The time from concept to coin was about 18 months - much as it would be now if Congress stayed out of it. The Peace dollar project seems fast, because all the ground work had been completed, and the CFA was waiting for Presidential approval of the idea. Once President Harding said he wanted the coin by the end of the year to use as propaganda in the International reduction of armaments conference, the order was carried out quickly. James Fraser was an important part of this process. A similar urgency occurs today where the President has the authority to order action or at least strongly encourage it as with Teddy Roosevelt and the gold coins, or Franklin Roosevelt and proof sets.
@RogerB said:
RE: "So we have to buy your book to find out a few bits of info? Can't you just answer a few questions without trying to push your book? I agree it's probably a good read and might get it but come on. Can't you just answer a few questions pertaining to this?"
No; and no one is "pushing" a book.
Not because of money. The subject and events are more nuanced than can be presented in this type of forum. If individuals care to understand the historical events, then they should also be willing to expend a minute amount of effort to learn what occurred. Nothing has to be purchased - ANA loans book for free; your local library can get a copy for you to read; a couple of coin shops appear to have copies "on the counter" for patrons to browse.
Those "bits of info" that some attempt to trivialize, took months - sometimes years - to locate, verify, organize, analyze and publish.
@RogerB said:
Wish I had known about this auction. If it is legitimate, it will be magnetic.
.
@RogerB said:
No, the casts were made in New York under direction of James Fraser.
(See "Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921" for details and sources of information.)
I noticed that you edited the second post quoted above. Your original version stated that that the casts made by Fraser in New York for De Francisci were iron. You removed the word "iron". Nothing wrong with editing a post to correct it.
But, in regards to your first statement quoted above, are you still claiming that the subject item of this thread must be magnetic to be legitimate ?
PS:
I believe that the original cast was bronze (non-magnetic).
@lkeigwin said:
The intent behind the broken sword was to symbolize end of conflict.
But a NY newspaper responded to a Treasury Dept announcement of the coin and its features by asserting that, to the military, a broken sword is a symbol of defeat. When one surrenders the victor breaks the sword and returns it to the defeated.
The public widely reacted to the news article and a change to the lone hub was quickly made.
Lance.
Shoot, I even like the FIRST bust dollars with the arrows in the right STRONG talon.
Grrrrrr,,,, BRING EM ON!
@RogerB said:
Wish I had known about this auction. If it is legitimate, it will be magnetic.
.
@RogerB said:
No, the casts were made in New York under direction of James Fraser.
(See "Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921" for details and sources of information.)
I noticed that you edited the second post quoted above. Your original version stated that that the casts made by Fraser in New York for De Francisci were iron. You removed the word "iron". Nothing wrong with editing a post to correct it.
But, in regards to your first statement quoted above, are you still claiming that the subject item of this thread must be magnetic to be legitimate ?
PS:
I believe that the original cast was bronze (non-magnetic).
So which is it, bronze or iron ???
If you want to establish credibility for your book, I think you could at least clarify this.
@dcarr said:
So which is it, bronze or iron ???
If you want to establish credibility for your book, I think you could at least clarify this.
Really? He needs to establish credibility for his book?
Yes, I think so.
Information presented in this thread is contradictory.
First it was stated by Burdette that the casts were "iron" and that a cast would have to be magnetic to be genuine.
Then the word "iron" was edited out of one post, but the other post from Burdette about being magnetic remains.
And a somewhat detailed post by CA5MAN here seems to refute the iron casting claim:
@CA5MAN said:
...
The plaster models and bronze casts arrived at the Philadelphia Mint on December 21.
So, for the benefit of all, I think it would be worthwhile if the author (Burdette) could clarify the iron versus bronze discrepancy.
"No new data affecting details or conclusions has come to light within the past 11-years since publication"
I think the (apparently bronze) casting that is the subject of this thread constitutes "new data". As such, this new data is not in Burdette's book and it needs to be reconciled with published historical records so as to legitimize those records.
Peace on Earth, people. This is a Peace dollar design we are talking about.
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.
Part of a comment was removed to help avoid confusion, but it seems to have had the opposite effect.
All the sources located for "Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921" state that the casts were made of iron. Nothing else. That does not preclude bronze painting or plating an iron cast, or a brass cast being made at a later time for display purposes. DeFrancisci's personal papers are silent. (The papers are in the Smithsonian Archives of American Art. I examined all of the originals before they were curated and microfilmed. I also digitized the sculptor's pencil sketches and donated the files to SI-AAA.)
The auctioned piece must be authenticated before more can be said about it. At present, everything is speculation.
@RogerB said:
Part of a comment was removed to help avoid confusion, but it seems to have had the opposite effect.
All the sources located for "Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921" state that the casts were made of iron. Nothing else. That does not preclude bronze painting or plating an iron cast, or a brass cast being made at a later time for display purposes. DeFrancisci's personal papers are silent. (The papers are in the Smithsonian Archives of American Art. I examined all of the originals before they were curated and microfilmed. I also digitized the sculptor's pencil sketches and donated the files to SI-AAA.)
The auctioned piece must be authenticated before more can be said about it. At present, everything is speculation.
