Myth: You can't get a good deal from a wannabe dealer.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Myth: Congress authorized coinage of half dollars to commemorate a)Stephen Foster and the 50th anniversary of Cincinnati as a center of Music, b) P.T. Barnum c) George Washington Carver and Booker T. Washington.
Truth: Promoters of commemorative coinage lobbied congressmen to authorize coinage which would enrich them for a)a no apparent reason, b) hyping local Bridegport, CT celebrations of the city's incorporation, and c) "opposing the spread of communism among Negroes in the interest of National Defense".
Also, P.T. Barnum never said "a sucker is born every minute" Barnum's rival, George Hull, who promoted the Cardiff Giant should be credited with coining this phrase, which often applies even to congressmen.
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity" - Hanlon's Razor
<< <i>Truth: Promoters of commemorative coinage lobbied congressmen to authorize coinage which would enrich them for a)a no apparent reason, >>
Not quite true. While the Cincinnati was mainly for the lobbiests own personal enrichment, the official reason for it was to celebrate fifty years of the city as a center of music which it had been. Unfortunately it had been for 63 years! But at least it was over 50. (Cincinnati held a bi-annual music festival, but it was held in the odd numbered years so there wasn't even a festival the year the coin came out.) The coin as authorized didn't have anything to do with commemorating Steven Foster and he had almost no connection with the city at all. (He worked there for three years as a bookkeeper.) So there was an "apparent" reason, it was just a big fiction.
A bit long winded, however, it’s one of my favorite subjects. I agree that there was no public outcry against the Type 1 Standing Liberty quarter and that the change was made because of a request from MacNeil.
In 1988, I wrote an article for "Coins" magazine in which I pointed to lack of evidence supporting the myth of a public outcry against the nudity on the coin, and suggested that the design change was largely the work of Hermon MacNeil. This article reappeared, with modifications, in my 1995 book "Twisted Tails: Sifted Fact, Fantasy and Fiction from U.S. Coin History."
My arguments, which were based largely on the content of letters first published by Cline, point to MacNeil's dismay about the coin upon receiving examples early in 1917.
On Jan. 11, 1917, shortly after the Type 1 coins entered circulation, MacNeil wrote to Mint Director Von Engelken complaining that the new coins had "a resemblance to" a design he made the prior spring, one that was "later changed and modified considerably" with approval of the Mint director and the Treasury secretary.
He was, therefore, surprised to see this discarded early modeling on some (Type 1) quarters he had received prior to their release into circulation. MacNeil said that after receiving the coins, he went directly to Mint, where he "was still more surprised and interested to see the many variations that had already been on this coin, many of them arrangements that I myself had already tried and discarded the prior spring!" (Cline)
MacNeil at this point made no mention of the bare breast, rather, he suggested moving Liberty's head away from the rim, preventing the figure from becoming bowlegged, and minimizing the sagging of the shield by having it pulled tighter. That same day, MacNeil wrote to a Walter M. Pratt of Boston complaining about the design:
"If per adventure you should be tempted to make any publicity of the little quarter--it might be well to wait a bit as they are not issued yet & and I am making a stand for improvements. As I told you they have garbled my design."
The letter, framed with a Type 1 quarter, appeared in Bowers and Merena's sale of the Lloyd M. Higgins, M.D., Collection, Jan. 28-30,1988, a photograph of which was reproduced (with permission) in "Twisted Tails."
So, obviously, MacNeil was upset. A later letter from MacNeil, first published by Cline, I think really gives a clue to the impetus behind the change, if not the actual reason.
In the letter, received by the Treasury Department on Jan. 26, 1917, MacNeil states that after a meeting with Superintendent Joyce it was agreed that the Mint would keep the design much the same as issued, "merely substituting the second modeling of the figure for the present one." MacNeil said this would give practically the same figure, but it would be "more resonant and purposeful & solidly constructed--very much the difference between a good egg & bad egg superficially about the same--but when you look into it, very different.”
After my book went to press, I obtained a copy of a memorandum held in the National Archives confirming that MacNeil had complained about the design and that the Mint director was going to permit him to submit a new model. Providing it met Mint requirements and did not disturb the essential design, the piece would be carried through to a lead specimen “and in that form the coin would be submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury."
The agreement was reached during a meeting held, according to the memorandum, on Jan. 13, two days after MacNeil’s complaint.
Additionally, "Mehl’s Numismatic Monthly," in its March 1917 issue, reported on a notice datelined Feb. 6, 1917, from Washington, D.C., reading:
“Treasury officials are considering the matter on the suggestion of the designer of the coins Hermon MacNeill [sic] of New York. McNeill [sic] is said to have suggested placing on the obverse [sic, reverse] side of the coin a background of stars against the figure of the eagle and slightly raising the design of the eagle.”
On April 16, 1917, Treasury Secretary William McAdoo wrote to Rep. William Ashbrook, chairman of the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures calling for “slight” modifications to the design, adding, “I am sorry to have to ask for this change, but since the original dies were made the artist has found that they are not true to original design and that a great improvement can be made in the artistic value and appearance of the coin by making the slight changes the act contemplates.” ("Congressional Record," June 1917)
The act he referred to (H.R. 3548) was approved on July 9, 1917, and resulted in the Type 2 coins. Although McAdoo, and for that matter MacNeil, makes no specific reference to the change to the covering over Liberty, it could hardly have gone unnoticed by MacNeil, and (as an earlier writer in this thread mentioned) was likely his preferred modeling.
