Options
MacNeil SLQ Bronze Casts ...... Sold
RWB
Posts: 8,082 ✭
According to an ad in Coin World, the bronze cast of the approved design from the SLQ (with dolphins) will be sold at auction by Stack’s in May. This is the design MacNeil thought was going to be on the 1916 quarter, but the mint engravers concocted their own and that was used on the 1916 and 1917 Ty-1 quarters. This piece is about 7-inches in diameter and is a cast of the plaster model, complete with designer’s initial. The bronze cast was submitted to the Mint in September 1916 and should have been used to make reductions and master hubs.
The Stack’s auction piece could be a “backup” cast made in case the one shipped to the mint was damaged, or possibly, the one sent to the mint, then returned to MacNeil in January 1917 when the design was changed. There’s no way to know. A photo of the plaster model, but with two monograms, is in J. Cline’s SLQ book. A photo of the casts and extensive description is in Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921.
Along with this, is the 1917 Ty-2 reverse having stars in front and behind the flying eagle, instead of the adopted version.
As far as can be determined, both pieces are unique.
Broadstruck posted photos of these a while ago in an SLQ thread. Photos can also be found on www.USpatterns.com
The Stack’s auction piece could be a “backup” cast made in case the one shipped to the mint was damaged, or possibly, the one sent to the mint, then returned to MacNeil in January 1917 when the design was changed. There’s no way to know. A photo of the plaster model, but with two monograms, is in J. Cline’s SLQ book. A photo of the casts and extensive description is in Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921.
Along with this, is the 1917 Ty-2 reverse having stars in front and behind the flying eagle, instead of the adopted version.
As far as can be determined, both pieces are unique.
Broadstruck posted photos of these a while ago in an SLQ thread. Photos can also be found on www.USpatterns.com
0
Comments
Do we know where the plasters reside?
Could the bronze pieces have been made more recently from the plasters?
To be clear, I have no reason to believe that the pieces were not made in 1916, but I'd like to be sure.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
RWB, here they are and I hope Stack's lists them both as a single lot!
No one knows where the plasters are - could still be in the Philadelphia mint, although mint documents from 1916 state that MacNeil submitted a bronze cast, not a plaster model. (This was consistent with the original designs in May 1916, and with the other submissions by outside artists. Bronze could not be easily altered by mint engravers or damaged by the reducing lathe stylus.)
There's nothing to suggest after-the-fact production and little reason to do so for rejected designs - particularly designs not generally recognized by collectors or artists. Faking would be nearly impossible due to the low quality of extant photos and their very limited access – one would have had to know information that was not published until 2005.
The provenance has the same limitations as the Fraser Indian head “electroshells:” trash that we now recognize as treasure.
(PS: For full disclosure - I examined these pieces while researching the SLQ for my book Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921, and took the photos Broadstruck posted, above. I found nothing suspicious or inconsistent about them or the owners' story of discovery. I do not have any interest in the pieces other than numismatic research, although I contributed to the catalog descriptions for Stack's based on material in my book.)
When I first saw the casts on the www.USpatterns.com a couple years ago, I was unaware of the CW article. I did check a few of late teen through early twenies copies of the Treasury Departments Catalogues of Coins, Tokens, and Medals in the numismatic collection of the Philadelphia Mint by John Landis. No mention of these casts where made in any of the editions. I recall reading somewhere over the years, that the Philadelphia Mint Numismatic collection was sold to the public in the early 1940's (1943-44), maybe MrEureka has more info on this as the Platinum CBH Patterns where also once part of the Mint's collection.
There is a vault in the Philadelphia Mint that is stuffed with old models, galvanos, casts, hubs and other obsolete materials from the past. We know that the Peace dollar cast and Buffalo nickel model (plaster) - Bill Fivaz photographed them - are there, as well as some of the SLQ versions and WL half models, but the mint refuses to release a comprehensive list or allow any art or numismatic researchers access. "Security" and "cost" are the most commonly given excuses.
Kewl!
TD
(Why can't I ever find anything like that at yard sales?)
