Options
The fickelness of the Mint..Gobrecht and V.D.B.
BuffaloIronTail
Posts: 7,413 ✭✭✭✭✭
Well, I know that administrations change, people move in and out of office, and the like.
Hatreds boil, infighting, backstabbings happend.
Victor David Brenner was not well liked (by high-ranking and well placed people in the Mint), nor was his design for the Lincoln Cent. Branded an "outsider", none the less even though (according to heresay lore, he was considered a Pest by certain Mint Officials), his classic and enduring design of the Cent in 1909 will forever be loved by all of us common people.
They (The Mint), prodded on by public complaints, proceeded to remove his V.D.B. on the reverse because it was to "prominent".
Strange....
Maybe generations do have a way of seeing things different.
GEE.....Christian Gobrecht had his name prominently carved into the base of the Seated Liberty Dollar coin in the mid-1800's. Was that too prominent a location??
Just a sign of the times????????
Food for your thought........Don't know it that's the ONLY example of this.
What do you all think?
Pete
Hatreds boil, infighting, backstabbings happend.
Victor David Brenner was not well liked (by high-ranking and well placed people in the Mint), nor was his design for the Lincoln Cent. Branded an "outsider", none the less even though (according to heresay lore, he was considered a Pest by certain Mint Officials), his classic and enduring design of the Cent in 1909 will forever be loved by all of us common people.
They (The Mint), prodded on by public complaints, proceeded to remove his V.D.B. on the reverse because it was to "prominent".
Strange....
Maybe generations do have a way of seeing things different.
GEE.....Christian Gobrecht had his name prominently carved into the base of the Seated Liberty Dollar coin in the mid-1800's. Was that too prominent a location??
Just a sign of the times????????
Food for your thought........Don't know it that's the ONLY example of this.
What do you all think?
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
0
Comments
Of course, it is virtually impossible to prove a negative, so no one can say that there wasn't any protest at the time.
But, I think the burden of proof is on those who say it existed, to come up with a shred of evidence that there was.
But note that he said 'name carved into the base' ... there are definitely originals of these:
I've been wanting to compare the "C. GOBRECHT F." inscription against medals that Gobrecht was making at the same time with the same signature. It would be interesting to see if the letter punches match up. If they all matched except for the "name in field" coins (the 1st in TDN's fabulous array, above), that would somewhat reinforce the idea that those aren't contemporary (though it is by no means conclusive).
<< <i>Gray/Carboneau make a strong case that the "name in field" Gobrecht's were actually delicacies coined many years after Gobrecht's death. No one has produced primary evidence indicating that there was a backlash against the "name in field" Gobrecht's at the supposed time of striking (1836). >>
And there probably never will be any primary evidence. Where would such a backlash come from? Supposedly, assuming there actually were originals, they only made something like 18 of them. If you made 18 coins today with a Nazi swastika on them and dropped them into circulation, even with our modern communications technology, the internet, and all the blogs, you would probably hear barely a peep if anything. Back then the general public seldom if ever used silver dollars, so if you DID hear something from the people,it probably wouldn't be for months. Even then it would be the individual comments of the two or three people who had actually seen one, noticed the name, and didn't like it.
No if there were any objections to the name in the field it would have come from the few government officials that saw the pattern and their objections probably would have been quiet and verbal criticisms. Not a "backlash".
Having read the old threads about the Name in Field issue, I can only add what lifelong Philadelphian, George Escol Sellers wrote about Gobrecht having placed his name on the new dollar die in 1836.
Sellers was there when the first steam press was getting outfitted. He made steam press components for the new branch mints, as well as making other engineering machinery for the US Mint. His insightful book titled "Early Engineering Reminiscences 1815-1840" is one of the few actual eye-witness accountings that we have regarding early American coinage production.
Sellers writes in part about Gobrecht, "Mr. Charles Gobrecht, who was then die sinker, was much opposed to it's (Contamin die sinking lathe) use. When the first few dollar coins were struck, it was found that Gobrecht had taken the inexcusable liberty of placing his name on the die, which became conspicuous on the coin, and the coinage had to be stopped until it could be obliterated".