It is known that MacNeil liked the Type 2 design, which he noted put the coin back on a proper artistic basis.
Numismatist. 54 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Author "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," due out late 2025.
Comments
Fact: Each coin stands on its own merits--no matter who you buy it from.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Truth: Promoters of commemorative coinage lobbied congressmen to authorize coinage which would enrich them for a)a no apparent reason, b) hyping local Bridegport, CT celebrations of the city's incorporation, and c) "opposing the spread of communism among Negroes in the interest of National Defense".
Also, P.T. Barnum never said "a sucker is born every minute" Barnum's rival, George Hull, who promoted the Cardiff Giant should be credited with coining this phrase, which often applies even to congressmen.
<< <i>Truth: Promoters of commemorative coinage lobbied congressmen to authorize coinage which would enrich them for a)a no apparent reason, >>
Not quite true. While the Cincinnati was mainly for the lobbiests own personal enrichment, the official reason for it was to celebrate fifty years of the city as a center of music which it had been. Unfortunately it had been for 63 years! But at least it was over 50. (Cincinnati held a bi-annual music festival, but it was held in the odd numbered years so there wasn't even a festival the year the coin came out.) The coin as authorized didn't have anything to do with commemorating Steven Foster and he had almost no connection with the city at all. (He worked there for three years as a bookkeeper.) So there was an "apparent" reason, it was just a big fiction.
A bit long winded, however, it’s one of my favorite subjects. I agree that there was no public outcry against the Type 1 Standing Liberty quarter and that the change was made because of a request from MacNeil.
In 1988, I wrote an article for "Coins" magazine in which I pointed to lack of evidence supporting the myth of a public outcry against the nudity on the coin, and suggested that the design change was largely the work of Hermon MacNeil. This article reappeared, with modifications, in my 1995 book "Twisted Tails: Sifted Fact, Fantasy and Fiction from U.S. Coin History."
My arguments, which were based largely on the content of letters first published by Cline, point to MacNeil's dismay about the coin upon receiving examples early in 1917.
On Jan. 11, 1917, shortly after the Type 1 coins entered circulation, MacNeil wrote to Mint Director Von Engelken complaining that the new coins had "a resemblance to" a design he made the prior spring, one that was "later changed and modified considerably" with approval of the Mint director and the Treasury secretary.
He was, therefore, surprised to see this discarded early modeling on some (Type 1) quarters he had received prior to their release into circulation. MacNeil said that after receiving the coins, he went directly to Mint, where he "was still more surprised and interested to see the many variations that had already been on this coin, many of them arrangements that I myself had already tried and discarded the prior spring!" (Cline)
MacNeil at this point made no mention of the bare breast, rather, he suggested moving Liberty's head away from the rim, preventing the figure from becoming bowlegged, and minimizing the sagging of the shield by having it pulled tighter. That same day, MacNeil wrote to a Walter M. Pratt of Boston complaining about the design:
"If per adventure you should be tempted to make any publicity of the little quarter--it might be well to wait a bit as they are not issued yet & and I am making a stand for improvements. As I told you they have garbled my design."
The letter, framed with a Type 1 quarter, appeared in Bowers and Merena's sale of the Lloyd M. Higgins, M.D., Collection, Jan. 28-30,1988, a photograph of which was reproduced (with permission) in "Twisted Tails."
So, obviously, MacNeil was upset. A later letter from MacNeil, first published by Cline, I think really gives a clue to the impetus behind the change, if not the actual reason.
In the letter, received by the Treasury Department on Jan. 26, 1917, MacNeil states that after a meeting with Superintendent Joyce it was agreed that the Mint would keep the design much the same as issued, "merely substituting the second modeling of the figure for the present one." MacNeil said this would give practically the same figure, but it would be "more resonant and purposeful & solidly constructed--very much the difference between a good egg & bad egg superficially about the same--but when you look into it, very different.”
After my book went to press, I obtained a copy of a memorandum held in the National Archives confirming that MacNeil had complained about the design and that the Mint director was going to permit him to submit a new model. Providing it met Mint requirements and did not disturb the essential design, the piece would be carried through to a lead specimen “and in that form the coin would be submitted to the Secretary of the Treasury."
The agreement was reached during a meeting held, according to the memorandum, on Jan. 13, two days after MacNeil’s complaint.
Additionally, "Mehl’s Numismatic Monthly," in its March 1917 issue, reported on a notice datelined Feb. 6, 1917, from Washington, D.C., reading:
“Treasury officials are considering the matter on the suggestion of the designer of the coins Hermon MacNeill [sic] of New York. McNeill [sic] is said to have suggested placing on the obverse [sic, reverse] side of the coin a background of stars against the figure of the eagle and slightly raising the design of the eagle.”
On April 16, 1917, Treasury Secretary William McAdoo wrote to Rep. William Ashbrook, chairman of the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures calling for “slight” modifications to the design, adding, “I am sorry to have to ask for this change, but since the original dies were made the artist has found that they are not true to original design and that a great improvement can be made in the artistic value and appearance of the coin by making the slight changes the act contemplates.” ("Congressional Record," June 1917)
The act he referred to (H.R. 3548) was approved on July 9, 1917, and resulted in the Type 2 coins. Although McAdoo, and for that matter MacNeil, makes no specific reference to the change to the covering over Liberty, it could hardly have gone unnoticed by MacNeil, and (as an earlier writer in this thread mentioned) was likely his preferred modeling.
It is known that MacNeil liked the Type 2 design, which he noted put the coin back on a proper artistic basis.
Bob Van Ryzin
TD