Archive for the ‘Computer Technology’ Category

Carl Carson Award

Carl Carson Award

In gratitude for receiving the Carl Carlson Award Medal (shown above) bestowed by the collectors organization Medal Collectors of America at the recent convention of the American Numismatic Association, I would like to offer this article to encourage others to prepare medal catalogs. It will be followed by another article, How To Catalog Medals.

NUMISMATISTS catalog medals for four purposes. Inventory. Collectors’ catalog. Appraisal. Sales catalog. I have prepared all four such catalogs in my medallic career spanning the last four decades.

I tried to calculate how many medals I have cataloged in the last forty years since I was hired by the president of Medallic Art Company to accomplish just that chore – catalog all the medals the firm had made since it produced its first medal in 1907. Since this was accomplished before I left the firm in January 1977, I know that exact number: 6,121.

Of course, medal production is an ongoing statistic. But the number the firm has created since that time is not a fixed number, as the firm passed through two new owners, and their dedication to accurate cataloging records were not always a high priority.

The figure had risen, however, to over ten thousand by the time I returned to the firm 33 years later.

Cataloging archive medals. President Bill Louth had some fixed ideas in mind for a company medal catalog. He made certain I would include these criteria as I planned a cataloging project:

First, the image of both sides of the medal had to be visible (to a human viewer). Second it had to contain useful data for use as a sales tool for future and repeat sales. Third, he wanted it indexed in some way of the pictorial devices shown on the medal. And fourth, he wanted to establish a company archive of one of every medal.

Since I would be cataloging images, each medal’s obverse and reverse, this would entail a photograph, a picture. One of my first consultations was to set an appointment with Ramona Javitz, the head of the print department of the New York Public Library.

By the time I met Ms Javitz, she was in her nineties. She had established this collection in the 1930s and had overseen it ever since. Her suggestions stressed the topics of the images, as that is how she filed the prints in her department.

[The  prints came from many sources, often pages from magazines or books. These were placed in folders with similar prints and these in large envelopes, arranged in trays on long tables – all arranged by topics. If you had a New York Public Library card, you could check out as many prints as you wished. The collection grew in time to over a million prints.]

This collection served artists very well. If fact sculptor Ralph Menconi, who at the height of his medal activity was creating one new medal a week, had his wife searching that NYPL picture collection for the images he required to design and model that many new medals he was commissioned to produce.

Photographic image.  Since my requirement for an image of every medal sounded like a photographic need, I contacted Eastman Kodak for my second consultation. The Eastman representative understood exactly what I needed after what I explained to him we were attempting to do.

His first suggestion was an “aperture card.” This was a photo negative mounted inside a computer card. He wanted to show me how this worked. Time-Life had six million photos on file. He took me to the Time-Life Building cross town and to their photo archives.

Good suggestions both. But not exactly want we needed. Remember this was before the widespread use of the computer. What we needed was a bit more manual, a lot more simple.

In the end we devised our own system. We photographed each side of the medal on 35mm film. From contact prints of these films we cut out uniform 33mm prints. We wrote up the data on a custom form, typed this on a 3 x 5 card and pasted the photo prints on the card.

We then photocopied the card for as many copies as needed to file.

This required a number of special purchases.

  • A wooden 3×5 library card file, with rods to hold cards in the drawer.
  • Special photocopy card stock, four up, with predrilled holes.
  • A photocopy machine.
  • A 35mm camera with a built-in circular mask mounted on a stand.
  • And a punch to cut out exact 33mm circles (noncircular prints were cut with scissors).

While highly labor intensive the process worked. An image of both sides of a medal appeared side-by-side on the card, plus all the data required the sales department needed.

To build the archives, after we took the picture of the medal, we punched a unique number on the edge and placed the medal in trays arranged chronologically.

That number became that medal’s catalog number. Previously the company had a different numbering system for each operation. Dieshells and galvanos had one numbering system. Dies had another. Medals in the storeroom had another. The paper files were unnumbered.

With one catalog number, all numbering systems were replaced by that number. The new number was painted in white paint on the side of all the dies. (I don’t remember how the dieshells were renumbered.) All files were rubber stamped and that catalog number written on the outside of each folder.

In the end every medal had a unique number and any related material to that medal had the same number. It led to greater efficiency. The process continued with only one change. Third owner had that entire card file entered in a database on the computer, still in use at present.

