Why was there such a controversy about the Standing Liberty quarter design?

notlogical

I'm a teenager, but even my imagination isn't that good to call it "obscene". So, what was really behind the controversy about the design? Curious YN minds want to know.

fivecents

The exposed boob of Liberty was too much for the population to handle. Of course the early nineteen hundreds was a different time.
I expect the reaction would be even worse in todays politically correct world.

TAClough

Notlogical,

You have to think like it was your time period. Girls, no matter how cute didn't even wear two piece bathing suits in that time period, the morale compass was high. Even the roaring twenties didn't except public nudity (that didn’t happen till after “Woodstock”, ask Russ – he was there! What a scary thought).

notlogical

But wasn't the "art" of that day kind of like that too?

DaveG

I haven't read the section on the SLQ in Roger Burdette's book, but I've always heard that there isn't any evidence that Liberty's exposed breast was controversial.

I believe I've read that MacNeil put Liberty in armor due to the approach of war, not controversy.

DennisH

Yes, the art of the day was in that vein... but it wasn't out in the open as blatently as change in your pocket was.

Bochiman

<< <i>Notlogical,

You have to think like it was your time period. Girls, no matter how cute didn't even wear two piece bathing suits in that time period, the morale compass was high. Even the roaring twenties didn't except public nudity (that didn’t happen till after “Woodstock”, ask Russ – he was there! What a scary thought). >>



Yeah, it's more like your dad's time period...ask him

coinkat

You have asked a fair question with an excellent follow up.

The short answer is the American public was just not ready for a design like this for coinage for general circulation... even though it was fairly tame in comparison to coinage from some European countries such as Italy (see 20 Cent. minted from about 1908 through about 1921).

Art, as you pointed out, was changing some designs were captured on coinage and medals of other countries.

RWB

Dave G. is correct.

There was no contemporary controversy about MacNeil's Liberty having a bare breast. In going through many thousands of documents I found none that mentioned her bare breast. In February 1917, as he was redesigning the quarter MacNeil added chain mail probably as a symbol of the approaching war – a symbolic protection of Liberty. In 1921, Mac Neil's entry in the Peace dollar competition showed Liberty removing chain mail – the war was over.

The “obscene” quarter silliness does not appear until after the 1940s. It became established and embellished by Walter Breen, and further elaborated by dealers, auction catalogers and others who copied from one another. The Numismatist contributed to the falsity by publishing several cover story articles filled with foolish claims and assertions including: “Wives of congressmen were scandalized,” “Ministers railed against the filthy lucre,” and several other claims of equal or greater absurdity.

There was a controversy in 1917 – and it involved the quarter. A British ornithologist insisted that the eagle was wrong. That it should have it's feet tucked up under the breast. This made international newspapers until MacNeil finally came up with a photo taken in the Adirondack Mountains showing an eagle in flight much as on the coin.

If you want to learn more about what really happened, borrow a copy of Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921 from the ANA library. You can read all the details and original documents for yourself.

66Tbird

Mmmm, now that was good reading. Best thread in a while.

291fifth

I wonder where and when the "controversy" story originated? It has been around for as long as I have been collecting (1961.) Standing Liberty quarters were still in circulation back then and a few even had readable dates.

RWB

Unfortunately, no one has been able to trace the story back to an originator. Walter Breen was the popularizer, but a great many others picked up the tall tale and used it to help them sell the “obscene” quarters. Coins are much easier to sell if they come with a good story. A few people did try to check the accuracy of the story but could not locate anything; however, the power of collective myth is very strong, and those questioning the standard story were considered to be mere heretics.

Breen also invented anecdotes, evidently to show that he always had an answer to a question. One of his silliest stories is about George Morgan pounding the galvano of the Peace dollar with a 2x4 so the relief would be lower and then using it for 1922. The facts are: there was no galvano of the 1921 – it was a bronze cast; Morgan made a 1922 high relief version and a 1922 medium relief version both from copy models – both were failures; finally, new low relief models were made by deFrancisci in Feb. 1922. These low relief hubs were cut from casts, also. The only one “whacking” anything was Breen.

quickwing

53BKid

<< <i>The exposed boob of Liberty was too much for the population to handle. Of course the early nineteen hundreds was a different time.
I expect the reaction would be even worse in todays politically correct world. >>




Are you suggesting our society is more accepting today???

EagleEye

TomB

There was no controversy surrounding the exposed breast of Ms. Liberty, but you we read this over and over by folks who are simply repeating the errors that they have read previously. However, there was a minor flap regarding the eagle in flight.

BBN

<< <i>But wasn't the "art" of that day kind of like that too? >>



a lot of that type of art was European. The US was, and to a point still is, somewhat puritanical compared with Europe

Elcontador

Personally, I think Charles Barber was pi**ed-off about seeing his Barber series of coinage end and not having any of his designs for new coinage approved. As egocentric and cantankerous a man that he was, I could see him making life difficult for his successor(s).

It's the whole "throw **** against the wall and see what sticks" concept.

