Was the U.S. Coinage renaissance of 1807 necessary?
CaptHenway
Posts: 32,504 ✭✭✭✭✭
There are no right or wrong answers here, just looking for opinions.
Was the hiring of John Reich to redesign the American coinage of 1807-on necessary? His designs were good, but was there anything wrong with the Draped Bust half cent thru silver dollar, and the Turban Head gold?
What about the Heraldic Eagle reverse? Good or bad? Somebody must have liked the two reverse eagles that replaced it because we used them for decades.
Do you consider the Reich era an improvement, or just an adequate change.
Thanks.
TD
Was the hiring of John Reich to redesign the American coinage of 1807-on necessary? His designs were good, but was there anything wrong with the Draped Bust half cent thru silver dollar, and the Turban Head gold?
What about the Heraldic Eagle reverse? Good or bad? Somebody must have liked the two reverse eagles that replaced it because we used them for decades.
Do you consider the Reich era an improvement, or just an adequate change.
Thanks.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. 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. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
0
Comments
As for the change in the depiction of the national bird, Cornelius Vermeule characterized the Reich's design as "a cheeseboard eagle." It was okay, but it should have stayed around until 1891.
I know that what I have written is total sacrilege to the members of the John Reich Society, but I prefer Scott's Draped Bust for the silver coins and Capped Bust for the gold pieces. Oddly enough John Reich's Capped Bust for the cent and half cent were quite attractive IMO.
Unfortunately Reich's designs really took a nosedive IMO when he redesigned the half eagle in 1813. To me this obverse is even worse the Susan B. Anthony dollar, and that is saying something.
<< <i>To me it was no better than an "adequate change." At first it was actually an "inadequate change" because Reich's initial half dollar dies did not strike the coins very well. The details were often not that sharp.
As for the change in the depiction of the national bird, Cornelius Vermeule characterized the Reich's design as "a cheeseboard eagle." It was okay, but it should have stayed around until 1891.
I know that what I have written is total sacrilege to the members of the John Reich Society, but I prefer Scott's Draped Bust for the silver coins and Capped Bust for the gold pieces. Oddly enough John Reich's Capped Bust for the cent and half cent were quite attractive IMO.
Unfortunately Reich's designs really took a nosedive IMO when he redesigned the half eagle in 1813. To me this obverse is even worse the Susan B. Anthony dollar, and that is saying something.
I believe that the 1813 redesign was by Scot, who was still the Chief Engraver. He also did the rather homely Matron Head Cent in 1816.
<< <i>There are no right or wrong answers here, just looking for opinions.
Was the hiring of John Reich to redesign the American coinage of 1807-on necessary? His designs were good, but was there anything wrong with the Draped Bust half cent thru silver dollar, and the Turban Head gold?
What about the Heraldic Eagle reverse? Good or bad? Somebody must have liked the two reverse eagles that replaced it because we used them for decades.
Do you consider the Reich era an improvement, or just an adequate change.
Thanks. TD >>
I think that the changes were essentially political in nature. The new director,
Robert Patterson, wished to scrap the old Federalist designs which originated
under President Washington. Patterson’s reputation, whether deserved or not,
was very anti-Federalist and Washington in particular.
The 1816 cent design, mentioned in another post, was more likely done by
Reich. His eyesight began to fail in 1816 and was the cause of his resignation
in early 1817.
<< <i>I believe that the 1813 redesign was by Scot, who was still the Chief Engraver. He also did the rather homely Matron Head Cent in 1816. >>
The Red Book does not change the John Reich citation when the design changed in 1813. Also the Encyclopedia of U.S. Gold Coins, 1795 - 1933 by Jeff Garrett and Ron Guth cites Reich as the designer of this type.
The Red Book now claims that either Scott or Reich designed the Matron Head large cent, which was a big step backward from Reich's design IMO.
<< <i>What about the Heraldic Eagle reverse? Good or bad? Somebody must have liked the two reverse eagles that replaced it because we used them for decades. >>
I always thought the shield on the eagle reverse was clumsy. It would have been better to develop the eagle appearance without the shield. MHO.
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
<< <i>
Unfortunately Reich's designs really took a nosedive IMO when he redesigned the half eagle in 1813. To me this obverse is even worse the Susan B. Anthony dollar, and that is saying something.
>>
Now, where I can trade an Anthony dollar for that one
<< <i>I like that eagle though. Great topic. We need more like this. >>
John Reich's first eagle was weird with a long neck which gave it a snake-like look.
The later eagle's looked to be more in proportion. I don't have a later half dollar that was made from one of John Reich's die, so here is one from a half eagle.
<< <i>I always found the change from Classic head large cent to "Matron head" to be an aesthetic nosedive. Odd that they kept it on the half cents. Looking at the large cents, one does not see striking difficulty ... Wonder why then did they change only the large cent but not it's little sister? >>
Perhaps because the half cent was on hiatus in 1816, and by the time it resumed in 1825, whichever engraver did the 1816 cent (Scot or Reich) was gone and Kneass didn't care and just used the old Classic Head hubs.