Options
There never was a 'bare breast' SL quarter controversy
RWB
Posts: 8,082 ✭
Re: “bare breast” Standing Liberty quarter situation.
There never was a controversy about the Standing Liberty quarter. The “bare breast” stories – all of them from every source - are false.
Consider these real numismatic controversies:
In October 1907 the new Saint-Gaudens designed $10 eagles were released. Within a few days, letters began arriving at the Mint, Treasury, members of Congress and White House objecting to omission of the motto “In God We Trust.” Newspaper articles appeared and various petitions were sent to government officials. Many of these documents exist.
In Dec 1921 a published description of the new Peace dollar mentioned a broken sword. A NYC newspaper published a short editorial objecting to the broken sword calling it a sign of defeat, not peace. Within hours, telegrams and letters began bombarding the Mint, Treasury, White House, Commission of Fine Arts, and members of Congress. Most opposed the broken sword. Hundreds of these letters and telegrams exist.
On January 17, 1917 the new Standing Liberty quarters were released. (1916 and 1917 dated coins were mixed together.) Within a few days letters appeared from a British ornithologist in the Times of London, New York Times and Christian Science Monitor objecting to the position of the eagle’s talons. Rival letters also appeared. The matter was resolved when (according to Director Woolley) MacNeil produced a photograph taken in the Adirondacks of an eagle flying exactly as depicted on the quarter.
Now consider the “bare breast” controversy:
[This space intentionally left blank.] There was nothing.
The reality is that a controversy of one form or another leaves a public record of itself. The “bare breast” story left nothing because it did not exist. All of the tall tales are nothing but entertaining inventions. They tell us more about the mental and moral state of the perpetuators than of truth.
The real story of MacNeil’s struggle to get his designs coined is much more interesting and informative of its time, than any modern fabrication.
There never was a controversy about the Standing Liberty quarter. The “bare breast” stories – all of them from every source - are false.
Consider these real numismatic controversies:
In October 1907 the new Saint-Gaudens designed $10 eagles were released. Within a few days, letters began arriving at the Mint, Treasury, members of Congress and White House objecting to omission of the motto “In God We Trust.” Newspaper articles appeared and various petitions were sent to government officials. Many of these documents exist.
In Dec 1921 a published description of the new Peace dollar mentioned a broken sword. A NYC newspaper published a short editorial objecting to the broken sword calling it a sign of defeat, not peace. Within hours, telegrams and letters began bombarding the Mint, Treasury, White House, Commission of Fine Arts, and members of Congress. Most opposed the broken sword. Hundreds of these letters and telegrams exist.
On January 17, 1917 the new Standing Liberty quarters were released. (1916 and 1917 dated coins were mixed together.) Within a few days letters appeared from a British ornithologist in the Times of London, New York Times and Christian Science Monitor objecting to the position of the eagle’s talons. Rival letters also appeared. The matter was resolved when (according to Director Woolley) MacNeil produced a photograph taken in the Adirondacks of an eagle flying exactly as depicted on the quarter.
Now consider the “bare breast” controversy:
[This space intentionally left blank.] There was nothing.
The reality is that a controversy of one form or another leaves a public record of itself. The “bare breast” story left nothing because it did not exist. All of the tall tales are nothing but entertaining inventions. They tell us more about the mental and moral state of the perpetuators than of truth.
The real story of MacNeil’s struggle to get his designs coined is much more interesting and informative of its time, than any modern fabrication.
0
Comments
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
Everyone "knows" that popular culture in this era was dominated by a bunch of Victorian prudes, so it all fits.
The cat is so out of the bag that not much can be done at this point. You could have a smoking gun letter signed by Breen saying he made the whole thing up and it still would not do much good, so ingrained is the story in public conscience.
The story in the ROAC book, thoroughly documented of course, isn't as sexy. As a historian all you can do is document and present the record, and sometimes truth isn't attractively gossipy as a fabrication.
Always good to dispel falsehoods.
<< <i>The bare breast story is so digestable that it is virtually impossible to eradicate it from the public mindspace.
Everyone "knows" that popular culture in this era was dominated by a bunch of Victorian prudes, so it all fits.
The cat is so out of the bag that not much can be done at this point. You could have a smoking gun letter signed by Breen saying he made the whole thing up and it still would not do much good, so ingrained is the story in public conscience.
The story in the ROAC book, thoroughly documented of course, isn't as sexy. As a historian all you can do is document and present the record, and sometimes truth isn't attractively gossipy as a fabrication. >>
I believe Anthony Comstock and the Society for the Suppression of Vice led this effort.