This was an example of inventory cataloging. For this project I utilized the best numismatic principles I could. I had to learn the difference between a medal and a medallion. (European numismatics place the dividing line at 80mm – 3 1/8-inch diameter.) I had to learn how to name a medal. (I will explain that in my next article.)

Most important, I had to learn topics – the headings or categories of medal images. This served a dual purpose: within the company for the sales department, outside the firm, this is how collectors collect medals.

Collectors catalog requires most data.  While an inventory catalog requires selective data for how it will be used, a collectors catalog is the opposite. It requires a maximum amount of data, history of the piece, full description, list of all varieties, citations to numismatic literature (and other catalogs), value in a number of conditions, any related data or scrap of information.

In effect a collectors catalog is a list of every possible medal within the scope of the work. It becomes a “shopping list” for the collector. He will attempt to obtain every one of the pieces listed to complete his collection. (Often he will find specimens unlisted in the catalog, part of the charm, the challenge of collecting!)

Most collectors catalogs are by topics – music medals, architecture medals, world’s fair medals, scouting medals, Masonic medals or such. Or by those medals all of one person, Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy, Columbus. Or types of medals, political campaign medals, so-called dollars, Mardi Gras medals or such. Or geographical.

Also more catalogs are now being produced of all the work of one artist. My experience in this field is with Victor David Brenner, Abram Belskie, Joseph DiLorenzo, and for my Databank of American Artists, the medallic work of over 3,900 artists.

What is interesting to note of perhaps 350 possible topics in which catalogs could be compiled, less than five percent of these subjects have such a published catalog. Collectors catalogs offer an excellent opportunity for the dedicated collector! Best of all, your last name will be tied to the catalog numbers in all future references and listings to these medals. That’s a little bit of numismatic fame!

Appraisal cataloging.  Here we deal with the value of a single, individual specimen. The cataloging must recognize and detail the specific variety of the piece at hand and guarantee its genuineness. Further research must be conducted in auction sales, advertisements, and if it is a rare piece, an attempt to learn of the previous owners, its provenance.

Appraisals are required for insurance purpose, for donations, for division of family assets, or for an owner’s curiosity. Often these become an official document which must be filed with the IRS. Their greatest concern is a current valuation – a fixed dollar amount – at the time of the appraisal

Sales catalogs. Perhaps, the greatest amount of numismatic cataloging is done in the preparation of auction catalogs. True in my case. Here a catalog description must help sell the medal. Somewhat less detail can be given, but the variety and its condition must be identified.

A century ago the name of the medal and its composition was about all a auctioneer felt was necessary. Today, the-more-you-tell, the-more-you-sell principle is in force. So for rare or expensive medals a potential bidder today may find a lengthy description. In contrast, well documented series can be auctioned by their published catalog number and condition.

My estimate.  All told, cataloging 35 of my own auction sales, the medals in Medallic Art’s early archives, appraisals, and artists lists (not in the Databank). I estimated I have cataloged between forty to fifty thousand medals. It is useful information in a useful format. That’s why!


Read Full Post »

For its first fifty years, Medallic Art Company had no need for a sculptor to be on hand at the firm. The founders, Henri and Felix Weil, were themselves sculptors. All models were prepared by outside sculptors, as clients or commissioned by the firm.

Any touchup work could be done by one of the Weils. Their knowledge of needs of a model for the required process of reduction and cutting a die to be struck into metal was extensive. They knew, perhaps intuitively, that a model could be made into a die. Or what needed to be done to accomplish that magical transaction. They could do it.

With the sale of the firm to Clyde Curlee Trees in 1927, one of the Weils had agreed to be on hand at all times. This policy continued in place until Henri, the oldest of the two, was unable to work and ultimately died in 1949.

Clyde Trees often made the statement that the firm had no stock dies, that all medals were made by new models from outside, commissioned sculptors. But those models occasionally needed tweaking – the preferred sculptural term is “touchup” – irrespective of how competent or reputable the sculptor was who prepared them.

With the death of Henri Weil, Trees realized he needed a sculptor at the plant full time. In 1951 he hired a young talented Puerto Rican, Ramon Gordils, and, under the tutelage of Felix Weil, trained him in the special needs and techniques of medallic modeling.

Ramon Gordils was Medallic Art Company’s first factory artist.

He became so competent that, later on, he was able to pass on those skills to anyone who needed them, even to some top-name sculptor. A problem in plaster casting? Ask Ramon. Height of relief? Ramon knew. Trick of the trade? Ramon would pass it along. In other words, Ramon could backstop every artist, no matter who.

