Let the changes begin!For context, as 1982 dawned, Senator Cranston's massive 53-coin proposal was 'resting' quietly and about to be the focus of a House Subcommittee Hearing.
The Second Session of the 97th United States ("US") Congress saw the introduction of four new Los Angeles Olympics commemorative coin bills, some reminiscent of what came before, some proposing a new approach.
First out of the gate in was a bill introduced by Jerry M. Patterson (D-CA). Representative Patterson had previously introduced a companion bill to the problematic 53-coin bill introduced by Senator Cranston. His new bill responded to the concerns over the large size and scope of the original proposal.
Patterson's new bill maintained many of the provisions found in his previous bill (e.g., use of a private marketer for the promotion of the coins), but scaled back the size/scope of the program from 29 coin designs to 17; the bill's total number of coins, however, was still a lofty 33.
The bill called for up to 25 million CuNi Clad Dollar coins (1 design, 1 series), up to 15 million $10 silver coins (4 designs in each of 3 series; 12 coins total), up to 1 million gold $50 coins (2 designs, 2 series; 2 coins total), and up to 1 million gold $100 coins (2 designs, 2 series; 2 coins total).
As with his previous bill, the CuNi Clad Dollar coin was only to be struck in Brilliant Uncirculated, while the Silver and Gold coins were to be available in Proof and Brilliant Uncirculated. If Proof and Brilliant Uncirculated strikes are counted individually, the bill called for the production of 17 designs on 33 coins.
In addition to the specified mintage limits (above), the bill also stipulated that the coins could have an "aggregate face value which is not more than $325,000,000." (The $325 million limit would be achieved if each of the coins reached its maximum mintage, it did not set a new upper or lower limit.)
The coins were to benefit the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee ("LAOOC") "to help support the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games." As with his previous bill, Patterson's new bill specified that the coins were to be marketed by a private company vs. the US Mint, with issue prices for the coins set by the marketer.
The bill also sought to amend the American Arts Gold Medallion Act to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to make the Gold Medallions available through dealers and to provide for bulk sales. The previous, more limited distribution model for the medallions had produced only modest sales results. (For more, see:
1980-84 American Arts Gold Medallions The bill was referred to the House Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs. with a further referral to its Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs and Coinage. It was subsequently included in a Subcommittee Hearing. (See below.)
About a week later, Fernand J. St Germain (D-RI) introduced a bill in the House that, at its core, mirrored the Patterson bill, but its wording/provisions did vary:
For example:
1a.
Patterson Bill: The stated purpose of the bill called for the minting of commemorative coins to honor and commemorate the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games; and to help finance the games and amateur athletics without the use of tax revenues.
1b.
St Germain bill: The bill's single specified purpose was to mint commemorative coins to honor and commemorate the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games.
2a.
Patterson Bill: The bill called for Silver $10 coins with a composition of 90% Silver and 10% Copper.
2b.
St Germain bill: The bill called for Silver $10 coins with a Sterling Silver composition of 92.5% Silver and 7.5% Copper.
3a.
Patterson Bill: The bill called for Gold coins ($50 and $100) with a composition of 90% Gold and 10% Silver OR Copper OR a mix of Silver and Copper.
3b.
St Germain bill: The bill called for Gold coins ($50 and $100) with a composition of 90% Gold and (specifically) 10% Copper (no mention of Silver).
4a.
Patterson Bill: The bill stipulated that the coins would have an "aggregate face value which is not more than $325,000,000." (The $325 million limit would be achieved if each of the coins reached its maximum mintage, it did not set a new upper or lower bound.)
4b.
St Germain bill: The bill removed the redundant $325 million limit in face value provision.
5a.
Patterson Bill: The bill granted authorization to the Secretary of the Treasury to reduce the specified number of coin designs as long as the reduction did not reduce the estimated proceeds to the LAOOC for the coin and did not reduce the overall net proceeds to the LAOOC below its guaranteed $30 million payment.
(Note: This authority was not granted if the coins were being privately marketed under contract.)5b.