The physical evidence does not seem to support "iron" casts.
Are iron casts presently known to exist for any of the US Mint coins of that era ?
The only similar items that I know of are these MacNeil 5-inch BRONZE casts for the 1916 Standing Liberty quarter:
I don't know how it can be reasonably stated that "all the [1916-1921] casts were made of iron. Nothing else", in light of the Heritage Auction listing which quotes from a letter written to the US Mint by MacNeil :
"Referring to the proposition of the model of the new Quarter Dollar, the work is already in the caster's hands and I expect to send the completed bronze before the end of the week, to Mr. Barber at Philadelphia."
And the auction listing also quotes you as stating that the casts were bronze:
"Documentation presented by Roger Burdette in Renaissance of American Coinage suggests that when the bronze cast of the quarter obverse arrived at the Mint, Chief Engraver Charles Barber examined it and discovered that working the model up to the mechanical requirements of the Mint would consume far too much time. Thus, Barber was instructed to revert to the original model for the obverse, which required far less modification to meet the Engraver's strict technical requirements. It was that design which later appeared on the mass production of December 1916."
So there is significant evidence that castings from the 1916-1921 period were bronze. I have yet to see any evidence that any castings from this period were iron.
The comment prior to Mr. Carr's post refers to the subject of the thread - 1921 Peace dollar reverse. Not to anything else. Please read the book to understand the subject better.
> Huh. Funny. Burdette said this in the article...
"The Morgan dollar engraver did a lot of manual retouching of the hub so that feathers, edges, and other things would be sharper. Stars and other details were punched in or engraved by hand on the master die to create a sharper-looking edge to various devices on the coin. In contrast, the Peace dollar was an entirely mechanical reduction from either the bronze cast from 1921 or the artist model’s and galvano from 1922 or later. The result was a softer looking coin, which was what the artists had been looking for. But coin collectors tend to like crisp designs."
> Huh. Funny. Burdette said this in the article...
"The Morgan dollar engraver did a lot of manual retouching of the hub so that feathers, edges, and other things would be sharper. Stars and other details were punched in or engraved by hand on the master die to create a sharper-looking edge to various devices on the coin. In contrast, the Peace dollar was an entirely mechanical reduction from either the bronze cast from 1921 or the artist model’s and galvano from 1922 or later. The result was a softer looking coin, which was what the artists had been looking for. But coin collectors tend to like crisp designs."
More from that article:
"Burdette: The original bronze casts of the obverse and reverse were delivered to the U.S. Mint. They were used to make the steel hubs. There was only the one hub of the reverse [with broken sword], and it was never used to make dies or to strike any test pieces. All the work was done on that [hub] and then on a subsequent master die [to remove the broken sword]. There are photographs in the book of the design, but no pieces were ever struck."
And:
"Burdette: In February 1922, de Francisci remodeled his design and lowered the relief. If you look at 1921 and ’22 coins, you can see subtle differences on both sides because they were actually made for [from] completely different sets of models. Contrary to Walter Breen’s story, nobody beat down the galvanos, or models, to lower the relief. They didn’t need galvanos in 1921 because hubs were reduced from copper or bronze casts. They’re much thicker and tougher. I don’t know where Breen got that story, but it’s his alone."
The word "iron" does not appear in the article.
So what's the deal, Mr. Burdette ? You've stated a couple times in this thread that the original casts were iron. Did they misquote you or did some new information come to light since your book and that article were published ? If so, then how is the book going to clarify any of this ?
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.
I think it is entirely reasonable to request that the supposed expert in the field explain their contradictory statements. "Don't know" would be a perfectly acceptable position. That would actually be preferable to promoting a theory that has no backing evidence.
In the sciences, there is a mechanism called peer review. If a scientist publishes a new theory and research, peers review the paper and it is typically discussed by the peers and defended by the author. If the theory is deemed to have merit, it is accepted into the body of scientific knowledge. Numismatics should be no different.
I think Mr. Burdette could sell more of his books if he would discuss and defend his statements by citing specific data and/or evidence.
@RogerB said:
Wish I had known about this auction. If it is legitimate, it will be magnetic.
@RogerB said:
Part of a comment [iron] was removed to help avoid confusion, but it seems to have had the opposite effect.
All the sources located for "Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921" state that the casts were made of iron. Nothing else. That does not preclude bronze painting or plating an iron cast, or a brass cast being made at a later time for display purposes. DeFrancisci's personal papers are silent. (The papers are in the Smithsonian Archives of American Art. I examined all of the originals before they were curated and microfilmed. I also digitized the sculptor's pencil sketches and donated the files to SI-AAA.)
The auctioned piece must be authenticated before more can be said about it. At present, everything is speculation.
I recently obtained from the ANA Library a copy of the book ["Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921"].
It appears to be a fine book. If the author would only put a tiny fraction of that type of effort into their internet postings, much of this disagreement could be avoided.
I examined the pages suggested by the author (183-296). The word "iron" does not appear anywhere that I can find. However, the word "bronze" is there several times. I can find no verification whatsoever for the author's claims in this thread that the original casting(s) were "iron" and/or "magnetic". Why Mr. Burdette's comments in this thread are in stark contradiction to his own book is a mystery.