<< <i>There is a vault in the Philadelphia Mint that is stuffed with old models, galvanos, casts, hubs and other obsolete materials from the past. We know that the Peace dollar cast and Buffalo nickel model (plaster) - Bill Fivaz photographed them - are there, as well as some of the SLQ versions and WL half models, but the mint refuses to release a comprehensive list or allow any art or numismatic researchers access. "Security" and "cost" are the most commonly given excuses. >>
That's a real shame as I'm sure they are even less likely since 9/11
Maybe Geraldo Rivera could gain access?
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
RWB, the following should make everyone ill... do you recall the amount paid for these at the Garage Sale
Nope. These are bronze casts made from the original large-size design models. A "splasher" is a lead or tin strike from a die - sometimes the lead was melted, then poured on a base and the die manually pushed into the molten lead. This made a quick impression of the die and also sometimes splashed some of the liquid lead outward. It could be used with unhardened dies without damaging them.
Re: Cost.
The CW article says how much, but I recall it being about $2 or $5 – not much, but consistent with garage sale prices.
<< <i>No one knows where the plasters are >>
I suspect njcoincrank!
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
(I didn't catalogue them, nor do I work for the auction house that is selling them, I'm just an appreciative observer.)
Incidentally, Macneil taught at the Art Students League in NYC, which is right down 57th Street from Stack's about a block away. I used to walk by it everyday between the subway and work and think about the folks who used to trudge in and out -- Macneil, James Earle Fraser, Anthony DeFrancisci, and more.
Regarding the garage sale bit, when I was 13 a family friend who ran a used bookstore called me. We had gotten to know him because I always pestered him for coin books in his shop -- he knew of my intense interest. As it turns out, he was cleaning out an estate in Delaware and had found this big old plaster thing that looked like a coin and wondered if I could help him sell it. It was Adam Pietz's design proposal for the Delaware commemorative half dollar, still wrapped in the original cardboard! That piece was sold in a B+M sale in 1992. No where near as cool as Macneil's bronzes, but pretty nifty nonetheless.
The backs are nearly flat with minor slumping consistent with cast metal. They have a good ring, and do not resemble electrotype shells that have been filled ("galvano"). This is consistent with contemporary documents and practices (i.e.: casts were preferred to electrotypes). There are multiple references throughout the 1907-1921 period of the use of bronze casts by the artists and mint engravers. Electrotypes are seldom mentioned, with the most prominent instances being as rough samples (and inferior in Barber’s opinion) sent to Saint-Gaudens of the EHR $20 progress strikes, and Fraser’s “electroshell” pieces used as one would use pattern pieces.
Anyone planning to bid should examine the originals and refer to source materials listed in the auction catalog.
so that I can forward a scan of a Peace Dollar
Error that I think you'd like for your book.......
Thanks
Fred
K
The Obverse is listed with a start of $32K and in the following lot the Reverse with a start of $12K.
I wonder why MacNeil portrayed the dolphins in such an unrealistic, stylized manner. I understand the symbolism in using them, but why not match the elegance and realism of the Liberty figure?
Dan0------
First Place Winner of the 2005 Rampage design contest!
<< <i>love those dolphin design elements >>
Me too!
>>>My Collection
[There is yet another obverse version, not known as a cast or reduction, that shows liberty with a sheathed sword and covered breasts, looking toward Europe. The religious motto is behind her. This was a more aggressive composition and probably too much so for approval. See Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921, pp.175-176 for details.]
greg
www.brunkauctions.com
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
No one expected the first one to fetch over $100K. A couple of people were there primarily to buy that piece, but were disappointed. It sold to a phone bidder.
The only thing more surprising than the price? The fact that the winning bidder, who had just paid a world record price for a coin-related item, had no interest in the 2nd one whatsoever! In fact, they hung up and the winning bidder didn't even listen to it sell! How puzzling.
Needless to say, the winning bidder on the 2nd one was giggling with delight when he bought it for less than 1/5th of the price of the first one.
I had guessed the first one would bring double what the 2nd one brought with a total realization of about $100K. Shows what I know.
I also wish to personally thank RWB for his thoughtful research on the artist's cast and the time he spent with me ahead of the auction covering a few of the finer points on this auction lot. If you ever find yourself in S. CA or Thailand - do make time for a very special "thank you" dinner. And thanks Mr. Eureka for your research and thoughts on the piece as well.
