Archive for November, 2012

The theory “If man can make it, man can made it better” doesn’t always hold true. Two cases in the history of manufacture of coins and medals – coins particularly – proves that point.

Ever since 1506 when Italian Donato Bramante modified a fruit press to blank sheets of lead, to make seals for Pope Julius II, we have had a mechanical way of striking coins, ultimately using this technique on a screw press.

The mechanical genius Leonardo da Vinci about the same time sketched such a screw press in his notebooks – whether it was ever build in his day is doubtful. Da Vinci theorized a single blow of a screw press could cut out a blank at the same time impressing an image on the front and back of a previously made blank.

It proved successful to do these in separate operations.

Thus coins struck in a press start from rolled out strips, which are then blanked to produce the circles of metal, then struck in a press. The  process is called milled coinage from the milling of the metal to a required thickness before blanking in a rolling mill.

The process is also called cold coining — the blanks are not heated, both blanking and striking is done at room temperature.

Rejected technique number one. Coins have been made since 640 BC. A lump of metal was placed on a lower die fixed to an anvil. The upper die was placed on top of this lump and it was hit with a heavy blow a number of times until it was flattened and took the image of both dies.

Called hammered coinage, the process continued for a long time. Since it was simple, elaborate factories were not needed to make the coins. It was more of a cottage industry where issuing authorities allowed individuals, called moneyers, to strike the coins. They could keep one coin for every 16 they made. The authorities controlled this by supplying the dies, but, obviously, false reporting ran rampant.

It was probably one of those moneyers in Rome who thought he could make his job easier, or perhaps make more coins in quicker time. Could he make a coin quicker by heating the blank?

The answer was NO.  The heated blank did not expand uniformly when impressed by the dies. Metal flows outward from the center of the blank’s surface to the edge. The heated blank flowed unevenly, some areas reaching the edge ahead of adjacent areas. The coins had ragged, saw tooth edges. This result is known as hot tears, unsatisfactory for a disk of metal made into a coin.

The first use of moneyers was in 104 BC. But even after the screw press and other devices for coining became available, the moneyers did not stop. They fought hard to keep their franchise.

By 1553 a gifted mechanic from Augsburg, Eugene Bergeron, brought his coining technology to the Paris Mint and attempted to establish a more modern method of coining, in effect creating the birth of milled  coining. Yet he was driven out of Paris in 1560 by the moneyers who learned his technology would replace their lucrative activity.

This occurred in England as well in 1561. Not until 1662 – a century later – did the moneyers become entirely replaced by a milled coinage with the use of the screw press. In 1641 the screw press was reintroduced, permanently, at the Paris Mint, and in 1662 at the London Mint.

Rejected technique number two.  Two years before Bereron’s trip to Paris, another Augusburg mechanic, Kaspar Goebels, came up with the idea of roller die coinage. Instead of blanking strips of metal first, then striking  the coins, Goebels idea was to impress the images on a strip of metal with a roller die first, then cut out the coins.

The German word for this process was taschenweke. The name of the roller mill specially engraved with the coin images on a roller was called a walzenwerke. Goebels attempts to use his process in Denmark, and later Spain. It had problems of registration, the obverse image had to match the reverse image, also the trimming or cutting out of the image exactly from the strip was also critical. The technique was a failure at both mints.

In 1637 no less than the chief engraver at the Paris Mint, Nicholas Briot, attempts roller die coinage again. It fails again at the Paris Mint. He is dismissed, travels to England and gets the job as chief engraver at the Tower Mint. There he tries a roller die coinage again without success.

Finally at the Edinburgh Mint in Scotland he is named mintmaster. He finally achieves somewhat of a satisfactory roller die coinage, but it only works for a large diameter coin. The process falls into obscurity, never to be attempted again.

Never? Would you believe it was tried again in the 20th century by no less an institution than General Motors!

