Options
Can someone tell me how these two coin designs are historically related?
bolivarshagnasty
Posts: 7,348 ✭✭✭✭✭
While doing some research a few weeks ago on the Oregon Commemorative, I ran across information that was new to me. Wondering if everyone else knows the story of how these two coin designs are historically related?
Washington Commemorative
Washington Quarter
Washington Commemorative
Washington Quarter
0
Comments
A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.
A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Bust on the gold commemorative was originally proposed for the quarter if I'm not mistaken.
This. If I'm also not mistaken.
Yes, and I wrote more than one thread about them, too. However, I am certain someone will repeat a numismatic (Breen) myth before this thread is done.
TomB- go ahead and hit us with the Breen myth- I'm curious.
Bust on the gold commemorative was originally proposed for the quarter if I'm not mistaken.
No, you are not mistaken. Much more to the story though.
Tom, Haven't seen your threads on the subject. About the Breen myth? None of what I read on Wikipedia or elsewhere mentioned his name.
Laura Fraser's design WON the 1932 competition for the quarter, but the Secretary of the Treasury was a sexist pig and refused to use a design from a woman. It was finally used for the 1999 $5.
This is what I have always read about the Washington Quarter design. If that was a myth from Walter Breen, I am not aware of that. The record shows that Mrs. Fraser won the design contest, but treasury secretary, Andrew Mellon, refused to accept her design and pushed the work by John Flannigan instead.
One of the selling points for the 1999 Washington commemorative $5 gold was that Mrs. Fraser's design was used on the coin, therefore partially making up of an injustice done to her years ago.
Laura Fraser's design WON the 1932 competition for the quarter, but the Secretary of the Treasury was a sexist pig and refused to use a design from a woman. It was finally used for the 1999 $5.
THIS is what I was surprised to read. Had no idea when I purchased the Washington Commemorative that there was quite a back story. Adding a few details that I also learned.
* Laura Gardin Fraser was the wife of James Earl Fraser, designer of the buffalo nickel.
* She was a student of Fraser's and later married.
*The Oregon Trail design was a collaboration between this husband and wife team.
*Their initials formed in a square are on the right side of the wagon on the reverse.
I personally think the Laura Fraser design was far superior to Flanagan's design. Many of the day must have thought so as well since she won the contest. No doubt Secretary Mellon was a sexist. Another part of history we as Americans shouldn't be very proud of.
Laura Fraser's design WON the 1932 competition for the quarter, but the Secretary of the Treasury was a sexist pig and refused to use a design from a woman. It was finally used for the 1999 $5.
This is what I have always read about the Washington Quarter design. If that was a myth from Walter Breen, I am not aware of that. The record shows that Mrs. Fraser won the design contest, but treasury secretary, Andrew Mellon, refused to accept her design and pushed the work by John Flannigan instead.
One of the selling points for the 1999 Washington commemorative $5 gold was that Mrs. Fraser's design was used on the coin, therefore partially making up of an injustice done to her years ago.
Aside from LGF getting the non-binding recommendation from the CFA, there is really nothing to the Breen myth other than Breen.
A matter of undisputed fact is that Andrew W Mellon served with great success and dignity as Secretary of the Treasury from March 4, 1921 through February 12, 1932. During this time he served under Presidents Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. As Secretary of the Treasury, one of Mellon’s responsibilities was to be the final authority on matters of coinage design selection. The extant correspondence of Mellon regarding coinage indicates that he took this responsibility seriously and that he used his own ideas of artistic merit as being credible. In this case he backed up his opinions through extensive philanthropy including a fellowship in his name, the gift of his extensive art collection to the nation and, in 1937, $10 million to build the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC.
In 1931, in the midst of the Depression, the country was swept up in Washington mania and all things dealing with Washington were greatly admired. The idea of a half dollar commemorative to honor Washington arose but President Hoover indicated he would veto such a bill. He would, however, support the creation of a commemorative Washington quarter, which many had hoped might replace the then very unpopular Standing Liberty design. As it was, this came to pass.
A contest was opened to the public to allow designs for the new Washington commemorative quarter to be submitted to the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA). The CFA did not have final acceptance or rejection powers over any design submitted, however, the CFA with sculptor Adolph Weinman on its panel had an advisory role to the Secretary of the Treasury. Records indicate that the open competition was disappointing with most submissions having little artistic merit.
