

One interesting aspect of the article is noting that British collectors and investors are interested in older gold sovereigns and ancient coins. It was interesting to read about a 10 year old collector from Birmingham who is “looking for a Julius Caesar coin, it has got an elephant on the back.”

The end of the story talks about the future of money and the lure of collecting. While one dealer thinks “[coins] will become more of a novelty and more collectable but [he] can’t see cash dying out completely.”

Is it possible to go through your day without cash? In a video report, BBC reporter Kevin Peachey tries to live a day without cash. Peachy, who begins his day from his London flat with breakfast, empties his pockets of money and tries to go through his day paying with credit and other payment cards.

While watching the video, I was struck by how many different cards had to be used to go through his day and looked at the cards in my wallet. Aside from the usual set of bank, store, and gas credit cards there are also cards for my morning coffee, a card if I need to ride the Metro, two gift cards, and various retail loyalty cards. The common denominator is that each card is backed with cash that is either paid directly or electronically transferred. In thinking about it, until a universal card can be developed to be as universal as coins and currency it will be difficult to create a cashless society.

Peachey and Rice team up to report that the usage of cheques is decreasing. While their report describes how the use of cash is decreasing to non-cash options, the authors predict that by 2015 there will be more usage of debit cards than other non-cash payments.

However, in the end, cash is still king and the various world mints do not have much to worry about.

Labels: cash, cashless, foreign

As part of the restructuring of the US Mint, the area of commemorative coins have to be a significant concern. With both the classic and modern commemoratives, congress could not help itself by using commemorative coins as a form of fundraising for pet causes. While some of the beneficiaries of the funds are worthy, others have caused significant controversy. Additionally, there were commemorative programs that have lost money for the US Mint causing more losses than what has been seen in the cent and nickel.

The first reform in commemorative coinage would be that no commemorative would be struck for the sole purpose of raising money for any organization. Regardless of how worthy the organization may be, the association of the commemorative with fundraising taints the process. Thus, this proposed reform recommends that no commemorative coin may be proposed with the purpose of fundraising.

Once the commemorative coin has been approved, related groups may petition congress to attach their organization to the commemorative for fundraising purposes. If congress approves, the organization will be paid for the profits beyond the cost of manufacturing, packing, and distribution of the coin. The US Mint must be able to recover their costs before any money is distributed to the approved organization. Payments will be made quarterly after the US Mint has broken-even. As part of this plan, the US Mint holds back 5-percent of the dispersal in order cover future expenses. When the sales of the commemorative coins are complete, the US Mint’s costs will be recalculated and the remainder will be paid to the approved organization.

Before choosing an organization for fundraising, the commemorative coin must be selected. Since congress has bungled this over the years, congress should no longer select topics or how the program is to run. As part of the reformed commemorative coin laws, the congress sets parameters for how commemorative programs and leaves the decisions to the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee. When the CCAC makes their selection, the process will be limited to something of national interest. It may be something relating to history (e.g., War of 1812), the anniversary of a government institution or program, someone of national historical significance, or a building of national importance (e.g., the Capital Building, White House). The commemorative must be something representative of the national interest.

All commemoratives will be proof strikes. There seems to be no purpose to uncirculated commemorative coins nor is there a purpose for clad commemorative. Commemorative programs may contain up to four coins with the priority being $1 silver, $10 gold, half-dollar silver, and $5 gold. In this scenario, if the commemorative program is to only have three coins, then the $5 gold coins would not be used. If the commemorative is used for a fundraiser, the US Mint will add a $5 premium for the half-dollar, $10 premium for the dollar, $25 premium for the $5 gold coin, and the $35 premium for the $10 coin.

Because it may be impossible for the egos in congress to remove themselves from the commemorative process, the law should allow that they be given the ability to vote in one commemorative program per year. As opposed to their current practice, a congressional commemorative program may specify everything except the design and where the coins will be struck. The design will be created by the CCAC and the US Mint engravers to match the theme of the program and the branch mint used to strike the coins will be selected by the US Mint in a manner to make efficient use of the facilities.

As part of the transition, any commemorative program passed by congress prior to the restructuring will be issued as required by the enacted law. However, those commemoratives will count against the one program that congress is allocated per year.

Fixing the commemorative coin program is a combination of making it relevant and removing the fundraising aspect of the programs. With the compromise of allowing congress one commemorative program a year and giving them the ability to add a controlled fundraising aspect after the fact, this should prevent commemorative coins from becoming irrelevant.

