Commems Collection Medals: 2011 September 11 Tenth Anniversary - Rant

As I prepared my post about the Sepember 11, 2001 Tenth Anniversary medal (2011 September 11th Tenth Anniversary, I spent some time reading old threads about the US Mint's medal, and have to say that I was surprised by some of the messages I read as they include a fair bit of misinformed dialogue.

So, I've decided to respond to some of the issues raised in the medal's various past posts. Nothing is meant to be mean-spirited, I'm just trying to provide accurate, fact-based information.


Comment #1

The Medal Commemorates Terrorism - I Don't Support Such an Objective

This is an attempt to create a false negative narrative. The medal most definitely does not commemorate terrorism.

The bill that was enacted called for the striking of a medal "in commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States and the establishment of the National September 11 Memorial & Museum at the World Trade Center." It was brought forward by Representative Jerrold Lewis Nadler (D-NY), and was done so on behalf of 40+ Representatives from New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey, Maine, California, Florida and Georgia. The bill was not commemorating terrorism, it was commemorating the heroic response to it and the actions to be taken to ensure the day's tragic events are not forgotten (by way of a Memorial and Museum). A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Sue Wilkins Myrick (R-NC).

Per the enacted legislation, the medal's design was to "be emblematic of the courage, sacrifice, and strength of those individuals who perished in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the bravery of those who risked their lives to save others that day, and the endurance, resilience, and hope of those who survived." (Public Law 111-221)

The medal did not commemorate terrorism in any way, shape or form. It was issued in honor of those who responded valiantly to such an act in an effort to save as many lives as possible.


Comment #2

The Design of the Medal is Poor - It Should Have Had the Twin Towers on It

I think one of the reasons why many people had issues with the medal's designs is the fact that they are not literal, photo-realistic depictions of the day's events. The are symbolic, and make use of allegory. Are the meanings behind the designs immediately evident? No. But why do they have to be? What's wrong with digging a little beyond the surface?

Donna Weaver, a member of the Mint's Artistic Infusion Program, designed both sides of the medal - good for stylistic continuity of design. Phebe Hemphill was the sculptor for Weaver's obverse design, Joseph Menna handled the reverse's engraving.

The medal's obverse presents Lady Liberty holding the Lamp of Remembrance aloft. Per the Mint, "Behind her are beacons of light stretching skyward. Liberty, the lamp and the light symbolize not just the immeasurable loss on that fateful day, but also the resiliency and triumph of those who persevered." (It's hard not to "see" the Twin Towers in the pillars of light,)

The reverse of the medal includes an American Bald Eagle used to represent the strength of the survivors and the families of those lost. The eagle is presented in front of a waterfall which is symbolic of "peace, serenity, healing and the continuity of life." The Memorial in NYC includes the use of water to symbolize the same.

Photo-realistic designs are often the purview of private mints. Good for them, I hope they continue issuing such unimaginative pieces. IMO, their lesser quality only serves to differentiate their lower-tier offerings from what can be accomplished by the top artists/designers/talent in the field.


Comment #3

The Medal Was Used to Make Large Profits Off the Attacks and Death of Others

Once again, an attempt to create a false negative narrative that is not based on the facts.

The medal's authorizing legislation did include the collection of a $10 surcharge per medal. The surcharge funds were to be "paid to the National September 11 Memorial & Museum at the World Trade Center to support the operations and maintenance of the National September 11 Memorial & Museum at the World Trade Center following its completion."

The Act also specified that "the cost of designing and selling such medals (including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, marketing, and shipping)" needed to be accounted for in the medal's issue price.

Those who take the position that the Mint made huge profits off the medal and were wrong to do so, simply do not understand the facts of the matter. The Mint was required to cover its costs for the medals, to produce them at a loss would have taken specific authorization from the US Congress.

In total, 109,365 of the West Point-struck medals were sold, with an additional 67,928 medals from Philadelphia; overall 177,293 medals were purchased (less than 10% of the 2 million authorized). This equates to surcharges of potentially $1,772,930 being collected and available to the Memorial & Museum. More would have been nice, but nearly $1.8 million is nothing to scoff at!

The pre-issue price for the silver proof medals was $56.95; the regular price was $66.95; the medals were struck on the 40.6 millimeter 0.999 fine silver planchets used for American Silver Eagle ( ASE) coins. For reference, the 2011 ASE Proof was sold at $59.95 without a surcharge included; so, the core price of the September 11th Anniversary medal (during the introductory period), was actually lower than the ASE - $46.95 vs. $59.95. So, where exactly were the excessive profits?

Non-Government issue commemorative pieces are a different story. There were and have been a number of private-issue pieces whose sales in no way support the National September 11 Memorial & Museum at the World Trade Center - they are for-profit pieces issued by independent companies. The National Collector's Mint (NCM) has issued several September 11 commemoratives that do not generate funds for the Memorial & Museum - these pieces were the target of much vitriolic commentary. [i](Note: Some companies have made claims that a portion of their coin/medal/token proceeds go to one or more organizations aligned with those supporting September 11 survivors and/or the families of victims; such donations are difficult to verify. (I've tried!)


Comment #4

Should the Mint's 9/11 Tenth Anniversary Medal be Collected Alongside the Mint's Modern Commemorative Coins?

In my mind, the September 11th National Medal (and the 1993 Benjamin Franklin Firefighters Medal) are two US Mint medals that definitely should be collected with the Mint's modern commemorative coins.

Why? For one thing, the legislation that enacted them closely aligns with legislation that authorizes modern US commemorative coins. The enabling Act for each includes a mintage limit, a sponsor/surcharge beneficiary is identified, surcharges are specified/to be collected and there is a time limit/expiration date placed on production. Medals differ in that they are not required to include the same mottoes as coins (e.g., In God We Trust) and, of course, do not include a denomination.

I realize that some focus on the fact that medals do not have a denomination backed by legal tender status, but, honestly, if time is taken to consider it, one soon realizes that the denominations featured on modern US commemorative coins are essentially symbolic. How "real" is a $1 denomination on a coin that has $25+ in silver content and has an issue price of $80 or more? Also, the small number of anecdotal stories about encounters with modern commemorative coins in the wild notwithstanding, they don't circulate as coins at their stated face value (hence the phrase non-circulating legal tender - NCLT).

I know that it can be said that, at the least, the minimum value of a coin with a face value of $1 will always be $1 vs. a non-denominated medal, but, realistically, if we've gotten to the point where a US silver dollar (of traditional specifications) can effectively trade at its face value, there are bigger things happening in the US economy!


Those are some of my thoughts on the topic. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinions, of course, but I believe such opinions should be formed after understanding the facts, not before, and that personal incredulity in the face of factual data is not enough to make an opinion valid. [/soapbox]