By having such a talented craftsman on hand, any client of Medallic Art could choose any bas-relief sculptor, no matter who, and know for certain their model could end up a competent and outstanding medal. Ramon Gordils would see to that.

Lettering on modals was the weakness of many sculptors. How many times have we heard requests from first-time medal sculptors who desired to obtain form letters. They wanted to buy already formed letters to add to their clay models. Doesn’t happen. You have to form the letters yourself in clay – or carve in reverse in plaster – then let this be the mold for clay letters.

A second problem was hair. Too often hair could not be made fine enough on a clay model. When cast it looked like a bowl of spaghetti dumped on top of the head.  Ramon knew all these problems and how to overcome them, with his deft touchup.

Years later, after Medallic Art Company had changed ownership and moved to Danbury, Connecticut, Ramon Gordils had been replaced by, not one, but three sculptors working in the art department. And that was the beginning of the problem of factory artists at Medallic Art.

It is a human trait that several artists working nearby will slowly evolve into mediocrity. They talk to each other, they look over each other’s shoulder. Subconsciously they tend to copy each other.

David Castruccio, one of those three Medallic Art sculptors in Danbury recognized this trait more than anyone else. He once told me a very succinct and perceptive observation:

“Our work became homogenized.”

Irrespective of who did the actual modeling, it could have been done by any of the three.

When the manufacturing plant has one such artist the work is his style alone. With more than one factory artist, a shortcoming develops, however, in that all the work soon looks similar, and the total product has too little diversity.

Such artists tend to produce designs of like style, as they consciously or unconsciously influence each other. They become homogenized – to use Dave’s term – in their creative effort and output (as if they are from the same school of art).

Outside artists, on the other hand, do not have these influences. These artists have a fresh – or different – style, and have the opportunity to produce somewhat more distinctive and creative designs.

I have viewed the work of other medal plants with more than one artist or craftsman charged with the creative design of the factory’s products. The problem of factory artists is universal. It existed in every one of those medal companies!

Engravers at the Philadelphia Mint have faced the same problem since William Barber hired his son Charles as an assistant engraver in 1869. Ultimately a third engraver was hired, George T. Morgan, in 1876. All three were British engravers. Soon all three had a similar style.

This was noticed by Treasury officials, who, in 1890, sent out a call for new engravers, someone who could design new American coins. Nothing became of that call in that decade or the next. By then the National Sculpture Society had been formed, and the organization encouraged their members to respond for new coin designs.

It took a U.S. President to get involved, Theodore Roosevelt, who, with Augustus Saint-Gaudens, introduced the first American coin designed by a qualified American sculptor. This was followed with new coin designs by Victor Brenner, James E. Fraser, Adolph Weinman, Hermon MacNeil, and Anthony diFrancisci – all National Sculpture Society members – who all created new circulating coins trumping the designs of the entrenched engravers at the Mint.

Why were outside sculptor designs so superior to the coin designs offered up by Mint engravers?

They were unburdened by Mint bureaucracy and fellow mint engravers. They were free to create without restrictions and undue peer influences. They did not have the pressures of time and space of working in a controlled environment. They allowed their creative juices to experiment, try something new, to fail and yet move on, to try something else. They had free reign.

Conditions at the Mint’s Engraving Department deteriorated and the problem of factory artists continued intact even into the 21st century. When an active new coin design program – five new reverses honoring each state on the quarter — was introduced in 1999, a large number of coin models were required in quick time.

The Mint attempted to solve this need with the Artist Infusion Program with mixed success. Meanwhile, Chief Engraver Elizabeth Jones, resigned and was not replaced.

The engraving room where five engravers work has been described as a “rabbit warren.” Work tables are chuck-a-block next to each other. It is impossible for an engraver NOT to see what his neighbor is working on. It is next to impossible for them NOT to talk to each other.  Mediocrity can only flourish in such an atmosphere.

In my previous post on Future Coins I mentioned I had suggestions for managing the Engraving Department at the Mint to overcome some of these recurring problems and place the management of the department and the creation of new coin models under better control. Here are my suggestions:

Create A New Position: “Chief of Engraving Department, United States Mint” which would require this person to have a knowledge of engraving, art, bas-relief sculpture, coining technology, be an art critic, a proof-reader, but most of all, be an art administrator. This executive would be the chief official with responsibility for all the Mint’s coin and medal design, creation of all the models for these and other engraving department duties. Formerly called the Chief Engraver.