The restructuring continues next with the bullion programs.

Labels: coins, commemorative, policy, US Mint

Now that the US Mint has been reorganized, it is time to strengthen the product line. The US Mint’s primary product are the circulating coins that are sold to the Federal Reserve. At this moment, there should be no changes to the required denominations and composition. Although there have been recent issues with the rise in the costs of zinc and nickel that affected the seignorage of the one and five cent coins, the US Mint produces enough coins in other denominations to mitigate those losses. Business calls selling a product at or below it manufacture price is called a loss leader. As long as the US Mint is meeting its obligations to the Federal Reserve, it is not a problem for the US Mint to downgrade the cent and nickel to loss leader status.

Numismatists are most vocal over the design of the coinage and the number of rotating series that drives up the costs to collectors. In order to add sanity to the process, there must be some rules. Thus, under this reorganization, no coin design is to last more than 25 years. The coin design can refer either to the obverse, reverse, or both, but something must be changed. This means the end of the 50 year design pattern given to the Lincoln Cent. Once the new design is settled in 2010, it must be changed by 2035. At that point, the CCAC and the US Mint will decide to redesign the entire coin or, once again, replace the reverse only.

Under this rule, the dime and half-dollar are due for design updates.

This proposal does not change the elements that are required on the coin. As described in 31 U.S.C. §5112(d)(1), “United States coins shall have the inscription ‘In God We Trust’. The obverse side of each coin shall have the inscription ‘Liberty’. The reverse side of each coin shall have the inscriptions ‘United States of America’ and ‘E Pluribus Unum’ and a designation of the value of the coin.” All other rules about design in that paragraph would be eliminated under this plan.

If the US Mint creates circulating commemoratives, there should be no more than two programs in place. One program can be a multi-coin commemorative, like the Presidential $1 Coins, and the other an annual series, such as the Native American $1 Coins. Any more than that becomes too much where the US Mint apparently cannot maintain the levels of manufacturing necessary to satisfy demands for their products. Once the circulating commemorative series is completed, the coin will undergo a final design change for the year after the program’s conclusion and remain that way for 25 years. An exemption to this rule will be to maintain the America the Beautiful Quarters Program as part of the transition.

And no more circulating commemoratives of the same coin. Either have the Presidential $1 Coin or the Native American $1 Coin, not both!

The US Mint will maintain the annual coin programs for all circulating coins. Mint Set will remain coins that have come from business strike production lines and proof coins will continue to use specially treated planchets as they do today. Additionally, the US Mint will continue to produce the Silver Proof Set except that the one-cent coins will be struck in an alloy of 95-percent copper.

Finally, it is time to make the one-dollar coin worth striking. The only way to do this is to stop producing the one-dollar Federal Reserve Note. The United States is the only “First World” country that continues to produce its unit currency in paper form. Even as the $1 FRN continues to be produced, some countries are eliminating more lower denominations to save on costs. It is time for the United States to do the same. In fact, the United States should also eliminate the $2 note.

At the end of the series, there will be an article about the paper currency and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

There are relatively few changes necessary for circulating coins. In the next article, we will look at the commemorative coin program.

Labels: coin design, coins, policy, US Mint

Yesterday, I called for reform in the coinage laws to remove congress from the operations of the US Mint. Before talking about coinage, the first act of reformation is a reorganization of the system. When a business is failing, the first thing they do is to reorganize. This is the purpose behind Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy laws.

The first step to reorganization is that congress must change the coinage laws (31 U.S.C. §5112) to divide the coinage types into the four relevant types: circulating coinage, bullion, commemorative coins, and medals. Making this distinction between coinage types will clean up the laws, reduce the confusion, and make it easier for the US Mint to understand the policies it is required to implement. A byproduct of making the laws easier to understand would help the public with understanding the responsibilities of the US Mint.

Next would be to change the organizational of the US Mint. It is unfortunate that the previous administration chose to appoint a political hack as the director. Rather than being a good manager to lead the US Mint through a slow period, the current director has shown that it needs more than a political appointee to run the US Mint. Thus, the US Mint needs a Board of Directors.

The Board of Directors would be responsible for ensuring that the US Mint would maintain policies, properly managed production issues, and assisted with the design of the coinage. The Board would be the first line of defense to ensure that the US Mint is living up to its responsibilities to both its commercial client, the Federal Reserve, and the collecting community. This Board would be responsible for contacting the Treasury Inspector General or the Government Accountability Office to investigate issues with the US Mint.