In 1964 U.S. Treasury officials met with several top GM officials and discussed the cent shortage. Even with three-shift production of cent coins, the Mint could not meet the demand to end a cent shortage.

GM vice president Louis C. Goad – he was head of manufacturing – told Mint officials he could build a press which could produce 10,000 coins per minute.  The Mint took him up on the challenge.

He assembled a group of engineers and mechanics at GM’s training center in Michigan. They build a press and between 1964 and 1968 tried three times, three different ways.

Among several minor problems, the major problem was that the action generated a tremendous heat. In effect, it melted the dies. The process failed again and in 1969 they closed down the experiment.

Thus within the 2,652 years of coin-making technology we have 460 years of successful coin making by cold coining, milled technology. A heritage of blanking a strip of metal to create proper thickness blanks which are then struck in a press one at a time!

The technology works for creating coins. Forget roller die coining. Or heating the blanks.

Resource: Read more on that General Motors experiment: http://usrarecoininvestments.com/coin_articles/gm_roller_press_cent.htm


Read Full Post »

Conner Sculpt

Conner Sculpt

THIS WEEK we learn of a rejected coin design from Ireland which is featured in a museum exhibit that illustrates the history of Ireland in 100 objects. The coin model, prepared in 1926, shows a charming little boy described as “scampish” in the article appearing in the Irish Times this week. The coin model was from a coin competition of 1927 that led to the first national Irish coinage with coins struck in 1929.

A committee, led by Irish poet William Butler Yeats, was charged with choosing eight new coin designs and selecting a sculptor to create the models. The committee chose animals and a fish native to Ireland as the motifs for each of the eight denominations. They also selected nine artists from six countries to enter a closed (invitation only) competition.

Irish-born sculptor Jerome Stanley Conner stepped outside the rules – disregarding the recommended animal. Instead he created a model for the penny shown here bearing that Irish youth whose plaster design is now on exhibit at the National Museum of Ireland.

Conner, who had left Ireland at age 14, came to America in 1889. Educated in Boston, he later became proficient in sculpture, specializing in monumental work in studios in Washington DC and New York City. He had returned to Ireland in 1925 before the invitations to compete in the coin competition were issued.

The artist felt the penny was a child’s coin. His design reflected this by celebrating a childhood theme according to the Irish Times article. This also brought to mind the harsh times in Ireland’s history where Irish families gave up their children to be housed in institutions because they were poor. The article expands on this.

[I looked up Conner (1875-1943) in my American Artists Databank. I found such tidbits as he was a one-time prize fighter, his name was often misspelled “Connor” – OR – even in his obituary in the New York Times (August 22, 1943), and the name is listed both ways in biographical dictionaries Fielding (1926) and Falk (1999). He also prepared reliefs of famous Americans. I had sold a galvano relief he had created of Walt Whitman in one of my auctions.]

In June 2011 numismatic author Ed Reiter wrote an article of the subject of this Ireland coin competition from the viewpoint of one of the rejected artist’s models – those of Italian Publico Morbiducci. The author records all artists who were invited in addition to the Italian Morbiducci – Americans Paul Manship, James Earle Fraser, and Ivan Mestrovic. Fraser declined to participate, Mestrovic received the invitation late and only submitted a model of the Irish harp to be common on all eight coins. Manship created all eight coin models.

In addition to Conner, Irish sculptors Albert Power and Oliver Sheppard were invited. Also Carl Milles of Sweden and Percy Metcalfe of England. Metcalfe won the competition and the others received a 50- pound compensation.

Reiter mentioned Morbiducci’s rejected models had sold over the years, individually and that a complete set once sold for $100,000. Paul Manship was, perhaps, more assured of his position in the art field despite not winning this competition.

Manship had donated a set of his rejected coin models to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1929, the year Metcalfe’s designed coins were released. He also donated his studio set of the eight models to the Smithsonian Art Museum (among other studio models) in 1965 a year before his death.

