I'd guess these might resurface as commems or semi-regular NCLT issues like the new Morgan and Peace issues. There is too much low-hanging fruit and money on the table for these to be fully scrapped.
Sounds like we're still getting the design. From CoinWorld:
"The Mint initially planned to employ the 1794 dollar designs for an American Liberty silver medal in 2024 and gold dollar in 2025, but is now planning to use the designs to celebrate the 230th anniversary of the Flowing Hair dollar series in 2024 — a program separate from the American Liberty series."
“However, the CCAC [Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee] felt, given the program’s focus on modern depictions of Liberty, that using a historic design for the American Liberty program was inadvisable. Hence their declining to deliberate on the topic at last week’s session [Oct. 24 and 25].“
@Casabrown as Chair of the CCAC, would you kindly offer additional context about this decision? You’ve posted here frequently asking for our opinions, and this idea seemed to have wide support (as evidenced by this thread and others).
@William said:
Here is our full coverage.
William T. Gibbs, Managing Editor, Coin World
This is incredible news and glad to not see shut down. Actually for the best as a separate coin vs the alternating year Liberty series. It will be well received.
Looking forward to the results of next months meeting.
"The Mint initially planned to employ the 1794 dollar designs for an American Liberty silver medal in 2024 and gold dollar in 2025, but is now planning to use the designs to celebrate the 230th anniversary of the Flowing Hair dollar series in 2024 — a program separate from the American Liberty series."
I am very confused.
Did Congress already pass a law authorizing this program? If so, why would they even have considered using the design on the American Liberty silver medal?
(For the young ones here, this is supposedly what a young boy asked Shoeless Joe Jackson outside of the courtroom when Joe Jackson, the greatest hitter of his time, admitted he was part of the fixing of the 1919 “Black” Sox World Series scandal.)
To me, it’s obvious the P.C. crowd is getting their way! Remember the apparently biased structuring of that U.S. Mint survey a few months ago?
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
@winesteven said:
To me, it’s obvious the P.C. crowd is getting their way! Remember the apparently biased structuring of that U.S. Mint survey a few months ago?
(For the young ones here, this is supposedly what a young boy asked Shoeless Joe Jackson outside of the courtroom when Joe Jackson, the greatest hitter of his time, admitted he was part of the fixing of the 1919 “Black” Sox World Series scandal.)
Steve
This is probably true, although I'm not sure why the American Liberty series couldn't contain one "traditional majority" representation.
It's also interesting that they haven't done a male Liberty. After all, isn't that also a level of needed diversity in the representation of Liberty?
@winesteven said:
To me, it’s obvious the P.C. crowd is getting their way! Remember the apparently biased structuring of that U.S. Mint survey a few months ago?
(For the young ones here, this is supposedly what a young boy asked Shoeless Joe Jackson outside of the courtroom when Joe Jackson, the greatest hitter of his time, admitted he was part of the fixing of the 1919 “Black” Sox World Series scandal.)
Steve
The 1794 was not approved for gold liberty series because it is not a modern version of liberty. However it is being introduced as a stand alone item. Although a lot of PC garbage produced and will be introduced this is not an example.
@winesteven said:
To me, it’s obvious the P.C. crowd is getting their way! Remember the apparently biased structuring of that U.S. Mint survey a few months ago?
(For the young ones here, this is supposedly what a young boy asked Shoeless Joe Jackson outside of the courtroom when Joe Jackson, the greatest hitter of his time, admitted he was part of the fixing of the 1919 “Black” Sox World Series scandal.)
Steve
The 1794 was not approved for gold liberty series because it is not a modern version of liberty. However it is being introduced as a stand alone item. Although a lot of PC garbage produced and will be introduced this is not an example.
But it is a modern version of liberty. It's certainly not an ancient version of liberty.
It is arguably more "modern" than any image that has been used on the liberty series. It was so "modern" that contemporaries objected to her flowing hair.
@winesteven said:
To me, it’s obvious the P.C. crowd is getting their way! Remember the apparently biased structuring of that U.S. Mint survey a few months ago?