To create a Board of Directors, congress would have to look no further than the current Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee. Since its inception in 2003, the CCAC was supposed to be on the front-end of the design process. Instead, the lawyers at the US Mint defined the CCAC’s role as being virtually in competition with the US Commission of Fine Arts when it comes to coin design. It is time for that to end and give the CCAC a more significant role in the process.

Under this proposal, the CCAC would be the ultimate arbitrator of everything that goes into the coin design. While I will discuss this role in the context of coin types, this means that congress will cease deciding what is to be depicted on the coins. The CCAC will be the arbitrator of this process. While this concept is new in the United States, this is the role played by similar organizations that work with the Canadian Royal Mint, Great Britian’s Royal Mint, and other worldwide mint. It is time for the United States to catch up with the rest of the world in this regard.

With the expanded role of the CCAC, the role of the CFA to be the arbitrator of the final design will not end. However, rather than be in competition, the CCAC and CFA will work together on the final design.

As part of the CCAC’s role as the US Mint’s Board of Directors, the US Mint Director and the directors of each branch mint would have an ex-officio seat on the Board and be required to provide monthly production reports and quarterly operating reports (similar to SEC Form 10-Q) for review by the CCAC. All reports would then be published by the US Mint and made available electronically via the US Mint’s website. Similarly, notes from the CCAC, including design considerations, would be made available through the CCAC’s currently useless website.

If the CCAC is to take on a more significant role in operating the US Mint, it is reasonable that they should receive a stipend. The stipend would be paid out of the Public Enterprise Fund and counted as an operating expense of the US Mint.

Speaking of accounting, as part of this reorganization, the US Mint would be required to produce their quarterly and annual reports that is in full compliance with the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. Annual reports must be audited by an accredited accounting firm while it would be optional for quarterly reports to be audited.

Funding for the US Mint and its operations will be proposed by the Director and approved by the CCAC. The approved budget will be provided to the Secretary of the Treasury and submitted to congress for their final approval. The budget for the US Mint must be withdrawn exclusively from the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund (31 U.S.C. §5136). If the Public Enterprise Fund does not have enough money sufficient to fund US Mint operations, the Secretary of the Treasury must approve the transfer of money from the general fund to the Public Enterprise Fund.

The only substantive change to the operations of the US Mint Public Enterprise Fund is how the excess money is handled. Although the wording is not clear, it appears that a reserve of “6.2415 percent of the nominal value of the coins minted” is required and that all excess is transferred to the general fund. For the reorganized US Mint, the reserve in the public enterprise fund would be 10-percent of the bureau’s total budget rounded up to the next million dollars. Also, to hedge against the problems congress creates with their annual budget battles, the budget approved by the Secretary will go into effect on October 1. During the budget process, the excess from the Public Enterprise Fund will remain in the fund until congress passes the budget.

While we are cleaning up the laws, congress needs to remove the Numismatic Public Enterprise Fund (31 U.S.C. §5134). The law that created the US Mint Public Enterprise Fund supersedes this law and is unnecessary to remain on the books.

The final aspect of the reorganization is to alter the laws that requires all metals to be purchased from United States mines and other sources. Through a labyrinth of laws, the copper, nickel, zinc, and manganese used for US circulating coinage and silver, gold, and platinum for bullion coins must be bought from US sources at the prevailing price. In other words, the US Mint cannot negotiate for discounts on the purpose of these metals as any large manufacturer would do. By doing this, congress is providing a subsidy (welfare) to the mining industries who have stemmed losses by selling to the US government. While politics will protect those mining interests, congress can authorize the US Mint to purchase coining metals from non-US sources when US sources cannot maintain sufficient supplies.

Now that the US Mint has been reorganized, the next installment will discuss improving circulating coinage.

Labels: policy, US Mint

Since the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788, congress has interpreted their Article I, Section 8 right to coin money beyond this sentence. Since the Coinage Act of 1792, congress has been heavily involved in the design of US coinage even to the point of providing exact design details.

In recent years, it appears that congress that too worried about their legacy in US coinage than their legislative legacy. The modern problem began with the success of the 50 State Quarters program. While this was a novel idea that was worth doing, congress has destroyed the novelty by making the start of the 21st century the decade of the rotating design. In this decade, congress approved the Westward Journey Nickels, Presidential Dollar, DC and US Territories Quarters, Native American $1 Coins, Lincoln Bicentennial One Cent, and the America the Beautiful Quarters programs that will begin next year. Making matters worse, the dollar coin programs have mintage requirements that the US Mint has confirmed that there is a surplus of dollars that have not been sold to collectors or the Federal Reserve.