The chronology that I have gleaned from the book and other sources is as follows (corrections welcome):
A.) A design competition was conducted for the new "Peace" Dollar by the US Mint, with Fraser running it. This was late in 1921 and time was already extremely short, given that the Treasury desired to issue the new coin before the end of the year.
B.) One of the invited artists/sculptors was Anthony de Francisci. His initial submission consisted of one obverse design and two reverse designs. All three were submitted as plaster models, along with photographs of each. The obverse was similar to the final coin, except for having a Roman numeral date and slightly different facial profile. One reverse was similar to the final coin, but with a slightly shorter and narrower Eagle. The other reverse was significantly different and it showed an Eagle breaking a sword in it's beak.
C.) After reviewing the models submitted, the de Francisci design was chosen, with certain revisions desired. With Fraser's assistance, De Francisci prepared a new model for the obverse with a normal "1921" date (with dots on either side) and a modified facial profile. The reverse Eagle was made slightly wider and taller, the word "PEACE" was added to the crag below the Eagle, and a broken sword was added, laying horizontally and clutched by the Eagle. De Francisci's other (rejected) reverse design had a broken sword. It is not entirely clear what prompted de Francisci to add these two new elements to the reverse. The Commission in charge of choosing the design may have thought that the broken sword, in conjunction with "PEACE", adequately conveyed the message that the coin was supposed to present.
D.) In New York, Fraser kept plaster models of the revised obverse and reverse while de Francisci travelled to Washington DC on 19 December with identical plasters. They were shown to US Mint and Treasury officials, as well as President Harding. The designs were accepted by all. De Francisci telephoned the good news to Fraser. Fraser suggested that bronze casts be made from the fragile plasters he had in New York. One of each was made at a cost of $30 per. Presumably, the dots on either side of the date were removed from the obverse plaster before the bronze casting was made. A later (26 December) letter from Fraser to Mint Director Baker mentions "... an added expense of $30 for two bronze casts of the models of the Peace Dollar".
E.) On 21 December the plaster models and bronze cast arrived at the Philadelphia Mint. This is stated in a letter written to US Mint Director Baker from Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Styer :
I beg to advise you that we received at 2:30 P.M. today the plaster casts of both sides, and bronze castings of the obverse side of the models for the "Peace Dollar". The messenger who delivered these models stated to Mr. Morgan that Mr. Fraser said that the casting was poor, and suggested that we get an electrotype from obverse as well as the reverse side and if better than the one made in New York, to use it. Mr. Morgan is of the opinion that Mr. Fraser meant the casting was a little rough but he thinks it is not so much so as to give us trouble in reduction.
The bronze casting of the reverse was a failure and we must now get our electrotype from the reverse plaster cast here. It would be impossible to get electrotypes of both sides and make our reductions in time to produce coins this year. Mr. Morgan is quite satisfied that he will be able to get a satisfactory reduction from the casting made in New York.
Unless something unforeseen happens, and by using the New York casting, we ought to have dies for coinage by December 29th.
Respectfully, Freas Styer, Superinendent
That letter explains a lot. The New York bronze cast of the obverse was used in reduction to make the obverse master hub. An electrotype "galvano" was made at the Philadelphia Mint from the reverse side plaster. This galvano was used in reduction to make the reverse master hub (which included the broken sword).
F.) News reports of the broken sword design resulted in a public reaction against it. The general sentiment being that it symbolized defeat, not Peace or Victory. Available time was insufficient to make a new plaster, casting, galvano or master hub without the sword. So de Francisci was asked by Fraser to travel to the Philadelphia Mint on 23 December and oversee Morgan's work on the master hub. Morgan carefully removed the sword from the one and only reverse master hub. A master die was then made from that hub and Morgan engraved some new details on that master die to fill in the area where the sword was removed. Working hubs, working dies, and finished coins were then made from there. Due to the additional transfers required to do this, it is possible that some detail was lost resulting in a generally soft appearance of the reverse on the struck coins.
G.) Some time after the first coins were struck de Francisci made an additional model of each side, possibly for sentimental and/or promotional purposes. These have slightly revised details and they lack the broken sword. Sword aside, the bronze casting shown at the beginning of this thread is not an exact match to the details on de Francisci's final (personal) model.
H.) Conclusion:
I believe that the bronze casting shown in this thread is the "failed" casting that Styer mentioned. It apparently was not sent to the Philadelphia Mint and it may have remained with Fraser in New York for a time. The hole that was drilled in it may have been a way to mark it as rejected, as well as a hanging point for display by the owner. The reason that it was deemed a failure is unknown. But many things can go wrong. A casting can come out warped (coins made from it wouldn't stack very well). Or a casting could have localized imperfections such as galling, especially on steeper relief slopes.
Bill Fivaz photographed the original obverse bronze cast on a visit to the Philadelphia Mint archives some years ago. It is interesting to note that he did not encounter any bronze casting of the reverse in the Philadelphia Mint archives. That fits with the theory that the reverse bronze casting was not sent to the Philadelphia Mint and that is why it turned up in private hands later on.
