Coin Community Family of Web Sites
300,000 items to help build your collection! Coin, Banknote and Medal Collectors's Online Mall Specializing in Modern Numismatics Shop for APMEX Bullion on eBay!Shop CCF Members on eBay! Vancouvers #1 Coin and Paper Money Dealer Royal Canadian Mint products, Canadian, Polish, American, and world coins and banknotes.








Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?


This page may contain links that result in small commissions to keep this free site up and running.

Welcome Guest! Registering and/or logging in will remove the anchor (bottom) ads. It's Free!

Commems Collection Medals: What If? 1976 Bicentennial Medals - Ethnic Backgrounds

To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 6 / Views: 553Next Topic  
CCF Master Historian of USA Commemoratives
Learn More...
commems's Avatar
United States
12250 Posts
 Posted 10/09/2025  08:06 am Show Profile   Bookmark this topic Add commems to your friends list Get a Link to this Message Number of Subscribers
The US Mint struck a variety of medals for the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration ("ARBA") during the United States' ("US") Bicentennial years (you can read about them here: 1976 ARBC/ARBA National Medals and here: Official PNC (Philatelic Numismatic Cover) Thread.

The largest potential ARBA medal series "got away," however, as a result of lack of support during the 94th Congress.

In June 1975 Joseph George Minish (D-NJ) and Frank Annunzio (D-IL) each introduced a bill that called for up to 21 national commemorative medals that commemorated "the contributions by individuals of various ethnic backgrounds who contributed to the founding of the United States of America." No specific individuals were identified in the bills; the selection task, however, was assigned to ARBA. The two bills were identical.

The medal bills would have authorized up to 25,000 medals of up to 21 different designs with the potential for medals of various sizes and compositions. Imagine, if the medals were struck in gold, silver and bronze in two sizes each, a "completist" collector would have been faced with the daunting task of having to collect 126 medals! Wow!

Each of the medal bills was referred to the House Committee on Banking, Currency and Housing with a subsequent referral to its Subcommittee on Historic Preservation and Coinage. The Subcommittee held a Hearing in September 1975 that included the two bills on its agenda.

US Mint Director Mary Brooks testified at the Hearing and stated that the Treasury/Mint had no objections to the medal bills, but let the Subcommittee know that the Mint would not be capable of producing the full series in time for the 1976 Bicentennial, but that it could produce it before the December 31, 1983 deadline specified in the bills.

Neither bill, however, gained the support of the Subcommittee and each died for lack of action when the Congress adjourned.

I think the bills proposed what would have been an interesting series, but its open-ended parameters had the potential to create one that would have been overwhelming for most collectors. It was likely best that the series did not come to fruition. A smaller series with the same theme would have been more palatable.


For other of my posts about commemorative coins and medals, including more What If? stories, see: Commems Collection.





Collecting history one coin or medal at a time! (c) commems. All rights reserved.
Moderator
Learn More...
jbuck's Avatar
United States
187446 Posts
 Posted 10/09/2025  11:54 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add jbuck to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Very interesting. What could have been. Thank you for sharing.
Moderator
Learn More...
nickelsearcher's Avatar
United States
15382 Posts
 Posted 10/09/2025  4:54 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add nickelsearcher to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I can only imagine the challenges for any collector to keep up with a potential 126 medals just for this single national event.

But - If the Treasury had collaborated with leading historians for input, then current medallic artists for designs, there would certainly have been some unknown but worthy individuals celebrated in the proposed series.

Alas, we never got to find out what could have been from this What If.

So, in that regard I'm disappointed the bill did not proceed.

Take a look at my other hobby ... http://www.jk-dk.art
CCF Master Historian of USA Commemoratives
Learn More...
commems's Avatar
United States
12250 Posts
 Posted 10/10/2025  08:22 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add commems to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
So, in that regard I'm disappointed the bill did not proceed.

Not me! I would have supported a program featuring one medal per year from 1976 to 1983; I think an 8-medal program would have provided a meaningful tribute. I couldn't support a 21-medal program, however. Such a program, IMO, would have had some questionable subject choices that did not represent significant contributions in the drive for independence.

For me, the importance of an event as significant as the nation's Bicentennial deserved commemoration by the clear-cut "First Team" vs. running the risk of stretching to include "Second Team" or "Third Team" contributors. It has happened often in other/private large medal programs, and I wouldn't want to see it happen in a US Mint program.

Just my opinion, however, your mileage may vary.




Collecting history one coin or medal at a time! (c) commems. All rights reserved.
Moderator
Learn More...
nickelsearcher's Avatar
United States
15382 Posts
 Posted 10/10/2025  08:56 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add nickelsearcher to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
the nation's Bicentennial deserved commemoration by the clear-cut "First Team" vs. running the risk of stretching to include "Second Team" or "Third Team" contributors.


I accept that as a valid concern. I agree that only the 'first team' should make the cut.

However - we'll never know if some worthy contributors were left off the first team simply because they did not garner the public recognition during their lifetimes, and could possibly have been identified by historians who study contributors to the founding of the USA.

So, in that spirit I rephrase my regret as:

This was a lost opportunity for the Treasury to collaborate with historians to potentially identify previously unknown significant contributors to the founding of the USA.
Take a look at my other hobby ... http://www.jk-dk.art
Moderator
Learn More...
jbuck's Avatar
United States
187446 Posts
 Posted 10/10/2025  10:13 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add jbuck to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
This was a lost opportunity for the Treasury to collaborate with historians to potentially identify previously unknown significant contributors to the founding of the USA.
Moderator
Learn More...
Dearborn's Avatar
United States
94636 Posts
 Posted 10/18/2025  5:37 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Dearborn to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
This was a lost opportunity for the Treasury to collaborate with historians

Indeed, these would have been a nice addition to any collection.
  Previous TopicReplies: 6 / Views: 553Next Topic  

To participate in the forum you must log in or register.



    




Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us  |  Advertise Here  |  Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

Coin Community Forum © 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Forums
It took 0.28 seconds to rattle this change. Forums