(For the young ones here, this is supposedly what a young boy asked Shoeless Joe Jackson outside of the courtroom when Joe Jackson, the greatest hitter of his time, admitted he was part of the fixing of the 1919 “Black” Sox World Series scandal.)
Steve
The 1794 was not approved for gold liberty series because it is not a modern version of liberty. However it is being introduced as a stand alone item. Although a lot of PC garbage produced and will be introduced this is not an example.
But it is a modern version of liberty. It's certainly not an ancient version of liberty.
It is arguably more "modern" than any image that has been used on the liberty series. It was so "modern" that contemporaries objected to her flowing hair.
No, no, no…
On this board there has never been a more incorrect guy with incorrect statements than you. I realize you have nothing better than to do than seek out attention. Almost explained it to you, but would never be able to understand it for you. My time is more valuable than your 3 seconds of entertainment.
@winesteven said:
To me, it’s obvious the P.C. crowd is getting their way! Remember the apparently biased structuring of that U.S. Mint survey a few months ago?
(For the young ones here, this is supposedly what a young boy asked Shoeless Joe Jackson outside of the courtroom when Joe Jackson, the greatest hitter of his time, admitted he was part of the fixing of the 1919 “Black” Sox World Series scandal.)
Steve
The 1794 was not approved for gold liberty series because it is not a modern version of liberty. However it is being introduced as a stand alone item. Although a lot of PC garbage produced and will be introduced this is not an example.
But it is a modern version of liberty. It's certainly not an ancient version of liberty.
It is arguably more "modern" than any image that has been used on the liberty series. It was so "modern" that contemporaries objected to her flowing hair.
No, no, no…
On this board there has never been a more incorrect guy with incorrect statements than you. I realize you have nothing better than to do than seek out attention. Almost explained it to you, but would never be able to understand it for you. My time is more valuable than your 3 seconds of entertainment.
Now there's a funny, intemperate response.
The traditional "liberty" dates to the Greco-Roman period and looks more like the Statue of Liberty and the current Mint liberty series. She is almost always shown with a head adornment of some type from the phrygian cap to variations of a crown. In the case of early 20th century US depictions, she wears a Native American headdress. Even when (rarely) not wearing an actual crown or headdress, her hair is firmly coifed.
The Flowing Hair liberty actually freed Liberty from the various head adornments. It was so untraditional that her virtue was called into question by contemporaries. [Strike a blow for the misogynistic patriarchy!] To most historians, the "modern period" includes the 19th and 20th centuries. You will not find a pre-modern Liberty similar to the Flowing Hair liberty. It was too "wild" in its depiction. All subsequent US Mint depictions revert to the traditional (antiquarian) Liberty.
So, I stand by my assertion about the modernity of the flowing hair design. And your assertion that she is "not modern" is demonstrably untrue, at least from a historical perspective. And your further assertion that this decision is not based on DEI considerations remains questionable. Unless, of course, by "modern" you are subtly invoking DEI considerations.
@winesteven said:
To me, it’s obvious the P.C. crowd is getting their way! Remember the apparently biased structuring of that U.S. Mint survey a few months ago?
(For the young ones here, this is supposedly what a young boy asked Shoeless Joe Jackson outside of the courtroom when Joe Jackson, the greatest hitter of his time, admitted he was part of the fixing of the 1919 “Black” Sox World Series scandal.)
Steve
The 1794 was not approved for gold liberty series because it is not a modern version of liberty. However it is being introduced as a stand alone item. Although a lot of PC garbage produced and will be introduced this is not an example.
But it is a modern version of liberty. It's certainly not an ancient version of liberty.
It is arguably more "modern" than any image that has been used on the liberty series. It was so "modern" that contemporaries objected to her flowing hair.
No, no, no…
On this board there has never been a more incorrect guy with incorrect statements than you. I realize you have nothing better than to do than seek out attention. Almost explained it to you, but would never be able to understand it for you. My time is more valuable than your 3 seconds of entertainment.
Headdress of stars and a very traditional Greco-Roman gown
Headdress of rays. A more modern version of Liberty. You've ALMOST freed her hair but the designer clearly felt bound by the Greco-Roman tradition.