While Morbiducci’s models have infrequently appeared in the numismatic and art fields we have knowledge of other rejected coin models. The competition for the Washington quarter, resulting in the 1932 Flanagan design, is the most prominent that comes to mind.

1999 Washington Gold Coin

1999 Washington Gold Coin

Laura Gardin Fraser’s Washington model for this competition was rejected in 1932 but resurrected by U.S. Mint officials in 1999 for the commemorative $5 gold for the bicentennial of George Washington’s death. Both her obverse and reverse models were revived for this modern U.S. commemorative.

This was an open coin competition, anyone could submit a plaster model, and hundreds did. John Flanagan’s model was chosen to appear on the quarter (it continues to this day, even with reverses of the fifty states and “American Beautiful” National Parks and Monument designs).

The U.S. Treasury returned all unaccepted models. Many of those 1932 competition rejected models were made into cheap tokens, some were destroyed by dejected artists, some were never heard from again, most remained in sculptors’ studios. When their estates are sold these come on the market. Those models by New York sculptor Thomas Cremona bounced around the New York City market for some time. NASCA sold one in their auctions, I sold another.

What can be learned from these events?  Competitions are often held to obtain coin – or medal – designs. Open competitions are just that – open to anyone – where a wide spectrum of designs are received. These come from amateurs, including school children (art teachers often encourage this). Unfortunately professional artists often eschew these contests as not worth their time to enter.

Drawings of unaccepted designs can easily be returned but at an expense. It is an even greater expense to return models. As evident here these models are often recycled into other, sometimes competing products. Open competitions require a lot of time and expense to publicize and to judge. The hope is always to discover some hidden talent. It is best not to accept models in an open competition.

Better, more professional artistic designs are obtained in a closed competition. Here the artists are chosen in advance, but all who participate expect to be paid. Of the choice of drawings versus relief models, the later is preferred. (Some relief artists are not necessarily good draftsmen.) It is best to demand models in a closed competition with the proviso that no models will be returned and become the property of the contest sponsor. This prevents any subsequent use of those designs. 

A note about terms on coin designs.  A model is a design still in plaster (or any previous form, clay, wax, whatever). It becomes a pattern when the model is made into metal.

There are many stories of what happens to unaccepted coin models. If they are returned to their artists they take on a life of their own. Can you say “recycle?”

Internet Resources for this Article

To read Ed Reiter’s article: An Italian Artist’s LegacyTo Irish Numismatics (www.coinnewstoday.com/article2/97-an-italian-artists-legacy-to-irish-numismatics.html)

The Irish Times article by Fintan O’Toole: (www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/1117/1224326693688.html)

Read Full Post »

LISTED BELOW are traits of artists who have made excellent medalists in the past. I have learned of these from my contact with live artists over the years and the biographies I have prepared for the medallic artists documented in my Databank of American Artists.

While each artist is different, each his own individual, they seemed to share common traits. All seemed to have an appreciation for beauty, and a compelling desire to create, but other similar characteristics became evident when I recorded so many biographical details of these artists. Those listed here are in no particular order, just as the trait came to mind.

Your father was a sculptor.  

Many medalists are second generation sculptors. Ralph Menconi and Joseph DiLorenzo are two whose father encouraged their choice of career. This was not the case in the Weinman household. When Robert Weinman made small sculptures as a youth, his father, Adolph Weinman, broke them up commenting, “There will only be one sculptor in this family.” Despite that, both Robert and his brother Howard were sculptors and competent medalists.

You were born or trained in France or Italy.

Artists with some connection to either of these two countries seem to have an appreciation and an ability for medallic art more so than others. This includes the founders of our company, the Weil Brothers, who were French. Victor Brenner traveled to Paris twice to be trained by the masters there to become one of America’s great medalists. In a comment once in a speech on Italian-born Marcel Jovine, I stated “there must be something in the drinking water in Italy to produce such outstanding medallic artists.” It still holds true.

