Letters to the editor
We received many letters to the editor in which coin enthusiasts expressed their support for a reform of the COTY. We are publishing two of these as representative examples, as they deal most comprehensively with the problems surrounding this award and highlight additional aspects relating to the original article ‘What’s going wrong with the COTY? Proposals for reform’. Both are from experienced and well-connected leaders in the coin industry.
Congratulations on your article
I’ve just read your article, “What’s Going Wrong with the COTY?”, and I wanted to congratulate you on it. I found myself agreeing with every single word you wrote.
We have experienced this ourselves several times. Some of the most innovative and beautiful coins we have produced have received nominations, only for the awards to ultimately go to the usual suspects.
Let me just mention one example: our very first COTY nomination came with our first coin, the Cook Islands 5-dollar ‘Nano Sistine Chapel’ from 2012 (KM 1600 / N 70525), which featured a nanochip embedded in the coin. Through a lens – or, even better, under a microscope – it is possible to see the entire Sistine Chapel reproduced in remarkable detail on a surface roughly the size of a fingernail.
The coin was selected from among the ten nominees in the ‘Most Innovative Coin’ category. However, the award ultimately went to a relatively simple dinosaur coin from the Royal Canadian Mint featuring glow-in-the-dark paint – a technology that has been widely known since the 1970s and had already been used on coins before, including by CIT on its 2006 Lighthouse coin.
When we speak about design, I fully understand that judgements can be subjective and influenced by personal taste. But when the category is specifically about innovative technology, I believe the criteria should be considerably more objective and clearly identifiable.
To use a simple analogy, it would be like comparing a fax machine with a smartphone: personal taste may influence which one you prefer aesthetically, but there should be little doubt as to which one represents the greater technological innovation.
Of course, strong customer demand, rapid sell-outs and rising prices on the secondary market are often the best confirmation that a coin has truly succeeded with collectors. Still, it is a pity to see an award that should represent excellence in the industry lose so much of its credibility.
Thank you again for writing this article, and also for the many other excellent pieces you publish. I always enjoy reading them.
26 September 2026
Antonello Galletta
Power Coin
Congratulations on Your Article About the Coin of the Year Competition
I would like to sincerely congratulate you on having the courage to publicly address an issue that many people in our industry are already aware of, but very few have dared to speak about openly.
In my opinion, the competition has reached a point where it can no longer be taken seriously. It has become disrespectful to the work of numerous companies and artists who have dedicated years to researching and developing new projects, technologies and innovative artistic concepts, only to see their achievements completely ignored.
Over the years, I have contacted the organisers on several occasions to question certain decisions and share my observations. I have even offered my assistance, particularly regarding the selection of coins in categories such as technological innovation, where some of the supposedly innovative features had already been introduced 10 or even 15 years earlier.
Unfortunately, I have never received a satisfactory response to any of my concerns or suggestions.
I know that I am not alone. Several colleagues in the industry have shared similar experiences and frustrations.
This is why I found your article particularly important and courageous. Someone needed to speak out about what this competition has become and the lack of recognition given to the genuine efforts and achievements of so many talented professionals in our industry.
I am truly grateful that you have taken this initiative and brought these concerns into the open.
Once again, congratulations on your excellent article, your dedication to numismatics, and, above all, your courage in addressing such a sensitive issue.
I sincerely hope that your article will encourage meaningful changes and help restore the credibility and integrity that a competition such as Coin of the Year should represent.
Incidentally, I do not believe that a solution involving public voting is significantly better in terms of credibility. This can easily be manipulated. I regularly receive messages from companies and friends asking me to vote for their coins; sometimes they even send me lists of the entries they want me to support. Ultimately, it becomes more of a popularity contest, where the winner is often simply the one who manages to mobilise the most votes, rather than the one whose work truly deserves recognition.
In my opinion, what we really need is something entirely new and independent, free from financial interests, as you rightly pointed out. I believe this is the only way to establish a truly credible and respected competition.
Via LinkedIn on 25 September 2026
Name known to the editor
Text and images: Ursula Kampmann