A thoroughly modern depiction of Liberty with her hair unbound and no traditional Greco-Roman adornments.
With all these reproduction of old classic designs brings forth 2 thoughts. 1)The mint is mimicking the sports card industry. Card companies frequently use an old classic design with modern players 2)Begging the question. Can't the mint/sports card companies come up with a current classic original design without resorting to a copy? Granted the classic designs of old are just that classic and stand on their merit. I just wish they would not corrupt their place in historical design by watering down their place in classic history with the repos.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
It's also interesting that they haven't done a male Liberty. After all, isn't that also a level of needed diversity in the representation of Liberty?
Ha! I won't say anything else for obvious reasons.
Steve
LOL. The reasons could not be more obvious given my current employment on a college faculty. I have a meeting next week that almost makes me want to retire.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
With all these reproduction of old classic designs brings forth 2 thoughts. 1)The mint is mimicking the sports card industry. Card companies frequently use an old classic design with modern players 2)Begging the question. Can't the mint/sports card companies come up with a current classic original design without resorting to a copy? Granted the classic designs of old are just that classic and stand on their merit. I just wish they would not corrupt their place in historical design by watering down their place in classic history with the repos.
The sports cards are a little different. But in the coin realm, it isn't about the inability to come up with new designs. The whole point is to try to appeal to the very "traditional" collector who is in love with the old designs. Look how popular the very antiquarian Liberty Silver Eagles were with collectors. "Eagles" are also Greco-Roman symbols that have carried forth into the modern era. We are nothing if not traditionalists. Collectors have a tendency to object to new designs and embrace the old ones.
How about a "flowing dress " Harriet Tubman coin instead of flowing hair Liberty ? I don't think the BEP will ever put her on a twenty....if we are going to rehash things. We can't make up our collective mind since we lost our collective minds.
I will stop buying anything if the Treasury says “in order for America to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, we will be issuing coins with designs that have nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence.”
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
@PhillyJoe said:
I will stop buying anything if the Treasury says “in order for America to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, we will be issuing coins with designs that have nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence.”
Rest assured, that's what they're planning and the CCAC will help facilitate it.
@BLUEJAYWAY said:
With all these reproduction of old classic designs brings forth 2 thoughts. 1)The mint is mimicking the sports card industry. Card companies frequently use an old classic design with modern players 2)Begging the question. Can't the mint/sports card companies come up with a current classic original design without resorting to a copy? Granted the classic designs of old are just that classic and stand on their merit. I just wish they would not corrupt their place in historical design by watering down their place in classic history with the repos.
The problem is the politics of modern designs won't allow for it. Look at what happened with the 2017 and 2018 liberty and now they're focusing on liberty as a non personified concept.
Calm down and stop with all the negative assumptions. The minutes of the CCAC meeting will be posted soon on the CCAC website, which will answer your all your questions.
It is for this reason that I suggest that you and all serious and concerned collectors monitor the Federal Register for announcements of public meetings of the CCAC and consider listening to the portions of the public meetings that are of importance to you. Otherwise, you can wait to hear the reports of the press, who typically listen to all CCAC public meetings.
Calm down and stop with all the negative assumptions. The minutes of the CCAC meeting will be posted soon on the CCAC website, which will answer your all your questions.
It is for this reason that I suggest that you and all serious and concerned collectors monitor the Federal Register for announcements of public meetings of the CCAC and consider listening to the portions of the public meetings that are of importance to you. Otherwise, you can wait to hear the reports of the press, who typically listen to all CCAC public meetings.
Again, please calm down.
Regards,
Casabrown
I guess this is good advice, but then again none of it will change an outcome. If people don't like the rationale behind the decision-making then seeing it or hearing it in recorded version isn't going to lessen the impact.
Comments
What! I thought this was a great idea, for once it seemed like they were taking a step in the right direction.
Type collector, mainly into Seated. -formerly Ownerofawheatiehorde. Good BST transactions with: mirabela, OKCC, MICHAELDIXON, Gerard
To good to be true I guess. They say they’ll look like a cheap reproduction.
"A cheap reproduction?"