@RogerB said:
Wish I had known about this auction. If it is legitimate, it will be magnetic.
@RogerB said:
Part of a comment [iron] was removed to help avoid confusion, but it seems to have had the opposite effect.
All the sources located for "Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921" state that the casts were made of iron. Nothing else. That does not preclude bronze painting or plating an iron cast, or a brass cast being made at a later time for display purposes. DeFrancisci's personal papers are silent. (The papers are in the Smithsonian Archives of American Art. I examined all of the originals before they were curated and microfilmed. I also digitized the sculptor's pencil sketches and donated the files to SI-AAA.)
The auctioned piece must be authenticated before more can be said about it. At present, everything is speculation.
I recently obtained from the ANA Library a copy of the book ["Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921"].
It appears to be a fine book. If the author would only put a tiny fraction of that type of effort into their internet postings, much of this disagreement could be avoided.
I examined the pages suggested by the author (183-296). The word "iron" does not appear anywhere that I can find. However, the word "bronze" is there several times. I can find no verification whatsoever for the author's claims in this thread that the original casting(s) were "iron" and/or "magnetic". Why Mr. Burdette's comments in this thread are in stark contradiction to his own book is a mystery.
The chronology that I have gleaned from the book and other sources is as follows (corrections welcome):
A.) A design competition was conducted for the new "Peace" Dollar by the US Mint, with Fraser running it. This was late in 1921 and time was already extremely short, given that the Treasury desired to issue the new coin before the end of the year.
B.) One of the invited artists/sculptors was Anthony de Francisci. His initial submission consisted of one obverse design and two reverse designs. All three were submitted as plaster models, along with photographs of each. The obverse was similar to the final coin, except for having a Roman numeral date and slightly different facial profile. One reverse was similar to the final coin, but with a slightly shorter and narrower Eagle. The other reverse was significantly different and it showed an Eagle breaking a sword in it's beak.
C.) After reviewing the models submitted, the de Francisci design was chosen, with certain revisions desired. With Fraser's assistance, De Francisci prepared a new model for the obverse with a normal "1921" date (with dots on either side) and a modified facial profile. The reverse Eagle was made slightly wider and taller, the word "PEACE" was added to the crag below the Eagle, and a broken sword was added, laying horizontally and clutched by the Eagle. De Francisci's other (rejected) reverse design had a broken sword. It is not entirely clear what prompted de Francisci to add these two new elements to the reverse. The Commission in charge of choosing the design may have thought that the broken sword, in conjunction with "PEACE", adequately conveyed the message that the coin was supposed to present.
D.) In New York, Fraser kept plaster models of the revised obverse and reverse while de Francisci travelled to Washington DC on 19 December with identical plasters. They were shown to US Mint and Treasury officials, as well as President Harding. The designs were accepted by all. De Francisci telephoned the good news to Fraser. Fraser suggested that bronze casts be made from the fragile plasters he had in New York. One of each was made at a cost of $30 per. Presumably, the dots on either side of the date were removed from the obverse plaster before the bronze casting was made. A later (26 December) letter from Fraser to Mint Director Baker mentions "... an added expense of $30 for two bronze casts of the models of the Peace Dollar".
E.) On 21 December the plaster models and bronze cast arrived at the Philadelphia Mint. This is stated in a letter written to US Mint Director Baker from Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Styer :
I beg to advise you that we received at 2:30 P.M. today the plaster casts of both sides, and bronze castings of the obverse side of the models for the "Peace Dollar". The messenger who delivered these models stated to Mr. Morgan that Mr. Fraser said that the casting was poor, and suggested that we get an electrotype from obverse as well as the reverse side and if better than the one made in New York, to use it. Mr. Morgan is of the opinion that Mr. Fraser meant the casting was a little rough but he thinks it is not so much so as to give us trouble in reduction.
The bronze casting of the reverse was a failure and we must now get our electrotype from the reverse plaster cast here. It would be impossible to get electrotypes of both sides and make our reductions in time to produce coins this year. Mr. Morgan is quite satisfied that he will be able to get a satisfactory reduction from the casting made in New York.
Unless something unforeseen happens, and by using the New York casting, we ought to have dies for coinage by December 29th.
Respectfully, Freas Styer, Superinendent
That letter explains a lot. The New York bronze cast of the obverse was used in reduction to make the obverse master hub. An electrotype "galvano" was made at the Philadelphia Mint from the reverse side plaster. This galvano was used in reduction to make the reverse master hub (which included the broken sword).
F.) News reports of the broken sword design resulted in a public reaction against it. The general sentiment being that it symbolized defeat, not Peace or Victory. Available time was insufficient to make a new plaster, casting, galvano or master hub without the sword. So de Francisci was asked by Fraser to travel to the Philadelphia Mint on 23 December and oversee Morgan's work on the master hub. Morgan carefully removed the sword from the one and only reverse master hub. A master die was then made from that hub and Morgan engraved some new details on that master die to fill in the area where the sword was removed. Working hubs, working dies, and finished coins were then made from there. Due to the additional transfers required to do this, it is possible that some detail was lost resulting in a generally soft appearance of the reverse on the struck coins.