RWB

Charles Barber was ill most of December 1916 and January 1917; he died in February. George Morgan worked most closely with MacNeil. If you read the book cited above, you will learn that much of the interference came from outside the mint or government – and it had nothing to do with unclothed bodies.

In that era, even ordinary people understood the difference between allegorical figures and images of real people. If you look at the ornamented pediments of Federal government building built in the 1930s and 40s you will see quite a few bare breasted, buxom allegorical figures. The modern prudish attitude of some toward art is nothing but ignorance.

BBN

<< <i> The modern prudish attitude of some toward art is nothing but ignorance. >>



didn't John Ashcroft make them cover up a bare breasted statue behind him when he was giving a speech a few years ack?

Mercfan

Whether the SLQ outrage came earlier or later, I can't help recalling (I hope reasonably accurately) a line spoken by the British character in "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World":

"What is it with America's infantile preoccupation with the female bosom."

Now pardon me while I head upstairs to see what my wife has planned for the remainder of this Friday night.

CoinHusker

<< <i>I'm a teenager, but even my imagination isn't that good to call it "obscene". >>



Ok, no more Hanna Montana for you!

Mark

As usual, rwb is too modest--his book is great and anyone who claims to be a numismatist should buy it and read it.

rwb shows conclusively that the SLQ was modified for reasons not related to Liberty's bare breast. I wonder how long it will take for the facts of the situation to replace the false tall tales about the situation? I "worry" that the correct answer is "forever." Does anyone else ahve any thoughts about how long it will take?

Coinosaurus

<< <i>As usual, rwb is too modest--his book is great and anyone who claims to be a numismatist should buy it and read it.

rwb shows conclusively that the SLQ was modified for reasons not related to Liberty's bare breast. I wonder how long it will take for the facts of the situation to replace the false tall tales about the situation? I "worry" that the correct answer is "forever." Does anyone else ahve any thoughts about how long it will take? >>



The answer is "never". Why? Because it is impossible to prove a negative. Breen implies that contemporary evidence supporting his position exists, yet he never cites anything.

So, if you want to disprove Breen, you have to prove there was no such evidence - basically an impossible chore, since much contemporary source material has been lost.

saintguru

If a breast has no nipple, it can't be offensive. It's boring.

Add a nipple, now you're talking.

RWB...great response.

DoctorPaper

There were other items out there showing the public wasn't being driven into a frenzy by a little nudity. Five dollar silver certicate from 1896. Looks a little more "intriguing" than our Lincoln fiver of today:

Kareemofwheat

Just wait for the Bill Clinton dollar

Broadstruck

Quickwing, Is that a lamination in the lower right field on your 17-P Type One example posted?

HighRelief

<< <i>If a breast has no nipple, it can't be offensive. It's boring.

Add a nipple, now you're talking. >>





Now were talking

quickwing

<< <i>Quickwing, Is that a lamination in the lower right field on your 17-P Type One example posted? >>



No that would be fancy. It's just a scratch. Not to flattering a photo either. It's a sharp coin in hand, except for the scratch that cancels any value. Well struck reverse also.

mommam17

If the breast has no nipple, it`s pointless.

pcgs69

looks a little floppy... guess they didn't have Wonder Bras back then...

RWB

What is possible is to refute each of the alleged facts in some version of the “obscene” quarter story. As each “fact” is shown to be incorrect, the story looses credence until it simply falls into a useless jumble. The follow-on task is to build an accurate story based on verifiable facts – something solid that will stand the test of objective examination. The accurate story might not be as emotionally satisfying as the false one, and it might have some gaps or unknowns. After all, it is much easier to tie up all the loose ends in fiction than in reality.

Some accurate stories are, in my opinion, far better than the invented versions. Breen’s tale about Morgan beating the Peace dollar galvano with a 2x4 is silly and demeaning to Morgan. But the reality of Morgan carefully reengraving part of the Peace dollar’s reverse hub to remove the broken sword is amazing! This 70+ year old engraver did such an expert job that nobody knew about it for 80 years! He saved the Peace dollar from failure and did it in one day, with Anthony deFrancisci sitting there looking over his shoulder.

Mark

The other issue about "disproving a story" is that this approach flips the correct method of proof on its head. Advocates of the "outrage" story must prove its validity; opponents face no necessity to disprove it (though, if they could, that would also be OK). For instance, suppose I assert that my "special" PCGS coin was graded by little green space aliens. It's not appropriate for me to now say "That's the truth; if you doubt, disprove it!" Because I made the assertion, the onus of proof lies upon my shoulders not upon the shoulders of those who doubt my statement.

larrynj

leave it to walter breen to find an adult woman's breast "obscene.

kiyote

<< <i>But wasn't the "art" of that day kind of like that too? >>


It reminds me of when I went to Greece-- I was shocked at how many beautiful marble statues had been ruined by offended folks over the centuries that had lopped off the man-parts. There would be a 20 ft tall marble statue of Apollo that looked like a Ken doll. It was appalling.

dcarr

Judging by the reaction of some people on these boards to my 2007 Seated Liberty Amero coins,
I would say that any such design if introduced into circulation today would cause a MAJOR uproar
with the public.

clackamas

TETONS

Kip

<< <i>leave it to walter breen to find an adult woman's breast "obscene. >>



He just liked little kids and exposing himself to little boys

BBN

<< <i>There were other items out there showing the public wasn't being driven into a frenzy by a little nudity. Five dollar silver certicate from 1896. Looks a little more "intriguing" than our Lincoln fiver of today:
>>






If that bill were being proposed in 2007 for our next $5 neocons everywhere would be having a heart attack.

notlogical

Thanks everybody, especially RWB, for all the great information.