They should be used to that, no?
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.really
In related news, the Mint announces the new They/Them Inclusive Liberty design for the 2024 American Liberty program.
I'd guess these might resurface as commems or semi-regular NCLT issues like the new Morgan and Peace issues. There is too much low-hanging fruit and money on the table for these to be fully scrapped.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Phoney. I was looking forward to this. Oh well
It was a neat idea but that design needed some work.
Successful BST with BustDMs , Pnies20, lkeigwin, pursuitofliberty, Bullsitter, felinfoel, SPalladino (CBH's - 37 Die Marriage's)
$5 Type Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/type-sets/half-eagle-type-set-circulation-strikes-1795-1929/album/344192
CBH Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/everyman-collections/everyman-half-dollars/everyman-capped-bust-half-dollars-1807-1839/album/345572
It's not April 1st.
Here is our full coverage.
William T. Gibbs, Managing Editor, Coin World
I'd like to know what specific objections cancelled this project. This panel is a public group, own the decision and air it out. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
Sounds like we're still getting the design. From CoinWorld:
"The Mint initially planned to employ the 1794 dollar designs for an American Liberty silver medal in 2024 and gold dollar in 2025, but is now planning to use the designs to celebrate the 230th anniversary of the Flowing Hair dollar series in 2024 — a program separate from the American Liberty series."
“However, the CCAC [Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee] felt, given the program’s focus on modern depictions of Liberty, that using a historic design for the American Liberty program was inadvisable. Hence their declining to deliberate on the topic at last week’s session [Oct. 24 and 25].“
@Casabrown as Chair of the CCAC, would you kindly offer additional context about this decision? You’ve posted here frequently asking for our opinions, and this idea seemed to have wide support (as evidenced by this thread and others).
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
This is incredible news and glad to not see shut down. Actually for the best as a separate coin vs the alternating year Liberty series. It will be well received.
Looking forward to the results of next months meeting.
Makes the most sense to make it a 2024 commemorative. Maybe a Bust dollar commemorative in 2025 or 2026 (small eagle) and 2028 (large eagle)?
I am very confused.
Did Congress already pass a law authorizing this program? If so, why would they even have considered using the design on the American Liberty silver medal?
They should also cancel the Peace & Morgan proof and the reverse proof for the coming years!
2023 is more than enough with 400K coins.
It was the Flowing Hair that caused the uproar....as long as she can get a haircut, everything will be ok.
They finally remembered that there were problems striking the originals.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
@Casabrown , “Say it ain’t so, Joe?”
(For the young ones here, this is supposedly what a young boy asked Shoeless Joe Jackson outside of the courtroom when Joe Jackson, the greatest hitter of his time, admitted he was part of the fixing of the 1919 “Black” Sox World Series scandal.)
To me, it’s obvious the P.C. crowd is getting their way! Remember the apparently biased structuring of that U.S. Mint survey a few months ago?
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
This is probably true, although I'm not sure why the American Liberty series couldn't contain one "traditional majority" representation.
It's also interesting that they haven't done a male Liberty. After all, isn't that also a level of needed diversity in the representation of Liberty?
The 1794 was not approved for gold liberty series because it is not a modern version of liberty. However it is being introduced as a stand alone item. Although a lot of PC garbage produced and will be introduced this is not an example.
But it is a modern version of liberty. It's certainly not an ancient version of liberty.
It is arguably more "modern" than any image that has been used on the liberty series. It was so "modern" that contemporaries objected to her flowing hair.
No, no, no…
On this board there has never been a more incorrect guy with incorrect statements than you. I realize you have nothing better than to do than seek out attention. Almost explained it to you, but would never be able to understand it for you. My time is more valuable than your 3 seconds of entertainment.
Now there's a funny, intemperate response.
The traditional "liberty" dates to the Greco-Roman period and looks more like the Statue of Liberty and the current Mint liberty series. She is almost always shown with a head adornment of some type from the phrygian cap to variations of a crown. In the case of early 20th century US depictions, she wears a Native American headdress. Even when (rarely) not wearing an actual crown or headdress, her hair is firmly coifed.