G.) Some time after the first coins were struck de Francisci made an additional model of each side, possibly for sentimental and/or promotional purposes. These have slightly revised details and they lack the broken sword. Sword aside, the bronze casting shown at the beginning of this thread is not an exact match to the details on de Francisci's final (personal) model.
H.) Conclusion:
I believe that the bronze casting shown in this thread is the "failed" casting that Styer mentioned. It apparently was not sent to the Philadelphia Mint and it may have remained with Fraser in New York for a time. The hole that was drilled in it may have been a way to mark it as rejected, as well as a hanging point for display by the owner. The reason that it was deemed a failure is unknown. But many things can go wrong. A casting can come out warped (coins made from it wouldn't stack very well). Or a casting could have localized imperfections such as galling, especially on steeper relief slopes.
Bill Fivaz photographed the original obverse bronze cast on a visit to the Philadelphia Mint archives some years ago. It is interesting to note that he did not encounter any bronze casting of the reverse in the Philadelphia Mint archives. That fits with the theory that the reverse bronze casting was not sent to the Philadelphia Mint and that is why it turned up in private hands later on.
Yeah. I don't know why Burdette is obviously contradicting himself from his published works in this thread. Wonder why he hasn't responded yet too. Hmm
Everybody who has never made a mistake in a quick forum post please raise your hand.
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.
No response seemed necessary. The book is accurate and includes full source citations for the use of any who might disagree with its conclusions.
James Fraser, an established professional sculptor and medalist, was the source of the iron reference.
Freas Styer was a so-so Philadelphia lawyer appointed to his Mint job only a few months earlier.
Readers can decide which is the more reliable source.
As for the auction item, nothing can be said without careful examination of the item.
@RogerB said:
No response seemed necessary. The book is accurate and includes full source citations for the use of any who might disagree with its conclusions.
James Fraser, an established professional sculptor and medalist, was the source of the iron reference.
Freas Styer was a so-so Philadelphia lawyer appointed to his Mint job only a few months earlier.
Readers can decide which is the more reliable source.
As for the auction item, nothing can be said without careful examination of the item.
Is Fraser's "iron" reference in your book ? I would like to look it up if you can tell me what page it is on.
The book quotes a letter from Fraser writing about bronze casts of the Peace Dollar:
Page 206: "Fraser had the casts made at a cost of $15 each (403)".
Footnote 403: "US Mint, NARA-CP, op, cit. Entry A1 328N, box 4. Letter dated December 26, 1921 to Baker from Fraser. He lists $30 in travel expenses and "...an added expense of $30 for two bronze casts of the models of the Peace dollar."."
That seems pretty clear. Fraser himself says "bronze", not "iron".
Also this from the book:
Page 207: "The plaster models and bronze casts arrived at the Philadelphia Mint on December 21 (408)".
Footnote 408: "US Mint, NARA-CP, op, cit. Entry A1, box 4. Letter dated December 21, 1921 to Baker from Styer."
Page 210:
"Late on December 22, Fraser Moore and O-Reilly discussed what could be done to correct the "broken sword" problem. There was no time to make a plaster model of another design and have coins struck bearing the 1921 date; the reverse hub was being cut from the electrotype ..."
This substantiates what Styer wrote in the letter to Baker, that the reverse hub was being cut from an electrotype.
I see nothing that brings into question the accuracy of Styer's letter to Baker.
@7Jaguars said:
I'm guessing that's the bronze replica?
The last picture I posted is of the reverse of a "broken sword" over-strike on a normal 1922-1935 Peace Dollar. The lighting is much more diffuse than the picture I posted before that.
Suddenly DC's interest in this thread is more apparent.
So, is it magnetic??????
The detail on the bronze and on the overstrikes...... just WOW, especially in the mid-wing and top of leg area.
Imagine what this series could have been, if the mint had somehow been able to execute the artist's original concept in true high-relief, high detail form. I understand the technical issues with strike and such (Barber and Morgan's designs are exceptionally utilitarian) but we can dream, right?
Dave Wnuck. Redbook contributor; long time PNG Member; listed on the PCGS Board of Experts. PM me with your email address to receive my e-newsletter, and visit DaveWcoins.com Find me on eBay at davewcoins
Do you guys realize just how extraordinary the Dan Carr 2017 Peace Dollar overstrike is? It's a true high relief plus the reverse die is created from a direct scan of the lost original bronze casting. This is much more than your typical DC overstrike. This is, dare I say it... EPIC
@CascadeChris said:
Do you guys realize just how extraordinary the Dan Carr 2017 Peace Dollar overstrike is? It's a true high relief plus the reverse die is created from a direct scan of the lost original bronze casting. This is much more than your typical DC overstrike. This is, dare I say it... EPIC
Comments
The time from concept to coin was about 18 months - much as it would be now if Congress stayed out of it. The Peace dollar project seems fast, because all the ground work had been completed, and the CFA was waiting for Presidential approval of the idea. Once President Harding said he wanted the coin by the end of the year to use as propaganda in the International reduction of armaments conference, the order was carried out quickly. James Fraser was an important part of this process. A similar urgency occurs today where the President has the authority to order action or at least strongly encourage it as with Teddy Roosevelt and the gold coins, or Franklin Roosevelt and proof sets.