This person is more of an administrator than an engraver; an artist more than a sculptor, an art critic more than an art creator. His duties and responsibilities include:

  • Maintain an “Invitation List” of American sculptors who can perform coin and medal designs with the capability to render their design into satisfactory bas-relief models. These artists are not graphic artists who prepare 2-dimension designs, but glyptic artists who prepare their designs into relief models.
  • He should set the standards for the inclusion of the artists on this invitation list.
  • Thus for every new coin or medal required of this department he would mail an invitation to every artist on the invitation list to submit sketches – either pencil or plaster – of obverse and reverse for the new design.
  • These invited artists can submit only one pair of designs. They are limited to their one best design concept and sketch. (Staff Engravers are not limited to one, but may submit any reasonable number of proposed designs.)
  • He alone would make the decision (with only one or two advisors from the Treasury or Art field, NOT a committee) for the choice of the artist to further develop the design into a satisfactory model.
  • He would be responsible and be required to edit all models that are submitted, for accuracy of all elements of the design, both pictorial and historical, plus correct spelling of all lettering. He would be required to challenge the artist to document the accuracy or source of all design elements.
  • He would oversee the Senior Staff Engraver to ensure these models are rendered into the most attractive, suitable models while meeting all the requirements of die making and minting technology.
  • Conduct monthly inspirational sessions for all Staff Engravers to improve their coin and medal designs and keep them current with new innovations and technology. This is not a review time for these artists’ work, which should be done in private, but a time to inspire and introduce staff engravers to new technology and to encourage design creativity.
  • As chief art administrator for both coins and medals he should also have a knowledge and appreciation of medallic art and medallic objects. He should be forward thinking in these creations and encourage their production at the U.S. Mint. He should also have knowledge of patina finishes for these art objects.

Senior Staff Engraver.  Put one mint engraver in that engraving room at the Philadelphia Mint. The title for this position would be “Senior Staff Engraver.” This person must be an all-round designer-sculptor. He (or she) must be familiar with all aspects of the Mint’s requirements and all modeling techniques.

This person’s duties would be to “backstop” all other sculptors where their submitted models could be improved, insuring all detail is sharp and crisp. Most modelers are weak in lettering for example; this person must be a specialist and expert in modeled lettering and be able to improve other artist’s lettering.

The Senior Staff Engraver would work closely with the Chief, Engraving Department. All outside models would be brought to the Senior Staff Engraver who would – in agreement with the Chief – edit and make necessary corrections to conform to the technical requirements of the diemaking process at the Mint.

The Senior Staff Engraver would also be required to make the final epoxy pattern required for processing into proper dies and tooling. He would work with the die-engraving pantograph operator to convert these patterns into the sharpest, most attractive and most technically accurate master dies, retaining all the detail and fidelity of the artist’s final pattern.

The Senior Staff Engraver would be permitted to submit new coin and medal designs in the competition for the most artistic of these. He would have a rare insight into what is appropriate because of his handling every one of the successful models that are selected. His workload, and his own volition, would be the only limiting factors to his entering as many of these competitions as he wishes.

Current Engraver Status.  Keep the existing engravers on salary, their title would be “Staff Engraver.” But send them home to work in their own studios, without contact with each other or other engraver-sculptors (except for those monthly inspirational sessions conducted by the Chief Engraving Department).

The most creative designs are the effort of one mind of a talented artist working independently from others. Granted this artistic effort is lonely work but this would result in heightened creativity.

These artists need to let their individual creative spirits soar. They should spend more time engaging in and experiencing inspiration, and less time at the drawing board and modeling table. These artists should visit fine art exhibitions and closely examine coin and medal archives and literature illustrating these to determine in their own mind what is good and bad glyptic art (and certainly learn the difference).

The study of classic coin and medal designs of the past should sharpen their knowledge that they can improve their own work. They should keep up with the new technology in the coin and medal field and be able to apply new technologies to their own coin and medal designs and models.

Like factory artists everywhere, when artists work together their creations tend to become similar, their work becomes homogenized and pedestrian. Undoubtedly this is from looking over each other’s shoulder while work is in progress. A human trait, this will continue to occur if all Staff Engravers are required to work next to each other in the present engraving room. What is needed is independent, stimulated, purposeful study away from each other to achieve inspired, innovative coin and medal creations.