The Flowing Hair liberty actually freed Liberty from the various head adornments. It was so untraditional that her virtue was called into question by contemporaries. [Strike a blow for the misogynistic patriarchy!] To most historians, the "modern period" includes the 19th and 20th centuries. You will not find a pre-modern Liberty similar to the Flowing Hair liberty. It was too "wild" in its depiction. All subsequent US Mint depictions revert to the traditional (antiquarian) Liberty.
So, I stand by my assertion about the modernity of the flowing hair design. And your assertion that she is "not modern" is demonstrably untrue, at least from a historical perspective. And your further assertion that this decision is not based on DEI considerations remains questionable. Unless, of course, by "modern" you are subtly invoking DEI considerations.
Headdress of stars and a very traditional Greco-Roman gown
Headdress of rays. A more modern version of Liberty. You've ALMOST freed her hair but the designer clearly felt bound by the Greco-Roman tradition.
A thoroughly modern depiction of Liberty with her hair unbound and no traditional Greco-Roman adornments.
With all these reproduction of old classic designs brings forth 2 thoughts. 1)The mint is mimicking the sports card industry. Card companies frequently use an old classic design with modern players 2)Begging the question. Can't the mint/sports card companies come up with a current classic original design without resorting to a copy? Granted the classic designs of old are just that classic and stand on their merit. I just wish they would not corrupt their place in historical design by watering down their place in classic history with the repos.
Ha! I won't say anything else for obvious reasons.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
LOL. The reasons could not be more obvious given my current employment on a college faculty. I have a meeting next week that almost makes me want to retire.
The sports cards are a little different. But in the coin realm, it isn't about the inability to come up with new designs. The whole point is to try to appeal to the very "traditional" collector who is in love with the old designs. Look how popular the very antiquarian Liberty Silver Eagles were with collectors. "Eagles" are also Greco-Roman symbols that have carried forth into the modern era. We are nothing if not traditionalists. Collectors have a tendency to object to new designs and embrace the old ones.
Her hair is more modern, though her garb remains Greco-Roman.
Okay, I'm done obsessing...
That was a quick reversal. I liked the 1794 throwback design, but I don't buy modern Mint products, so I am not impacted by the reversal.
I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.
Future flowing hair design to be used by the mint:
Looks like a Napoleonic hat
Yup.
Nice.
Apparently the Mint considers 1794 to be part of the "ancient era" rather than the "modern era".
How about a "flowing dress " Harriet Tubman coin instead of flowing hair Liberty ? I don't think the BEP will ever put her on a twenty....if we are going to rehash things. We can't make up our collective mind since we lost our collective minds.
https://www.nps.gov/common/uploads/people/nri/20190709/people/70A8AE31-C040-9D69-7CB06EDF2006F8E1/70A8AE31-C040-9D69-7CB06EDF2006F8E1.jpg
And I would agree. Classic US designs just don't translate the same with the dies and processes we have now.
jmho
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
They canceled because it looks too much like a she instead of a they / them.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
Just in....................
The new design.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
I will stop buying anything if the Treasury says “in order for America to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, we will be issuing coins with designs that have nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence.”
Rest assured, that's what they're planning and the CCAC will help facilitate it.
"History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." - 1984
The problem is the politics of modern designs won't allow for it. Look at what happened with the 2017 and 2018 liberty and now they're focusing on liberty as a non personified concept.
The mint did a good job with the 2016 Walking Liberty gold
Folks!
Calm down and stop with all the negative assumptions. The minutes of the CCAC meeting will be posted soon on the CCAC website, which will answer your all your questions.
It is for this reason that I suggest that you and all serious and concerned collectors monitor the Federal Register for announcements of public meetings of the CCAC and consider listening to the portions of the public meetings that are of importance to you. Otherwise, you can wait to hear the reports of the press, who typically listen to all CCAC public meetings.
Again, please calm down.
Regards,
Casabrown
Thanks, Casa, I was getting real het up over this.
I guess this is good advice, but then again none of it will change an outcome. If people don't like the rationale behind the decision-making then seeing it or hearing it in recorded version isn't going to lessen the impact.