An October 27, 1931 memorandum from the Secretary of the CFA to Andrew Mellon states that of the over 100 designs submitted that the CFA and Weinman believed only seven designs had merit. This note requested that the Secretary of the Treasury review the seven chosen models so as to make his choice among them. Between this date and November 4, 1931 the CFA chose the models submitted by Laura Gardin Fraser while Secretary Mellon chose the models submitted by John Flanagan. The CFA had requested to allow Fraser to rework some elements of her design to fit coinage purposes and Mellon directed that her work, along with that of Flanagan and two others, be allowed to be reworked so that all four model pairs could be inspected after a CFA critique.
A letter of November 10, 1931 from the CFA to Secretary Mellon shows the interest that the Secretary had in this coinage issue and also his artistic considerations as the letter states that the CFA agrees with the Secretary as to changes that should be incorporated in the designs submitted. However, after the reworking of the models, the CFA and Secretary Mellon were still at odds over the best design. This may be attributed, in part, to the process by which the final design was chosen; Secretary Mellon was apparently inspecting large drawings or plaster casts of proposed designs while the CFA was looking more closely at coinage-sized models. In this way the two parties were not inspecting the same models, they were looking at models that were biased by the scale they were viewed in.
CFA Secretary Moore tried to persuade Secretary Mellon that the scale of the models would change his position and in a letter dated January 20, 1932 Secretary Moore laid out the CFA opinions on the coinage-sized models. They argued that the Flanagan design became “artistically unfortunate” with an “unnatural arrangement” of the hair that was visible in the reduced format. They also characterized the reverse as “pictorial rather than medallic in character”. This did not sway Secretary Mellon and, although he left office on February 12, 1932 he never changed his mind.
The new Secretary of the Treasury, Ogden L Mills is hardly ever brought up in the discussion of the Washington quarter, however, he had every opportunity and right to ignore his predecessor’s choice and to choose either his own model or to agree with the CFA. A March 23, 1932 letter from Secretary Mills to the CFA states that Mills, too, preferred the Flanagan design instead of the Fraser work. In a last attempt to have the Fraser model accepted, the CFA sent Secretary Mills a strongly worded letter on March 31, 1932 that called for the Fraser model to be put into production. Secretary Mills seems to have been less interested in engaging the CFA than former-Secretary Mellon was as the return letter from Mills was short and to the point. In his letter of April 11, 1932 Secretary Mills informed the CFA that close attention had been paid to the model selection previously and that a reexamination of the models in question was performed at the behest of the CFA. However, Mills also preferred the Flanagan design and wrote back to the CFA “You will realize, of course, that the duty of making the selection falls upon the Secretary of the Treasury and not upon the Commission of Fine Arts, the function of that body being purely advisory”. At this point production of the new Washington quarter commemorative began with the Flanagan design.
At some time in numismatic history, this decision process was labeled misogyny. The earliest reference I have ever been able to find with this twist is from Walter Breen where he wrote “It has been learned that Mellon knew all along who had submitted the winning models, and his male chauvinism partly or wholly motivated and unwillingness to let a woman win (the competition)”. The source of the opinion that Mellon was a misogynist casts a large shadow over the credibility of the statement. It has long been numismatic opinion that Breen tended to fabricate tales and data to fill in gaps in his knowledge and his epic tome serves as evidence of this where his footnotes are complete regarding many facts surrounding the Flanagan design but they are completely missing when it comes to the misogyny assertion. This, coupled with Breen’s well-documented, tortured life choices and ideas regarding sexuality and the roles of men and women makes it hard to consider this a credible source in this instance. Unfortunately, the numismatic press has at times taken what Breen wrote as researched truth and has repeated Breen’s words often enough that a new generation of numismatists believe this to be fact.
The only things that can be known for fact regarding Secretary Mellon and the work of Laura Gardin Fraser are that Mellon preferred the Flanagan work for the Washington quarter but that he also awarded to Fraser the commissions for the Grant silver half dollar and gold dollar, the Fort Vancouver silver half dollar and the Oregon Trail silver half dollar (with her husband James Earle Fraser) commemoratives. This list of commemorative issues, along with the Alabama issue, which was underway before Mellon became Secretary of the Treasury, indicate that Mellon chose Fraser’s designs when he believed they were best.
As disappointing as the Flanagan Washington quarter might seem today, it was a harbinger of designs to come. In quick succession the Buffalo nickel, Mercury dime and Walking Liberty half were replaced by largely linear, flat, derivative designs featuring awkward reverse elements. Oddly, the Washington quarter, Jefferson nickel and Franklin half all have their obverse portraiture based upon Jean Antoine Houdon works, as prescribed by Congressional mandate. Also, the Washington quarter might be thought of as the more artistically complete coin within this group, a view shared by the preeminent United States numismatic art critic, Cornelius Vermeule who wrote “Judged by the level of numismatic art in the generation following 1946, however, Flanagan’s Washington quarter was a pioneering success”.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Both designs are far superior to the modern "pasta hair" Washington Quarters!