St Germain bill: The bill granted authorization to the Secretary of the Treasury to reduce the specified coin mintages if it "is in the best interests of the United States, including meeting the coinage needs of the Nation." A much more 'public' focus vs. 'private.'
6a.
Patterson Bill: The bill included an amendment regarding changes to the Gold American Arts Medallions program (described above)
6b.
St Germain bill: The bill did not include the Gold American Arts Medallions program amendment.
These two 1982 coin bills by Representatives Patterson and St Germain demonstrated that a large, privately-marketed Olympic coin program still had support from some in Congress!
Representative Frank Annunzio (D-IL) followed with the introduction of two bills/versions of a Los Angeles Olympic coin program in April 1982.
Annunzio's first bill, introduced in early April 1982, called for up to 25 million 90% Silver Dollars, of a single design, to be dated "1984." The coins were to be marketed/sold by the US Mint "at a price equal to one dollar plus the cost of issuing such one-dollar coins (including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses)." A surcharge of at least $10 was also to be added to the issue price.
Coins were authorized to be issued no earlier than October 1, 1982 (the bill's proposed effective date), nor after December 31, 1985. The bill would have created a potential scenario by which the Mint could strike the Silver Dollars in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985 but be required to date them all "1984" regardless. But let's not dwell on such inconsistency.
The United States Olympic Committee ("USOC") was to receive 70% of the collected surcharges to "be used to train United States Olympic athletes, to support local or community amateur athletic programs, and to erect facilities for the training of such athletes." The other 30% of surcharges was to be paid to the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee ("LAOOC") to be used "to stage and promote the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic games.
In an unsual twist, the bill also included a non-refundable, advance payment on future surcharges to the USOC and LAOOC - the payment was to be $50 million.
The bill was referred to the House Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, with a further referral to its Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs and Coinage. The bill was subsequently included in a Subcommittee Hearing. (See below.)
Following the introduction of this bill, Annunzio received feedback suggesting that more was needed from a coin program if the Los Angeles Olympic Games were to be successfully supported by it. As a result, Annunzio drafted an updated bill and introduced it toward the end of April.
The provisions of Representative Annunzio's second bill should sound very familiar to collectors of the modern US commemorative coin series. The bill's purposes was "To provide for the minting of coins emblematic of the 1984 Los Angeles summer Olympic games."
The bill called for the striking of up to 50 million 90% Silver dollar coins, with one design issued in 1983 and another in 1984. Each was to be dated with year of issue (vs. "1984" regardless of issue date.) The bill also would have authorized the mintiing of up to two million $10 Gold coins (90% Gold composition)
The Secretary of the Treasury was to select the designs for all coins, with the designs being "emblematic of the 1984 summer Olympic games which are to be held in Los Angeles, California."
US marketing and sales were to be managed by the US Treasury/Mint, but international marketing and sales were to be assigned to a private company with the necessary international marketing experience. The Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to cancel any international marketing contract, however, if the company was not meeting the terms of the contract.
An important component of the international contract was that the Treasury/Mint was to be involved in the setting of issue prices for the coins, such was not to be left solely to the international marketing company.
The issue price of the Silver Dollars was to include a $10 (USD) surcharge per coin; the price of the Gold Eagles was to include a surcharge of $50 (USD) per coin.
the USOC was to reeceive 50% of collected surcharges with the funds to "be used to train United States Olympic athletes, to support local or community amateur athletic programs, and to erect facilities for the training of such athletes." The other 50% was to go to the LAOOC "to stage and promote the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic games."
Annunzio held a Hearing to review and discuss Senator Alan Cranston's Olympic coin bill and the four House bills of 1982. It took place over five days in April and May, 1982, and involved testimony from over two dozen witnesses and more than six dozen written statements and letters that were submitted for entry into the Hearing record. It was a massive - but vitally important - Hearing that set the path for the modern US commemorative coin series. (More about the Hearing in my next story installment.)
See "TBD" - 1983-84 Los Angeles Olympics - Finally, A Public Law to continue the story of the Olympic Coin Act for the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics.
For other of my posts about commemorative coins and medals, including more modern commemorative coin stories, see:
Commems Collection 
Posted 05/04/2026 5:18 pm