You worked for St. Gaudens in his studio.

For sculptors active around the turn of the 20th century, if you served in St. Gaudens studio you observed great art first hand, in addition to helping prepare it. Every one of St. Gaudens’ sculpture assistants went on to make medals of exceptional quality. By extension, this could imply to be trained by the best sculptor who will accept you as an apprentice will increase your chance of success.

You are a seasoned artist.

Some artists come to medallic art late in life. I would hope the reason would be a desire for the longevity of their medals – destined to outlast every other art form, including their monumental and architectural works. But it is probably due to experiences gained over the years with a view of mankind’s foibles from a broader perspective. All your life experiences influence your art.

You teach sculpture at the college level.

A professorship in sculpture is ideal for an active medallist. It levels out your income and provides time to create on your own time in your own studio. Here’s a list that comes to mind: Albert d’Andrea, Richard Duhme, Frank Eliscu, Jamie Franki, Angela Gregopry, R. Tait McKenzie, Elliot Offner, Merlin Szosz, Elden Teft, George Tsutakawa and Bud Wertheim. I personally knew all except McKenzie (although I have written extensively about this artist), Teft and Tsutakawa.

You love calligraphy.

Don Everhart and Sherl Joseph Winter are two medalists who have studied calligraphy with the intent of improving their letter forms on their medallic models. The shapes, serifs and shading of letter forms all influence their style which should be harmonious with the theme of the medal, a subtle but important feature.

You are a master with clay and plaster.

This is a requirement for every artist preparing oversize models for medals to be reduced while cutting the die for striking. Some artists are more proficient modeling but this is basic for any sculptural activity that it should be a technique of second nature to every artist who calls himself a sculptor.

You like the classics in literature, art and medallic art.

You like to study the best of past generations. A classic is a work that stands the test of time, it is admired by generations, no matter what the current fad is. This holds true for literature, every form of art including medallic art. It is interesting to view the library in the studio of great sculptors. I remember viewing the studio of Walker Hancock in Gloucester Massachusetts. It included great literature as well as the expected works on great art.

You are a versatile sculptor, preparing monumental works as well as miniature medallic art.

I can mention extremes here. The sculptor who created Mount Rushmore, and both sculptors in charge of Stone Mountain in Georgia – Guzton Borglum and that same Walker Hancock who replaced him to finish the job – both prepared medallic models as well as heroic portraits, mountain-size sculptures. Famed sculptor Malvina Hoffman prepared the frieze on the facade of a building with as much ease as modeling a medal. Scale is relative. A professional sculptor can create both.

Your hobby is symbolism, you can create a symbol for any idea, any concept.

No one sculptor stands out in my mind for symbols, since this trait is so universal among all artists. Good medalists are expected to create good symbols in their medallic designs. The symbolic image must be understood by any knowledgeable person, then presented in an attractive way. Add a touch of charm and that is a winning design. Good medalists know how to employ useful, attractive symbols in their creations.

You’re a “clipper,” you compile a clipping file of images you could possibly render into relief works of art.

Artists don’t talk much about their clipping files but they are so important they have been mentioned in wills, bequeathed much like their tools to past them off to a favorite apprentice or family member. Great artists use these files to get ideas, inspiration and insight how to prepare a new work.

You are so well-versed in medallic technologies you could teach it or write a book on the subject. 

Technique is mastering the tasks required for the job at hand. I have found good medalists can view a new medal and know intuitively how it was modeled. How did the artist treat the eyeball, or the shape of an ear, or the multi strands of hair so it doesn’t look like a bowl of spaghetti dumped on top of the head. These design problems are solved by techniques, some of which are unique to medallic art.

You are a salesman – you can sell your own work.

You cannot be hesitant about seeking plush commissions. You must seek a constant flow of commissions in line with your ability to create them. Talent rises to the top and becomes known. If you receive more commissions than you can handle, you hire assistants, like St. Gaudens, or Andy Warhol.

You don’t mind publicity about you or your work.

Picket Head Medal

Picket Head Medal

Nineteenth century sculptor Byron M. Pickett so overlooked this aspect of his work he remained virtually unknown. Today, 125 years later, medal researchers, art historians and his descendants find it a major chore to piece together his life’s work. (I wrote about him in August 6, 2012.)  He prepared a life-size statue of Samuel F.B. Morse in New York City’s Central Park and a stunning relief portrait of Lincoln that was the model for a postal card issued by the U.S. Post Office (and made into a medal by Medallic Art Co in 1963). His reticence for publicity was so severe he remained unknown for nearly a century.  He was in contrast to sculptor Warner Williams of Indiana who was a virtual  publicity hound.

You travel in social circles of top decision makers.

The most notable sculptor I know who carried this trait to extreme was Felix de Weldon. He moved to Washington DC, made the effort to meet and socialize with decision makers in the nation’s capitol. The effort won for him several monument commissions, including Raising the Flag at Iwo Jima. He also was just as comfortable on Long Island’s gold coast as Martha’s Vineyard. He met the people who could afford his work.

You dream in relief, often with captions to the images. 

I have asked this question every time I interview an artist. The answer is always yes. I follow it up “Do you dream in color?” It seems painters do, sculptors don’t. Marcel Jovine told me dreaming is the source of inspiration. The artist has a conscious perception of his work at hand, this filters into his subconscious where his mind is constantly analyzing the problem, even in his sleep. A solution occasionally surfaces in a dream. Jovine called this true inspiration.

What makes a Great Medallist?

Design. While the traits previously mentioned are common to most sculptor-medallists, to rise above other artists in the field, to become a really great medallist, an artist must become a master of design. The major characteristic of his work – of any motif, media or magnitude – is its design.

A great medallist is expected to be proficient in techniques, symbolism and creating images. How he puts it all together in his design is what the public views, frozen in time and preserved in immutable metal. Design is pre-eminent.

Read Full Post »

LESS KNOWLEDGEABLE people call press releases “free publicity.” But they are not free, of course, because preparing a good one is time consuming. A better term would be “controlled publicity,” as you can control what is said about your products and services in the media.

Medallic Art Company is extremely fortunate to have its publicity so readily popular. For three reasons.

  1. New medal issues are newsworthy. The first issue of a new medal is a legitimate news item.
  2. A large base of medal collectors, and an even larger population of numismatists are interested in the news, since medals fall within the overall collecting classification of numismatics. This is despite the fact that the majority of those numismatists are interested in coins only.
  3. A moderate number of specialized numismatic publications are easy to reach and their editors look favorably on Medallic Art, which has a reputation that has taken years to build and an active effort to maintain. I will append a list of these publications and their contact data at the end of this report.

Publicity is not advertising. Publicity is pictures and text. You do not pay to have it published in any media. But you must provide the editor with an appealing and acceptable release. The editor is the gate-keeper and you must meet his approval to get published.

In an advertisement you can say pretty much what you wish to sell your produce or service. It can be hard sell. Publicity is not intended to be such hard sell, but rather facts about an event, a newsworthy event. So tone down the exaggerated claims.

In the old days a release included a black-and-white photo with a one or two pages of copy. Today the photo should be in color. In the old days the photo and release were sent by mail. Today they are sent by email. The length is however long it takes to tell the complete story.

So imagine the editor at work. His inbox is full every morning. Make your press release shine to stand out. Sharp, colorful, professional photos should accompany carefully written text. Begin with a good first paragraph with supplemental points in the paragraphs that follow. Use short, punchy sentences with good grammar — no rambling paragraphs.

If you can, be aware of his deadlines. Try not to send your release at the last minute before he goes to press. Often – when he has the time – he can come up with some creative way of treating your story, perhaps you didn’t even think of. But he can’t do this on deadline day.