"A matter of undisputed fact is that Andrew W Mellon served with great success and dignity as Secretary of the Treasury from March 4, 1921 through February 12, 1932. During this time he served under Presidents Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. As Secretary of the Treasury, one of Mellon’s responsibilities was to be the final authority on matters of coinage design selection. The extant correspondence of Mellon regarding coinage indicates that he took this responsibility seriously and that he used his own ideas of artistic merit as being credible. In this case he backed up his opinions through extensive philanthropy including a fellowship in his name, the gift of his extensive art collection to the nation and, in 1937, $10 million to build the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC. "
What I read was that Mr. Mellon happened to be one of the wealthiest men in the U.S. at the time, only Rockefeller and Ford paid more income taxes in the mid 20's. His wealth, social status, and banking background, one can assume, led to his appointment as Secretary of the Treasury by President Harding. His biography indicates a lot of work on behalf of the U.S. to procure restitution from France and Germany for the costs of WWI. His push for cuts in the estate tax, and income tax for the wealthy were controversial. In the end, he resigned the Secretary of the Treasury position under impending impeachment proceedings. Not what I would consider serving "with great success and dignity". In my opinion, a man with this social status would not be very receptive to recommendations from others, as with the CFA's recommendation on the Fraser design.
"The new Secretary of the Treasury, Ogden L Mills is hardly ever brought up in the discussion of the Washington quarter, however, he had every opportunity and right to ignore his predecessor’s choice and to choose either his own model or to agree with the CFA. A March 23, 1932 letter from Secretary Mills to the CFA states that Mills, too, preferred the Flanagan design instead of the Fraser work. In a last attempt to have the Fraser model accepted, the CFA sent Secretary Mills a strongly worded letter on March 31, 1932 that called for the Fraser model to be put into production. Secretary Mills seems to have been less interested in engaging the CFA than former-Secretary Mellon was as the return letter from Mills was short and to the point. In his letter of April 11, 1932 Secretary Mills informed the CFA that close attention had been paid to the model selection previously and that a reexamination of the models in question was performed at the behest of the CFA. However, Mills also preferred the Flanagan design and wrote back to the CFA “You will realize, of course, that the duty of making the selection falls upon the Secretary of the Treasury and not upon the Commission of Fine Arts, the function of that body being purely advisory”. At this point production of the new Washington quarter commemorative began with the Flanagan design. "
It would not be inconceivable to me, that Mellon could have influenced Mills eventual decision on the Flanagan design, given his breadth of influence at the time.
"At some time in numismatic history, this decision process was labeled misogyny. The earliest reference I have ever been able to find with this twist is from Walter Breen where he wrote “It has been learned that Mellon knew all along who had submitted the winning models, and his male chauvinism partly or wholly motivated and unwillingness to let a woman win (the competition)”. The source of the opinion that Mellon was a misogynist casts a large shadow over the credibility of the statement. It has long been numismatic opinion that Breen tended to fabricate tales and data to fill in gaps in his knowledge and his epic tome serves as evidence of this where his footnotes are complete regarding many facts surrounding the Flanagan design but they are completely missing when it comes to the misogyny assertion. This, coupled with Breen’s well-documented, tortured life choices and ideas regarding sexuality and the roles of men and women makes it hard to consider this a credible source in this instance. Unfortunately, the numismatic press has at times taken what Breen wrote as researched truth and has repeated Breen’s words often enough that a new generation of numismatists believe this to be fact."
I would agree that Mr. Breen's take on this history, without any documented proof, could not be considered credible. Given the period of time though, Men dominated every aspect of society and government. Again, it would not be a stretch to consider that Mellon harbored these ideals.
The only person in the world that truly knew Mellon's motivation for this decision was Mellon. All of the rest will be speculation. I could see a scenario where Mellon's decision was based on the ability of the mint to more easily reproduce the Flanagan design? Perhaps he did see Flanagan's design as more aesthetically pleasing. I do not, and the CFA didn't see it that way either.
I personally think the Laura Fraser design was far superior to Flanagan's design. Many of the day must have thought so as well since she won the contest.
I'm in the minority, but I like Flanigan's design better. Fraser's bust of Washington looks overly stern, and the coin's reverse appears too militaristic.
Was the CFA's decision unanimous, or did Fraser's design win the committee's approval by a narrow margin?
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars