In June 1946, Charles French offered a number of suggestions to collectors who were interested in United States ("US") commemorative coins. He published the suggestions in his newspaper column "The Coin and Stamp Corner."
I agree with the general direction taken by his suggestions, but question how feasible some of them would have been in the 1940s.
Mr. French's suggestions:
"I think that if a new commemorative coin is to be desired, the collectors of coins should first decide upon a very worthy event to commemorate."A scan of my classic-era What If? posts - along with a review of the locally-focused themes of several authorized United States ("US") commemorative coins - makes the case for the need for more "worthy" events to be selected. However, leaving such decisions to collectors alone doesn't strike me as a practical solution that would have had the desired impact. (Coin collectors want coins for their collections, even if the theme is questionable, and they are likely to push questionable themes forward.)
"Second, provide for the coinage of the coins to the extent that demand warrants over a period of time, say for six months."The way I read this, Mr. French is calling for a mintage that would be limited by the calendar rather than by a specific mintage amount.
IMO, this model would have eliminated the creation of artificial rarities and, in most cases, enabled those who wanted a particular issue the time needed to order one (or more).
The Mint has used such a model within the modern series - the mintage of the 2018 World War I ("WWI") Coin and Medal Sets is an example - so this suggestion might have been workable. For the WWI program, the total number of Sets produced (i.e., medals minted) was limited to the number of orders received over a one-month period.
Note: A similar model was used for the 2012 American Eagle San Francisco Two-Coin Silver Proof Set and the 2013 American Eagle West Point Two-Coin Silver Set; each had a sales window of approximately one month and the final mintage for each was determined by the number of orders received by the Mint during the window. I generally favor this type of approach because I don't look at my coin purchases as financial instruments with expectations of significant return-on-investment ("ROI"), and I don't get excited by the creation of artificial scarcity. Coin collecting is a hobby to me, so I support a model that assists collectors with building their collections. (I'm more attracted by theme and artistry than potential price appreciation.)
"Thirdly, if a premium is to be charged, it should be extremely small, just sufficient to take care of the expense of the extra coinage and necessary shipping charges."It appears that Mr. French was looking to change the objectives of the typical US commemorative coin issue. The coins were essentially used as fundraisers by their sponsors, and "extremely small" net proceeds from coin sales would not have been very attractive to many (any?) of them. If issue prices had been aggressively capped, it seems likely that multiple sponsors would not have pursued Mint-struck commemorative coins. (Maybe a good thing after all?)
"Fourth, not more than one commemorative should be issued in one year."I agree that an annual limit would have been good for collectors during the 1930s (1936 and its 20+ issues must have been difficult for many collectors with limited hobby budgets!). The modern series has implemented a two-coin programs-per-year policy, but the rule does not limit the number of coins in a program. So, each program can include three or more coins, which can add up quickly. To be fully effective and supportive of collectors, this loophole would have needed to have been closed, otherwise it likely would have been exploited in the classic era like it is today.
"There has been criticism of commemoratives in the past because the variety of designs cause confusion in our coinage. If this is the case, I believe commemoratives should be struck in a denomination not so popularly used, the silver dollar."I think the multiple quarter redesigns the US has issued over the past two+ decades argues against mass confusion among the general public because of multiple coin designs.
While the use of a less common circulation denomination is not a bad idea, increasing the denomination from 50 cents to one dollar would have caused the issue prices charged by sponsors to increase - likely by 50 cents or more - this could have been a problem for some collectors. I believe that it was an idea worth exploring, however.
More than anything, I think Mr. French's article points to the fact that a segment of the coin collecting community wanted the US commemorative coin series to continue and it desired discussions regarding how to keep it going. French's ideas were not perfect, but they were, at least, starting points for further discussions. If only the Treasury was willing to discuss.
For other of my posts about commemorative coins and medals, see:
Commems Collection
Posted Today 25M ago