Here are some tips for your text. Use numismatic terms in describing a medal. Use obverse and reverse, not front and back. Don’t say reverse side, that’s redundant.

Lettering has a name for where it is located. Call it legend when it follows the perimeter around the curve of the edge. All other lettering is inscription. Edge lettering, obviously, occurs on the edge.

The device is the main design element. Any additional design elements, are called subsidiary devices.  The area at the bottom of a circular item between the edge and any device or line across is called the exergue.

Border, edge and rim are often confused. Border is the design element framing the design. Edge is the third side, the thickness of the medal.

Rim is the outermost element of the border. I don’t want to get technical, but right at the rim-edge juncture.

The design is formed by the rise and fall of relief. Please use a term I coined: modulated relief. The sculptural term is bas-relief (the “S” is silent, pronounced BAA-releaf).

A numismatist would call the area on the face of a medal not occupied by the device as the field, the designer calls it background, an engraver calls it the table or matrix. Which term to use depends upon who you are talking to.

Now for taboo words.

These words are legitimate for everyday use, but not in a news release. The list is short.

Unique. In numismatics this means one only, period. Do not use it for an exclusive feature.

Brass. Do not use this unless the item is in brassy-gold color. Most of our medals are brown, they are bronze. Use that.  (I know the difference is a tiny bit extra copper in the formulation, but the color makes the difference.) Brass sounds cheap, bronze is more éclat.

Medallic Arts.  No “s” is used in the name Medallic Art Company. The Art is singular as is “medallic art” and “Medallic Art.” The use of the plural was a serious problem when the firm was located in New York. Another firm  – Metal Arts – also made medals and was located in Rochester (active 1919-1980). We were often confused with that firm. They are no longer in the metal business, or medal making, so it is less of a problem now. But my habit of not using the term “Medallic Arts” is deeply entrenched in my mind. It is still necessary, however, for describing medals of the past to use precise names. Still, it would be best not to use the plural – or the possessive “Medallic Art’s” – in press releases.

Rev.  Would you believe “Rev.” for Reverend, a Protestant minister, was once confused with “rev.” for a numismatic reverse. Okay, forget using this abreviation.

Pr.  This abbreviation should always be spelled out as Proof in numismatics. It has been confused with the condition at the opposite extreme, “poor.”

Insight on the publications.

Coin  World. Has a new editor, Steve Roach, less than a year on the job. His administration has launched a plan of a once-a-month super issue covering all phases of the field, with regular size issues the other weeks of the month.

I was the founding editor of Coin World, and it has survived now in its 53rd year. On their 50th anniversary they did an article on this founding and the early years. But this does not mean I have any influence over anyone else. My articles or releases are judged just as any other.

Coin World started in tabloid newspaper format, printed at a daily newspaper’s in-house newspaper press. Over the years it has morphed into a magazine size and format, now printed on specialized presses in full color. Your release will be delegated to a staff writer who will rewrite your article to their standards and requirements.

Numismatic News.  I have lost the argument with the editors of Numismatic News. They believe in departmentalizing their articles. Medal news is placed under the banner of Exonumia (which I feel is more for token-like medals – not art medals). However, they will run your article pretty much without any rewriting. NN is but one periodical among forty collectors’ publications and books, now owned by F+W Media, Inc.

The Numismatist.  Magazine format  now in its 125th year. Members of the nation organization (ANA) can receive either the print version or the internet version. Pays for articles and photos, which are well edited, but obviously no payment for news releases.

TAMS Journal. Also has a new editor in Fred Reed, who is breathing life into a formerly staid publication. Welcomes new releases on new medals.

MCA Advisory. For medal collectors only, with a small but enthusiastic readership.

The other numismatic publications are somewhat specialized including AMSA Members Exchange for medallic sculptors, JOMSA for military medal collectors, and The Clarion, edited by a collector with strong medal interests.