$500 folks, $500, yell at each other as you wish..........ya all missed it, me too,, WTF
I missed this one, too, gold, 2016 Clark Gruber Fifth Owl "$200", 999+ Colorado refined GOLD, 1/10 Troy oz., Satin, Type B, sold out
CG_FE_2016_MS 1
16mm, 1/10 troy oz 999 gold
Satin
20
$175
In hopes of not hijacking the thread, I will simply reply: SAAWEEEEETTTTTT!!!! And good luck with that High Relief
So true and agree 100%.
.
I noticed that you edited the second post quoted above. Your original version stated that that the casts made by Fraser in New York for De Francisci were iron. You removed the word "iron". Nothing wrong with editing a post to correct it.
But, in regards to your first statement quoted above, are you still claiming that the subject item of this thread must be magnetic to be legitimate ?
PS:
I believe that the original cast was bronze (non-magnetic).
If ever there was an eBay auction that should've played out to the end...... This would be it!
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Shoot, I even like the FIRST bust dollars with the arrows in the right STRONG talon.
Grrrrrr,,,, BRING EM ON!
So which is it, bronze or iron ???
If you want to establish credibility for your book, I think you could at least clarify this.
Really? He needs to establish credibility for his book?
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Yes, I think so.
Information presented in this thread is contradictory.
First it was stated by Burdette that the casts were "iron" and that a cast would have to be magnetic to be genuine.
Then the word "iron" was edited out of one post, but the other post from Burdette about being magnetic remains.
And a somewhat detailed post by CA5MAN here seems to refute the iron casting claim:
So, for the benefit of all, I think it would be worthwhile if the author (Burdette) could clarify the iron versus bronze discrepancy.
I think the (apparently bronze) casting that is the subject of this thread constitutes "new data". As such, this new data is not in Burdette's book and it needs to be reconciled with published historical records so as to legitimize those records.
Peace on Earth, people. This is a Peace dollar design we are talking about.
Part of a comment was removed to help avoid confusion, but it seems to have had the opposite effect.
All the sources located for "Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921" state that the casts were made of iron. Nothing else. That does not preclude bronze painting or plating an iron cast, or a brass cast being made at a later time for display purposes. DeFrancisci's personal papers are silent. (The papers are in the Smithsonian Archives of American Art. I examined all of the originals before they were curated and microfilmed. I also digitized the sculptor's pencil sketches and donated the files to SI-AAA.)
The auctioned piece must be authenticated before more can be said about it. At present, everything is speculation.
The physical evidence does not seem to support "iron" casts.
Are iron casts presently known to exist for any of the US Mint coins of that era ?
The only similar items that I know of are these MacNeil 5-inch BRONZE casts for the 1916 Standing Liberty quarter:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/standing-liberty-quarters/1916-standing-liberty-quarter-obverse-bronze-cast-uncertified/a/1251-5616.s
https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-5W8VF
I don't know how it can be reasonably stated that "all the [1916-1921] casts were made of iron. Nothing else", in light of the Heritage Auction listing which quotes from a letter written to the US Mint by MacNeil :
"Referring to the proposition of the model of the new Quarter Dollar, the work is already in the caster's hands and I expect to send the completed bronze before the end of the week, to Mr. Barber at Philadelphia."
And the auction listing also quotes you as stating that the casts were bronze:
"Documentation presented by Roger Burdette in Renaissance of American Coinage suggests that when the bronze cast of the quarter obverse arrived at the Mint, Chief Engraver Charles Barber examined it and discovered that working the model up to the mechanical requirements of the Mint would consume far too much time. Thus, Barber was instructed to revert to the original model for the obverse, which required far less modification to meet the Engraver's strict technical requirements. It was that design which later appeared on the mass production of December 1916."
So there is significant evidence that castings from the 1916-1921 period were bronze. I have yet to see any evidence that any castings from this period were iron.
The comment prior to Mr. Carr's post refers to the subject of the thread - 1921 Peace dollar reverse. Not to anything else. Please read the book to understand the subject better.
After reading this thread, I ordered the three books. Looking forward to reading and learning!
There's some good info from Roger in the Collectors Weekly article "Controversial Coin: The Peace Dollar" by Maribeth Keane and Brad Quinn back in 2010.
Here are some images from the article:
Huh. Nice link.
>
Huh. Funny. Burdette said this in the article...
"The Morgan dollar engraver did a lot of manual retouching of the hub so that feathers, edges, and other things would be sharper. Stars and other details were punched in or engraved by hand on the master die to create a sharper-looking edge to various devices on the coin. In contrast, the Peace dollar was an entirely mechanical reduction from either the bronze cast from 1921 or the artist model’s and galvano from 1922 or later. The result was a softer looking coin, which was what the artists had been looking for. But coin collectors tend to like crisp designs."