Staff engravers must recognize their creative work will be in competition – not only with other staff engravers – but also with outside artists. In effect, the goal is to obtain the most artistic design for every coin and medal. However, staff engravers have somewhat of an advantage in that they posses experience in this field and have a more intimate knowledge of the technical requirements for a new design or model.

Criteria For Hiring Future Staff Engravers.  While the technical requirements for a new design or model can be learned, the desire for creating the most attractive glyptic art must come from within an artist. The staff engraver must be able to design a concept he originates and render this into an acceptable bas-relief model.

Thus he must be multi-talented.

By maintaining an invitation list of American sculptors who can create coin and medal designs, the Chief of the Engraving Department will have a pool of prospects for staff engravers. When he feels it is an appropriate time to increase the number of staff engravers, or to replace a departing artist, he can offer a staff position to the best candidate on that invitation list.

This would have an appeal to the artist in that he would not have to relocate to Philadelphia, but can continue to work in his home studio. He would have to travel to Philadelphia, however, for that monthly meeting held by the Chief of the Engraving Department.

Create a new position and hire a Design Researcher. This person (most are female) is a picture and illustration researcher. She should have a working knowledge of picture archives everywhere and know how to dig for an illustration that would be helpful for the design of a new coin. She should work with all sculptors and fill their requests for illustrations. While her office would be in the engraving room at the Philadelphia Mint she would often be found searching archives in person elsewhere.

All Engravers To Prepare New Designs.  Staff Engravers – and the Senior Staff Engraver (but NOT the Chief of the Engraving department) – would be encouraged to submit sketches for every new required coin or medal design. Also they could submit as many designs as they wish (in contrast to outside freelance artists who are limited to their one best obverse and reverse design). Because this would place new coin and medal designs on a competitive basis, this would help improve their quality. Only the best deserve to be made into the coins and medals of the United States!

Since the Chief of the Engraving Department is to make the final choice of any coin or medal design, he is not permitted to furnish any of his own designs (but can certainly express his opinion to an artist how to improve their design).

Multiple Function Artists.  Two artistic functions are required to create a new coin or medal. One is design, the other is modeling. It is preferable to have both of these functions performed by the same person (and this is a requirement of the Staff Engravers).  However, some successful designer-modeler teams have created outstanding medallic art. Such a combination would only be permitted by artists outside the U.S. Mint. For those Staff Engravers employed by the Mint they must perform both art functions.

Postscript. While the above recommendations for the U.S. Mint were written before they set aside their Janvier machines, and decided to make all models henceforth by computer engraving. My opinion is that computer engraving may not yet be proven as the best artistic tool and computer engraved dies add to the mediocrity of coin designs.

I would be more than willing to change my opinion of computer engraving when I can be shown that it can produce artistic designs of great merit by a talented artist.

Read Full Post »

Janvier Die Engraving Pantograph

Janvier Die Engraving Pantograph

The computer might possibly be the “magic machine” for die engraving in the 21st century, much like the Janvier die-engraving pantograph was the magic machine of the 20th century. Computer engraving has come such a long way the Philadelphia Mint has mothballed all their Janvier machines and now rely entirely on the technology of computer engraving for all their needs in our national mint’s engraving department.

What’s more, they are phasing out all the “clay and plaster” modeling of coin and medal models. Two of the engraving staff now work, they tell me, exclusively on the computer. The other three clay and plaster modelers will continue, but will not be replaced by such artists in the future. All will model on the computer.

This hasn’t improved design or beauty of our coins and medals – they can just be produced faster is all. (I wrote of the U.S. Mint’s inherent design mediocrity here.) Design by computer only is certain to continue this trend.

Nevertheless, existing mint engravers encourage me not to sell computer engraving short – it is a major tool in their engraving toolbox.  Not all engravers use it; not all understand it yet. That is but one reason I would like to propose a convention with the theme of computer engraving so more people – including myself – can learn more about the technique, its strengths and weaknesses, and how it can benefit future die engraving.

Here are some suggestions:

General chairman.  John M Mercanti, former U.S. Mint Chief Engraver, resigned from the Mint December 31, 2010. He would make an ideal general chairman. He has stated he wants to stay in the field and is writing a book. We assume he has time now in his retirement to take on this responsibility.

An excellent co-chairman would be Donald Scarinci, who is also qualified and strongly involved in the art medal field. John has the contacts in the engraving field, Don has contacts in the art medal field.