This was in reference to the name on rock 1836 pieces. Based on this accounting, we can presume the name in field issues were definitely not struck in 1836. They are all restrikes; perhaps created in March of 1859 when George Eckfeldt (of the US MInt medal dept.) made some 1836 & 1839 restrikes for then Mint director James R Snowden.
John Dannreuther has recently found visiual evidence that the 1838 & 1839 issues had the name scratched out (apparently by a graver), thus confirming what Sellers had written over a century ago in the 1890's. He will be presenting an article about this in the near future.
Also, it needs to be pointed out that Gobrecht had been involved with the U S Mint for decades. He refused the assistant engraver position in 1817 after John Reich left. He was then brought back during 1826-1828 by Director Samuel Moore, again as an assistant engraver. It took two years for Moore to convince Congress to hire an asst. engraver at the Mint. Gobrecht didn't stay because of the low pay. He made more money by engraving bank notes, etc.
When Moore was getting ready to leave the Mint in the spring of 1835, he asked Gobrecht to come back once again. This time, as in the past, it was to be the asst. engraver. Moore knew that having three new branch Mints constructed would create an impossible situation for William Kneass, the engraver. Indeed, this may have been a key factor in Kneass having a stroke during the summer of 1835.
However, when new Mint director Robert M Patterson arrived in July, he didn't ask Gobrecht to help with the new designs (which were Patterson's concepts). The obverse design was given to Thomas Sully, while the reverse was given to Titan Peale. Keep in mind, at the time, Gobrecht was merely the newly hired asst. engraver and die sinker.
When Gobrecht had the opportunity to make an artistic statement about his engraving skills (by creating the dies for the new dollars) he went too far (according to Sellers) in placing his name on the die. When it was removed (obliterated) this led to a distinct case of sour grapes for Gobrecht. This is evidenced by Patterson not striking the new dollars the following year, and having another artist, Robert Ball Hughes, come in and work on the coinage designs.
I certainly agree that the J-58 was not struck in 1836.
On US coins, usually only the designer’s initial has been permitted, until modern commemoratives. Longacre, William and Charles Barber, and Morgan all used just the one initial. Saint-Gaudens’s used his monogram. MacNeil was allowed to use either his monogram or initial, and settled on the initial. Weinman used his monogram as did deFrancisci. Pratt’s models did not have an initial or monogram, so Barber added the very conspicuous “B.L.P.” Fraser tried his initials but settled on just “F.”
Brenner got himself on the “wrong side” of mint director Leach when he failed to lower the Lincoln portrait, forcing Leach to order Barber to do it. Brenner’s other problem was that contrary to instructions his final reverse design had the name “Brenner” in small script lettering at the lower rim, rather than his initials. Again, Barber had to make the change and apparently hand cut “V.D.B.” somewhat crooked and off-center into a master die. The removal of his initials was, however, pure bureaucratic overreaction by newly appointed treasury officers, bolstered by Barber’s one-sided explanation of how to fix the non-problem. Had Treasury Sec. MacVeagh or Asst. Sec. Norton been less hysterical about a very minor comment in newspapers, the whole thing would have vanished in a day or two – just as did a similar complaint about Weinman’s monogram on the dime in October 1916.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
The "name in field" coin does not have fully struck and squared rims. The denticles are not rounded and lower than the raised rim as seen on the "name in rock" piece. It doesn't appear that the "name in field" coin is evenly centered either.
Several of the reverse stars on the restrike "name in field" are not fully struck. This is because those "name in field" coins were struck on a screw press, not a steam press. This hand-powered striking exhibits a much lower "tonnage" pressure for each coin.
Also, since the "name in field" die had been sitting around for some 23 years (more than likely in the Director's vault), it had to be re-lapped to remove accumulated dirt, rust, and oxidation. Visual evidence of this re-lapping is most noticeable around shield with the drapery folds (check by the left wrist) and below the eagle's eye on the reverse. Even the central portion of the ear and surrounding hair is missing. The rock on the left looks like melted cardboard without any drapery over it in the back.
All told, it should be very clear that the 1836 "name in field" seated dollars are restrikes.
<< <i>
......his classic and enduring design of the Cent in 1909 will forever be loved by all of us common people.
>>
Very eloquently stated and
Collector of Early 20th Century U.S. Coinage.
ANA Member R-3147111