More from that article:
"Burdette: The original bronze casts of the obverse and reverse were delivered to the U.S. Mint. They were used to make the steel hubs. There was only the one hub of the reverse [with broken sword], and it was never used to make dies or to strike any test pieces. All the work was done on that [hub] and then on a subsequent master die [to remove the broken sword]. There are photographs in the book of the design, but no pieces were ever struck."
And:
"Burdette: In February 1922, de Francisci remodeled his design and lowered the relief. If you look at 1921 and ’22 coins, you can see subtle differences on both sides because they were actually made for [from] completely different sets of models. Contrary to Walter Breen’s story, nobody beat down the galvanos, or models, to lower the relief. They didn’t need galvanos in 1921 because hubs were reduced from copper or bronze casts. They’re much thicker and tougher. I don’t know where Breen got that story, but it’s his alone."
The word "iron" does not appear in the article.
So what's the deal, Mr. Burdette ? You've stated a couple times in this thread that the original casts were iron. Did they misquote you or did some new information come to light since your book and that article were published ? If so, then how is the book going to clarify any of this ?
Chill.
I think it is entirely reasonable to request that the supposed expert in the field explain their contradictory statements. "Don't know" would be a perfectly acceptable position. That would actually be preferable to promoting a theory that has no backing evidence.
In the sciences, there is a mechanism called peer review. If a scientist publishes a new theory and research, peers review the paper and it is typically discussed by the peers and defended by the author. If the theory is deemed to have merit, it is accepted into the body of scientific knowledge. Numismatics should be no different.
I think Mr. Burdette could sell more of his books if he would discuss and defend his statements by citing specific data and/or evidence.
I recently obtained from the ANA Library a copy of the book ["Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921"].
It appears to be a fine book. If the author would only put a tiny fraction of that type of effort into their internet postings, much of this disagreement could be avoided.
I examined the pages suggested by the author (183-296). The word "iron" does not appear anywhere that I can find. However, the word "bronze" is there several times. I can find no verification whatsoever for the author's claims in this thread that the original casting(s) were "iron" and/or "magnetic". Why Mr. Burdette's comments in this thread are in stark contradiction to his own book is a mystery.
The chronology that I have gleaned from the book and other sources is as follows (corrections welcome):
A.) A design competition was conducted for the new "Peace" Dollar by the US Mint, with Fraser running it. This was late in 1921 and time was already extremely short, given that the Treasury desired to issue the new coin before the end of the year.
B.) One of the invited artists/sculptors was Anthony de Francisci. His initial submission consisted of one obverse design and two reverse designs. All three were submitted as plaster models, along with photographs of each. The obverse was similar to the final coin, except for having a Roman numeral date and slightly different facial profile. One reverse was similar to the final coin, but with a slightly shorter and narrower Eagle. The other reverse was significantly different and it showed an Eagle breaking a sword in it's beak.
C.) After reviewing the models submitted, the de Francisci design was chosen, with certain revisions desired. With Fraser's assistance, De Francisci prepared a new model for the obverse with a normal "1921" date (with dots on either side) and a modified facial profile. The reverse Eagle was made slightly wider and taller, the word "PEACE" was added to the crag below the Eagle, and a broken sword was added, laying horizontally and clutched by the Eagle. De Francisci's other (rejected) reverse design had a broken sword. It is not entirely clear what prompted de Francisci to add these two new elements to the reverse. The Commission in charge of choosing the design may have thought that the broken sword, in conjunction with "PEACE", adequately conveyed the message that the coin was supposed to present.
D.) In New York, Fraser kept plaster models of the revised obverse and reverse while de Francisci travelled to Washington DC on 19 December with identical plasters. They were shown to US Mint and Treasury officials, as well as President Harding. The designs were accepted by all. De Francisci telephoned the good news to Fraser. Fraser suggested that bronze casts be made from the fragile plasters he had in New York. One of each was made at a cost of $30 per. Presumably, the dots on either side of the date were removed from the obverse plaster before the bronze casting was made. A later (26 December) letter from Fraser to Mint Director Baker mentions "... an added expense of $30 for two bronze casts of the models of the Peace Dollar".
E.) On 21 December the plaster models and bronze cast arrived at the Philadelphia Mint. This is stated in a letter written to US Mint Director Baker from Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Styer :
That letter explains a lot. The New York bronze cast of the obverse was used in reduction to make the obverse master hub. An electrotype "galvano" was made at the Philadelphia Mint from the reverse side plaster. This galvano was used in reduction to make the reverse master hub (which included the broken sword).
F.) News reports of the broken sword design resulted in a public reaction against it. The general sentiment being that it symbolized defeat, not Peace or Victory. Available time was insufficient to make a new plaster, casting, galvano or master hub without the sword. So de Francisci was asked by Fraser to travel to the Philadelphia Mint on 23 December and oversee Morgan's work on the master hub. Morgan carefully removed the sword from the one and only reverse master hub. A master die was then made from that hub and Morgan engraved some new details on that master die to fill in the area where the sword was removed. Working hubs, working dies, and finished coins were then made from there. Due to the additional transfers required to do this, it is possible that some detail was lost resulting in a generally soft appearance of the reverse on the struck coins.