Other media for publicity.  Occasional releases can be sent, when appropriate, to the metal trade publications, or local press in areas where plants or offices are located.  Use a little imagination and thinking to answer the question: Who else would like to know about this medal event?

Numismatic Press Release List For Medal News 

Compiled by D. WAYNE JOHNSON, Medallic Art Corporate Historian

Coin World weekly news magazine
Steve Roach, Editor
911 Vandermak Road
Sidney, OH 45367
Phone: (937) 498-0800
Fax: (888) 304-8388
Email: editor@coinworld.com


Numismatic News weekly newspaper
David C. Harper, Editor david.harper@fwpubs.com
700 East State Street
Iola, WI 54990
Phone: (715) 445-2214
Fax: (714) 445-4087
Email: david.harper@fwpubs.com


The Numismatist monthly magazine
American Numismatic Association
Barbara Gregory, Editor
818 N. Cascade Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO 80903-3279
Phone: (719) 632-2646
Fax: (719) 634-4085
Email: editor@money.org


TAMS Journal six issues a year magazine
Fred Reed, Editor
Token And Medal Society
5030 North May Avenue #254
Oklahoma City, OK  73112
Phone:  None
Email: Freed3@airmail.net


MCA Advisory monthly newsletter
John Adams, Editor
Medal Collectors of America
162 Farm Street
Dover, MA  02030
Phone:  (508) 785-1014
Email: JAdams@ahh.com


ANS Magazine three issues a year magazine
Ute Wartenberg-Kagan, Editor
American Numismatic Society
96 Fulton Street
New York, NY 10038
Phone: (212) 571-4470  x 110
Fax: (212) 571-4479
Email: uwk@numismatics.org


Coinage Magazine monthly news stand magazine
Editor MGibbel@coinagemag.com
P.O. Box 6925
Ventura, CA 93006-9899
Phone: (805) 644-3824 x 122


American Medallic Sculpture Society
AMSA Members Exchange quarterly newsletter
P.O. Box 6626
Kamuela, Hawaii  96743

For Print Newsletter:
Andrew Perala, Editor
Email: aperala@aol.com

For Email Distribution: As needed
Anne-Lise Deering supermedal@frontier.com
P.O. Box 1201
Edmonds, WA  98020
Phone: (206) 542-0608


E-Sylum weekly on internet
Wayne Homren, Editor
21288 Arcadia Court
Ashburn, VA  20147
Phone: (703) 729-9786
Email: whomren@gmail.com


JOMSA six issues a year magazine
Richard A. Flory, Editor
Orders and Medals Society military medals only
P.O. Box 120
Chino, CA  95927-0120
Phone: (530) 345-0824
Email: rflory@csuchio.edu


The Clarion three issues a year magazine
Richard C. Jewell, Editor
Pennsylvania Assn of Numismatists
2543 Glenwood Drive
Wexford, PA  15090
Phone:  (412) 877-0318
Email: rcj2543@earthlink.net


Book and Internet Listings

Private Mint issues are listed as “Unusual World Coins”  by KP Publications in book form by that name updated every 3 years.

Internet subscribers to NumisMaster:
George Cuhaj, New Issue Editor
Email: cuhajg@yahoo.com
Unusual World Coins constantly updated

KP Publications
70 East State Street
Iola, WI  54990-0001
Phone:  (715) 445- 2214

Supply:  Photo with data: size, weight, composition, quantity struck, mint, mintmark, artist, price (if for sale).


All medallic and related items, both cast and diestruck are listed in

Dick Johnson’s Databank:
[To go online early 2013.]
Dick Johnson dick.johnson@snet.net
Databank Editor constantly updated
139 Thompson Drive
Torrington, CT  06790-6646
Phone: (360) 482-1103

Supply:  Name of item, year first issued, artist (s) names, catalog or identification number (if any); additional information if award medal, or any special feature.

Read Full Post »