The more I look at it I really think it is an awesome design. I think it has strength, courage, compassion, and hope all in one design.

PerryHall

<< <i>If that bill were being proposed in 2007 for our next $5 neocons everywhere would be having a heart attack. >>



So would the liberals for objectifying women.

RWB

What is sad is that so few understand allegory or the symbology behind many traditional images. Over-marketed-to people understand only literal images and short, nearly meaningless associations. In 1850s people had major arguments over what kind of wreath to put on the cent- because the kind of leaves in the wreath carried important meaning. Now they’re “just compost.”

The SLQ is a prime example. When it first hit the streets in late January 1917, I expect quite a few people could understand the symbols. How many do now?

What is Liberty doing? She’s stepping forward, down a step through an opening in a wall – Liberty is entering the larger world of nations.

What is she holding? A branch of olive, ancient symbol of peace, held in her right hand it means a continuing offer of both military peace and to make peace between warring factions.

How about the shield? In the left hand, it is raised in protection of Liberty, and it contains the federal shield on it indicating that all the power of the nation will be used to protect Liberty. The shield’s cover is partially off, to show our reluctance to use force, but a willingness to do so in protection…..

Maybe it would be interesting for posters to take this further and try to figure out what the rest of the obverse and reverse mean…could be a very informative program for “notlogical” or some other YN to present to a club meeting.

The SLQis a tiny coin, with a design too detailed to hold up well on the small size, but it is filled with meaning and symbols if collectors will fret less about “will it cross” and think more about the coins and their place in American culture.

drwstr123

notlogical

<< <i>Maybe it would be interesting for posters to take this further and try to figure out what the rest of the obverse and reverse mean…could be a very informative program for “notlogical” or some other YN to present to a club meeting.
>>




Thanks! That's a great idea.

ProofArtworkonCircs

I have no idea on how silly it would be to beat a galvano with a 2x4, but the following comparitely modern eyewitness account must be approaching it.


"I remember sitting in the office of Frank Gasparro while he was tinkering with one of the galvanos for the dollar, trying to adjust the relief so that the coins would strike up the way he wanted them. It was a simple matter for him to pound on the reverse of the galvano to raise the relief on the image side. He then used his graver to accentuate any features that needed improving."

CaptHenway

<< <i>Dave G. is correct.

There was no contemporary controversy about MacNeil's Liberty having a bare breast. In going through many thousands of documents I found none that mentioned her bare breast. In February 1917, as he was redesigning the quarter MacNeil added chain mail probably as a symbol of the approaching war – a symbolic protection of Liberty. In 1921, Mac Neil's entry in the Peace dollar competition showed Liberty removing chain mail – the war was over.

The “obscene” quarter silliness does not appear until after the 1940s. It became established and embellished by Walter Breen, and further elaborated by dealers, auction catalogers and others who copied from one another. The Numismatist contributed to the falsity by publishing several cover story articles filled with foolish claims and assertions including: “Wives of congressmen were scandalized,” “Ministers railed against the filthy lucre,” and several other claims of equal or greater absurdity.

There was a controversy in 1917 – and it involved the quarter. A British ornithologist insisted that the eagle was wrong. That it should have it's feet tucked up under the breast. This made international newspapers until MacNeil finally came up with a photo taken in the Adirondack Mountains showing an eagle in flight much as on the coin.

If you want to learn more about what really happened, borrow a copy of Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921 from the ANA library. You can read all the details and original documents for yourself. >>



I thought that the question of the position of the eagle's feet had been settled at the time of the 1907 $20 Saint?
TD

CaptHenway

<< <i>leave it to walter breen to find an adult woman's breast "obscene. >>



He probably never saw one.........

CaptHenway

<< <i>I'm a teenager, but even my imagination isn't that good to call it "obscene". So, what was really behind the controversy about the design? Curious YN minds want to know. >>



Times change. There used to be a British humour magazine called "Punch" that I subscribed to. One of their cartoons showed two females conversing in Hell, with flames and pitchforms in the background. One of them is dressed as a very proper Medieval gentlewoman, with a high collar and one of them pointy hats with ribbons on it. The other was dressed as a French whorr in fishnet stockings and way too much makeup and nothing else. The gentlewoman says: "Really? Why, in the 14th Century you could get sent here for practically anything!"
TD

ProofArtworkonCircs

While Walter Breen preferred boys to girls, he did not find girls unattractive.

PerryHall

<< <i>

<< <i>leave it to walter breen to find an adult woman's breast "obscene. >>



He probably never saw one......... >>



He was married and had a couple of daughters from what I've read.