Both gentlemen have administrative ability for this project.

Convention location. Both of these gentlemen live in New Jersey, which would make an ideal location for such a convention. Northern New Jersey has a number of venues, some near Newark airport, ideal for those who fly in. Also that location would be close to the international airports in New York City for those who come from other countries.

Length of convention.  Three or four days. The days of the week would be determined by availability of the site.

Time of convention.  Also determined by the availability of the site. Ideally Spring or Fall.

Dual concepts of the convention.  Computer engraving is somewhat new, less than two decades old. But the technology has progressed from use at mints and medalmakers around the world. A major shortcoming is that the beauty or attractiveness of the designs being created has not increased, but mints are benefiting from the savings in time it affords. But not every medallic artist is using computer technology.

Combining an art medal show with computer engraving would instill in the minds of engravers, would be engravers, the artists who attend, that beauty should become more of a goal than time-saving. These craftsmen would be exposed to the best of the past, and learn what is currently being produced around the world.

Dual audience appeal of the convention.  The target audience for the convention is likewise two fold – artists who create the coins and medals and those who collect and sell art medals. By bringing the two groups together, attendees learn the full scope of the field. Artists should learn what collectors want. Collectors should become appreciative of the effort that goes into creating coins and medals.

Workshops. These are mandatory to allow artists to get hands-on exposure to using the computer – and the software available for this technology – and would be a major function of the convention. Workshops would be conducted both by representatives of the software companies and by artists who are actively using this technology, who are experienced and qualified.

Two names come to my mind. Daniel Carr of Colorado is an independent medallist who has a decade of experience in using computer engraving for the medallic items he has created. The other is Joseph Menna of the U.S. Mint who has been using this technology even before he joined the Mint in 2005. Others would be added until at least two days of workshops would be filled.

Artists should bring their own laptops, software would be furnished, for some hands-on training in computer engraving design in the workshops.

Lectures.  Obviously lectures and workshops would cover computer engraving technology and the art medal field. I think it important that both the “how to” use the technology be combined with “what has been created.” Experts from both fields would participate. In addition, art authorities should be invited to discuss what is good medallic art and how to achieve it in designs currently being created.

Also important is to have a sufficient number of lectures to fill every day of the convention.

Some Proposed Lecture Topics.

How to Add Charm and Beauty to Your Coin and Medal Designs.
How Computer Engraving Differs from Clay and Plaster Designs.
It’s Still Bas-Relief!
Ten Tips to Improve Your Coin and Medal Designs.
Taboos and Restrictions on Coin and Medal Designs: You Can’t Say
That! You Can’t Show That!
What Art Styles Are Appropriate to Medallic Art.
Why Graphic Artists Don’t Make Good Medallic Artists.
How To Think in Two-and-a-half Dimensions.
21 Things to Consider for Your Next Medallic Design
Add Texture, Contrast and Detail to Your Next Coin and Medal Design.
The Importance of Allegory and Symbolism.
Perfect Your Portrait Ability – You’ll Do Lots of Portraits.
Study Calligraphy To Improve Your Lettering.
Modern Art in Medals – Medallic Objects.

Potential Sponsors.

The Engravers Journal.
American Medallic Sculpture Association.
British Art Medal Society.
And similar medallic art organizations in Canada, Europe and Japan.
National Sculpture Society.
Token And Medal Society and its publication, TAMS Journal.
Medal Collectors of America and its publication, MCA Advisory.
American Numismatic Association and its publication The Numismatist.
American Numismatic Society and its many publications.
KR Publications, and its many publications.
Whitman Publishing.
National Mints around the World.
Private Mints in America.
Computer Companies.

Cooperation of World Mints.  We can assume mints of the world would want to send their engravers and die making technicians. The scope of the convention for them would be more symposium where the attendees would learn the new technology and be exposed to beautiful medals of the past, as incentive to create more beautiful coins and medals in the future for their own country.

Perhaps the Mint Directors’ national meeting could be persuaded to meet at this same time and place. It would be to their benefit to know of this aspect of their mint activity. Also this would increase the number of exhibitors and booth rentals.

Booth rentals.  Vendors of computer engraving software are obvious exhibitors (for booth rentals). Among art medals would be art medal dealers. This would be a first as there has never been a separate art medal convention with dealers vending their wares.

Financial considerations.  Cost of the convention would be covered by booth rentals and registration of attendees of all kinds and classes.

Read Full Post »