Commemorative coins have had mixed results. What numismatists call classic commemoratives suffered from issue overload where congress authorized commemorative coins to raise money for any pet project. When congress reauthorized commemorative coins for 1982, it appeared that they learned the lessons from past mistakes by limiting the number of programs authorized. That was until congress authorized programs with multiple coin options, like the 1989 Congress Bicentennial, 1991 Mount Rushmore Golden Anniversary, and 1992 XXV Olympiad commemoratives, causing collector fatigue in the market.

After commemorative programs started showing losses, the General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office) investigated how to fix the commemorative coin program. In GAO report GGD-96-113 [PDF], U.S. Mint: Commemorative Coins Could Be More Profitable, they noted failures in the commemorative coin programs were because of over production, bad choices of subject, and the production of too many commemoratives. Subsequently, congress authorized the 32-coin Atlanta Olympic Commemorative Coin Program that lost money for the US Mint. As a result, congress codified the recommended limits on commemoratives which they have held to ever since.

With complaints coming from many directions, congress has regularly abused its constitutional powers to the point that collectors are threatening to turn away from future US Mint’s offerings. This will hurt the future commemorative market as well as the dollar coin market since collectors are the majority purchasers of these coins.

It is time to reform the coinage laws.

Even though the constitution says that congress has the authority to coin money it does not say that they have to the ability to design money or run the US Mint. Since the Coinage Act of 1792, congress has transferred the operation of the US Mint to the executive branch. But for over 200 years, congress continues to try to run the Mint from the halls of the capital so that whenever congress has asserted itself in the coining process the results have lead to failure. It is time to remove congress from the process. Congress continues to have a role in defining the denominations, metal types, and other specifications (see 31 U.S.C. §5112(a) through (c)), but what goes on the coins, how they are made, and where they are made should be removed from congressional tinkering.

Over the next week, I will look at how to improve the administration of the coining process by breaking the discussion up into four categories: circulating coinage, bullion, commemorative coins, and medals. But first, we must reorganize the US Mint to become a better operating entity. The next article will look at a reorganization proposal.

Labels: coins, US Mint

I had the opportunity to give a talk on privacy issues to the wonderful people at United States Visitor & Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) program. US-VISIT is part of the Department of Homeland Security that provides visa-issuing posts and ports of entry with the biometric technology that enables the U.S. government to establish and verify your identity when you visit the United States. In short, US-VISIT are a dedicated group of people trying to do a difficult job to help make the U.S. safer.

After spending an hour discussing privacy from a different perspective, the manager of the group sponsoring my talk handed me a token of their appreciation. The token is a Challenge Coin made specially for US-VISIT.

This beautiful challenge coin is 42mm in diameter with US-VIST logo on the obverse where the agency name is enameled in blue and red. The reverse is a great interpretation of the of the Department of Homeland Security’s logo. I was handed the challenge coin in a ringed Air-Tite holder.

The manager told me that US-VISIT restricts the distribution of these challenge coins. They are given to visitors and dignitaries as a sign of appreciation. US-VISIT also gives them to retirees. Very few have been made and even fewer have been distributed.

It was an honor to talk about privacy issues to the members of the US-VISIT program and it is really an honor to have received one of their Challenge Coins. I appreciate both opportunities.

Labels: medals

Jay Johnson, who served as the 36th Director of the US Mint, died of an apparent heart attack on Saturday, October 17. He was 66 years old.

Johnson, a Wisconsin native, was a television commentator turned politician. He was elected to one term congressman from Wisconsin’s 8th District in 1996. In 1999, Johnson was nominated as Director of the US Mint by President Bill Clinton. He served a Mint Director from May 2000 to August 2001. Succeeding Philip Diehl as Mint Director, Johnson managed the bureau during the height of production. Diehl and Johnson were able to maintain high production levels of American Eagle coins while starting the 50 State Quarters program. Coin production in 2001 continues to hold the record for most coins struck by the Mint.

After serving as Mint Director, Johnson remained in the Washington, DC metropolitan area and continued to work in numismatics. He formed Jay Johnson Coins and Consulting to work with investment banks and brokerages on investing in coins. Recently, Johnson worked for Goldline International and appeared on television as a spokesman.

Johnson is survived by his wife, JoLee, and two stepchildren.

Labels: US Mint