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
<< <i>The bare breast story is so digestable that it is virtually impossible to eradicate it from the public mindspace.
Everyone "knows" that popular culture in this era was dominated by a bunch of Victorian prudes, so it all fits. >>
Ha! I'm sure I read somewhere about an outcry over the image of Liberty on the Peace dollar. Liberty had parted lips and some said she looked like a "flapper" (roaring 20s flappers wore short skirts, had bobbed hair, smoked, drank, voted, and were perceived as "loose").
Did I read this in your book, RWB?
Lance.
If you had asked me about the bare breast controversy before I read RWB's book, I would have sworn that I read a series of articles in CW about ten years ago which "proved" the public (mis)perception. And I would have been wrong.
[See “Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921” for all the details.]
K
........thanks, RWB, excellent info as usual. i appreciate it.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Positive BST Transactions: kalshacon
<< <i>That's because she never had any nipples.
The Buffalo was on the nipple back then.........
Wasn't there a controversy about showing one breast and a hint of pubic hair on the $5 1896 Silver Certificate? I read that it was refused for payment in Boston (of all places) hence the term "Banned in Boston". That's why the 1899 redesigned series was put out.
The design on the dies was causing stress on the dies
and so a redesign was undertaken. Also we were at war
and the thought was that the quarter with the chain mail, represented
a more fitting portrate for Country going in to battle. I do not believe that
there was any general outcry as to the bare breast design per say.
Most folks accepted it as artistic license.
Camelot
Maybe someone should tell Jay Cline to omit that from the next edition of his book (assuming there is a next edition).
<< <i>That's because she never had any nipples.
<< <i>The true story as I understand it had two components.
The design on the dies was causing stress on the dies
and so a redesign was undertaken. Also we were at war
and the thought was that the quarter with the chain mail, represented
a more fitting portrate for Country going in to battle. I do not believe that
there was any general outcry as to the bare breast design per say.
Most folks accepted it as artistic license. >>
If anything, the Chain Mail addition and the new head style would result in additional die stress. The 1917 T1 Philadelphia issue is the best struck coin in the entire series. It appears that the Mint tried to compensate for the rushed 1916 design and striking problems. The 17 T1 coins are more often than not, well struck.
I'm sure RWB would confirm for us if the Type 1 design were causing die stress. I am not aware of this. RWB, would you chime in on this one?
and the thought was that the quarter with the chain mail, represented a more fitting portrate for Country going in to battle.
Bear:
A. The 1916 design was too indistinct and Sec McAdoo wanted it sharper looking. He requested changes and, due to time, the Mint simply made a small quantity in Dec 1916 and then concentrated on preparing new hubs for 1917. There is nothing in original documents about die stress, and most 1917 Ty-I coins are far superior to the other types in definition and completeness of strike. Morgan did a good job on it.
B. The US did not enter WW-I until after MacNeil had completed his revised models; however, nearly everyone assumed we would shortly be at war given the U boat attacks and the attempt by Germany to involve Mexico.
1) Morgan touched up the Ty-I hubs and master dies using his engraving tools. This produced the sharply defined coins collectors are familiar with today.
2) Morgan was not allowed to touch up the master hub for the Ty-II designs. These were made by mechanical reduction from MacNeil’s models. The resultant coins are “mushy” with ill-defined features. The original models were tack-sharp, so the problems were (as it had been since 1907) with the engravers’ lack of mastery of the Janvier reducing lathe.
Note: Barber kicked the bucket in Feb 1917. His last work was probably on the 1916 SL quarters or 1917 McKinley gold dollar.
<< <i>That's because she never had any nipples.
J. Cline took care of that oversight on his advertising tokens, actually.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>
<< <i>That's because she never had any nipples.
Seriously, you'll haven't seen the "hard nipples" variety?
Very rare, and I've only seen 1.
<< <i>
<< <i>The bare breast story is so digestable that it is virtually impossible to eradicate it from the public mindspace.
Everyone "knows" that popular culture in this era was dominated by a bunch of Victorian prudes, so it all fits.
The cat is so out of the bag that not much can be done at this point. You could have a smoking gun letter signed by Breen saying he made the whole thing up and it still would not do much good, so ingrained is the story in public conscience.
The story in the ROAC book, thoroughly documented of course, isn't as sexy. As a historian all you can do is document and present the record, and sometimes truth isn't attractively gossipy as a fabrication. >>
I believe Anthony Comstock and the Society for the Suppression of Vice led this effort. >>
It's like the "mercury" dime. Where's the "mercury"??
I doubt Mr. Comstock ever complained about the SL quarter design since he died September 21, 1915.