Type 1 SLQ and CW op/ed pages.

keets

So this weeks CW arrives and in the Guest Commentary this week is yet another column about the "real reason" why the obverse design was changed on Standing Liberty Quarters!! This one seems a bit like a book endorsement. I'm wondering after almost 90 years if there are really that many people who care enough about the design change reason for CW to be so obsessed with it that there continue to appear columns about. Is the collector community interested in why the design was changed?? It all sounds to me like a Numismatic Urban Legend!!

Al H.

joeyuk

I find stories as to why initals were omitted and restored to coins interesting, alot of personalitys involved. This is just another one, but they shouldn't try to beat a dead horse to death.

roadrunner

I found it quite interesting how some of leaves were scratched off one of the 4 original 1916 patterns (outside the mint technically) and it still can get graded 65 today?

roadrunner

keets

hey Joe

that's my thinking, also. it seems there have been several Commentary's or articles in the past few months devoted to this issue. in the letters section it tends to be the same tired subjects for a period of time. CW has final say on printing, so i can only guess that either they have been inundated with the same thing from many writers or they make a decision that we'd like to read what they choose. i'm curious as to whether other readers tire of these subjects as i have.

one letter that struck me was "What's the point?" which concerns advertising. very pertinent. as for the SLQ articles, it seems it's deteriorated into an arguement about who gets to be right about the design change. i figure there will be more "Guest" letters we'll be reading on the topic.

al h.

mgoodm3

I don't know the story. So it's new to me at least.