Options
Has a commemorative coin ever been struck later as a circulating coin
JapanJohn
Posts: 2,030 ✭
Something was made so nice as a commen that it made the big time?
I've been looking at that USMC coin and thinking it should be a circulating coin.
Right after Dan Carr's astronaut coin.
John
I've been looking at that USMC coin and thinking it should be a circulating coin.
Right after Dan Carr's astronaut coin.
John
0
Comments
<< <i>Has a commemorative coin ever been struck later as a circulating coin
Something was made so nice as a commen that it made the big time? >>
The Washington quarter was originally intended to be a 1 year commem that made it big time. Check out this thread.
In 2005 the Canadian mint released a circulating commemorative nickel reproducing this design. I would call this a commemorative commemorating a commemorative! Only this time It is round, lacks the Morse code, which I now was looking for and has double dates - 1945 and 1960. I guess it officialy commemorates 60 years after the end of WW II.
I thought that early commems are the big time...
The Peace dollar was intended to commemorate the Conference on Limitation of Armaments and the official end of WW-1, but it was planned as a circulating coin from the beginning so everyone could have a memento of the end of the war.
The Lincoln cent was intended to honor Lincoln but not specifically commemorate the centennial of his birth. It was a replacement for the “liberty” cent. The coin might not have occurred if it were not for Victor Brenner showing President Roosevelt one of his Lincoln medals in August 1908. There is no mint correspondence discussing a Lincoln coin until after the President got involved.
Sinnock’s nearly-featureless Liberty Bell was a favorite (along with Ben Franklin) of Director Nellie Ross, and both were used on 1942 half-cent designs among other medallic items. No dies or pattern pieces were made.
<< <i>Columbian half dollars were released into circulation. >>
But they were only released into circulation because they failed as NCLT.
<< <i>The 1932 Washington quarter was intended to be a regular issue replacing the Standing Liberty design of 1917. Treasury disliked the SL design because of it’s minute obverse figure and poor striking characteristics, so they were pleased to contribute to the Washington Birth Bicentennial with a circulating coin as well as a national medal. That was how the Treasury Dept. "sold" the idea to President Hoover so they could get his approval. Hoover opposed commemoratives and stated so to the Congress in veto messages. >>
According to Scott B in his post ATS, it seems that Congress initially only authorized the 1932 Washington quarter design for a single year. Is this not the case?
<< <i>When the Washington quarter was issued in 1932, the coin was very well received by the public. With the letters and acclaim from the public, Mint Director Robert Grant impressed upon Secretary Mills to request that congress extend the one-year issue to be a regular issue. >>
I saw your replies that refer to Treasury and Mint documents that say they intended the Washington quarter to be a regular issue but it doesn't really matter to me what the Treasury or Mint (or Hoover) wanted from the coin design. Coin designs had to be approved by Congress and did Congress only approve of it initially as a one year design or not? Put another way, it's the intention of the coin authorizers, not the promoters or producers, that matters.
My comments are supported by contemporary documents. You can see some of them in the Whitman Guide Book on Washington Quarters. The legislation is also clear on this point.
The truth is more interesting than the old story in part because it shows that Treasury actively promoted replacement of a circulating design long before the 25-year limit. This also means we may eventually discover more about why MacNeil's design was disliked and possibly the causes of striking problems in the SLQ series. The old, false story leads nowhere.
<< <i>Re: Washington Quarter.
My comments are supported by contemporary documents. You can see some of them in the Whitman Guide Book on Washington Quarters. The legislation is also clear on this point.
The truth is more interesting than the old story in part because it shows that Treasury actively promoted replacement of a circulating design long before the 25-year limit. This also means we may eventually discover more about why MacNeil's design was disliked and possibly the causes of striking problems in the SLQ series. The old, false story leads nowhere. >>
Your comments don't address whether Congress initially authorized the design for one year or as an ongoing design. You mention Hoover's vetoes but vetoes can be overridden. Is the original, successfully passed authorizing legislation covered in the Whitman Guide Book on Washington Quarters? Your post doesn't say it is. If it is, I'll check it out.
Since you say the legislation is clear, can you quote or point to the reference where Congress authorizes the 1932 Washington quarter design as an ongoing design? The texts of the actual Congressional Acts authorizing modern coins are online. Is the same available for the 1932 Washington quarter somewhere? I'm interested to see what the original Congressional legislation says because legislation should be a matter of public record. It's interesting that a false story that seemingly can be so easily disproven has been prepetuated. I'm interested to learn how and why the story was created as well as why anyone would believe it given accessible public record.