G.) Some time after the first coins were struck de Francisci made an additional model of each side, possibly for sentimental and/or promotional purposes. These have slightly revised details and they lack the broken sword. Sword aside, the bronze casting shown at the beginning of this thread is not an exact match to the details on de Francisci's final (personal) model.
H.) Conclusion:
I believe that the bronze casting shown in this thread is the "failed" casting that Styer mentioned. It apparently was not sent to the Philadelphia Mint and it may have remained with Fraser in New York for a time. The hole that was drilled in it may have been a way to mark it as rejected, as well as a hanging point for display by the owner. The reason that it was deemed a failure is unknown. But many things can go wrong. A casting can come out warped (coins made from it wouldn't stack very well). Or a casting could have localized imperfections such as galling, especially on steeper relief slopes.
Bill Fivaz photographed the original obverse bronze cast on a visit to the Philadelphia Mint archives some years ago. It is interesting to note that he did not encounter any bronze casting of the reverse in the Philadelphia Mint archives. That fits with the theory that the reverse bronze casting was not sent to the Philadelphia Mint and that is why it turned up in private hands later on.
Yeah. I don't know why Burdette is obviously contradicting himself from his published works in this thread. Wonder why he hasn't responded yet too. Hmm
Everybody who has never made a mistake in a quick forum post please raise your hand.
No response seemed necessary. The book is accurate and includes full source citations for the use of any who might disagree with its conclusions.
James Fraser, an established professional sculptor and medalist, was the source of the iron reference.
Freas Styer was a so-so Philadelphia lawyer appointed to his Mint job only a few months earlier.
Readers can decide which is the more reliable source.
As for the auction item, nothing can be said without careful examination of the item.
Is Fraser's "iron" reference in your book ? I would like to look it up if you can tell me what page it is on.
The book quotes a letter from Fraser writing about bronze casts of the Peace Dollar:
Page 206: "Fraser had the casts made at a cost of $15 each (403)".
Footnote 403: "US Mint, NARA-CP, op, cit. Entry A1 328N, box 4. Letter dated December 26, 1921 to Baker from Fraser. He lists $30 in travel expenses and "...an added expense of $30 for two bronze casts of the models of the Peace dollar."."
That seems pretty clear. Fraser himself says "bronze", not "iron".
Also this from the book:
Page 207: "The plaster models and bronze casts arrived at the Philadelphia Mint on December 21 (408)".
Footnote 408: "US Mint, NARA-CP, op, cit. Entry A1, box 4. Letter dated December 21, 1921 to Baker from Styer."
Page 210:
"Late on December 22, Fraser Moore and O-Reilly discussed what could be done to correct the "broken sword" problem. There was no time to make a plaster model of another design and have coins struck bearing the 1921 date; the reverse hub was being cut from the electrotype ..."
This substantiates what Styer wrote in the letter to Baker, that the reverse hub was being cut from an electrotype.
I see nothing that brings into question the accuracy of Styer's letter to Baker.
No hand raised here.
But when presented with evidence the contrary, I would admit the error rather than continuing the "numismyth".
Dan did you some how get ownership of this ?
Brilliant! Love all the new offerings this morning Dan!
Love the new photos. I'd buy a replica bronze in a heartbeat.
I'm guessing that's the bronze replica?
Well, just Love coins, period.
The last picture I posted is of the reverse of a "broken sword" over-strike on a normal 1922-1935 Peace Dollar. The lighting is much more diffuse than the picture I posted before that.
reason I asked if DC got possession there seems to be more pictures of cast bronze metal
Yes, I am the buyer that was indicated in the O.P.
Congrats! What a wonderful piece of history. Thanks for sharing it with us all!
Fantastic couldn't think of a better owner !
Great use of the Broken Sword casting @dcarr ! Would it be possible to do an overstrike with the following:
Second that!
Well, just Love coins, period.
That is something that I would definitely consider four years from now (in 2021 on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Peace Dollar).
This year I am focusing on items related to the 100th anniversary of WW1.
Suddenly DC's interest in this thread is more apparent.
So, is it magnetic??????
The detail on the bronze and on the overstrikes...... just WOW, especially in the mid-wing and top of leg area.
Imagine what this series could have been, if the mint had somehow been able to execute the artist's original concept in true high-relief, high detail form. I understand the technical issues with strike and such (Barber and Morgan's designs are exceptionally utilitarian) but we can dream, right?
Wow! What a find.
It looks like the rays to the right of the tail feathers were also reworked. Probably at the time of the sword's removal?
Lance.
Do you guys realize just how extraordinary the Dan Carr 2017 Peace Dollar overstrike is? It's a true high relief plus the reverse die is created from a direct scan of the lost original bronze casting. This is much more than your typical DC overstrike. This is, dare I say it... EPIC
This is a great thread! I LOVE the 1917 over strike Dan, simply amazing!!
Hhhmmm
"1917" Peace Silver Dollar "Broken Sword" over-strike, High Relief, WW1 100th Anniversary
High Relief sold me
High Relief and Broken Sword backstory... it's a no-brainer. I ordered a complete set today.
Successful BST transactions with forum members thebigeng, SPalladino, Zoidmeister, coin22lover, coinsarefun, jwitten, CommemKing.