Wondercoin
True, they are not two of a matched set or anything. I realize one doesn't go with the other, so to speak. But they do have a lot in common -- same artist, same essential subject, same time period. Is the obverse really 5 times cooler than the reverse? I was betting on twice as cool.
I'm going to stop guessing on this modern stuff and stick to the old worn-out things.
I also wish to personally thank RWB for his thoughtful research on the artist's cast and the time he spent with me ahead of the auction covering a few of the finer points on this auction lot. If you ever find yourself in S. CA or Thailand - do make time for a very special "thank you" dinner. And thanks Mr. Eureka for your research and thoughts on the piece as well.
Wondercoin
Wondercoin
Somehow I missed how the piece hammered at $105K. Did the phone bidder make a cut bid? The underbidder was at $100K. The next increment should have been $110K, although it is at the auctioneer's discretion. If the phone bid was a cut, that was not made clear to the underbidder, who might then have gone to $110K for the win. If the phone bid was not a cut, why wasn't the increment $110K?
I predicted $100K hammer for this piece, so I wasn't far off !! But I did think it senseless to let the other one go. I was tempted to try to buy both of these as well, but there was plenty of interest without me.
Edited to add: J.K., regarding the relative ratio of values, this is just confirmation that as always, "the obverse carries the coin." Besides, the obverse design is magnificently detailed, and the obverse cast was simply a more impressive object in addition to wondercoin's point about its superior historical significance and legitimacy.
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
It's still a rare, possibly unique, original and legitimate piece, showing another pattern design for the reverse of the series !! Goes well with a collection that includes patterns and errors, not to mention the obverse cast.
Anyway, it's done, and I truly hope JHF is as thrilled with this new acquisition as can be. This is really something awesome IMHO.
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
Congrats! I'm glad it went to a collector as passionate as JustHavingFun (who I knew only very peripherally from life at a former firm). It will look awesome with his set. Has he mentioned how/if he plans to display it?
For the record, my last post was a response to a post that is no longer present.
.... and I still think the pair would have made handsome "cufflinks," to borrow a phrase from the late great C. Douglas Smith
You guys are familar with "The Blue Boy" (c. 1770) - an oil painting by Thomas Gainsborough that now resides in the Huntington Library, San Marino, California. JHF looked me straight in the eyes and said "I simply wouldn't want the painting if the boy was wearing tie-dye". What more could I say?
Wondercoin
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
You think so?
Wondercoin
Dear John Kraljevich:
Thanks so much for your kind words. They're much appreciated. And I'm happy that you landed on your feet after your other firm was swallowed up.
Dear Ones:
I think the set was broken up because they weren't really a set. The obverse is 1916. The reverse is 1917.
The obverse is truly beautiful, perhaps more so than the 1916 obverse that was actually used.
By contrast, the 1917 reverse with the odd placement of the stars is an obviously failed design, pure and simple. That's why the 1917 reverse went begging for about one-eighth the price of the obverse.
Best wishes,
Just Having FUn
It was an interesting experience examining the casts back in 2004 and helping the owner understand what they were and why they were originally made. It was also serendipitous that my research had been focused on exactly the period when these casts were produced. This permitted a fuller understanding of their relevance to the new designs of 1916. It is unfortunate that none of the pattern pieces likely made from this design were saved. Should one ever turn up, the value of that coin and the 1916 obverse cast would be phenomenal.
Thanks to Stacks for allowing me to help present these beautiful MacNeil pieces, and to the consignor for their patience and confidence.
Also thanks to broadstruck and pistareen!
I would like to make some comments for those that questioned JHF not buying the 1917 reverse cast even at a bargain price:
(1) After spending over $100,000, doesn't one need to be very discriminate in their buying?
(2) No one, even JHF, has unlimited funds, (there are always spouses and family to contend with)
(3) perhaps it is mostly the obverse of the SLQ series that JHF really cares about?
-- The obverse is truly beautiful, perhaps more so than the 1916 obverse that was actually used. By contrast, the 1917 reverse with the odd placement of the stars is an obviously failed design, pure and simple. That's why the 1917 reverse went begging for about one-eighth the price of the obverse. --
Both designs "failed" in the sense that neither was adopted. Aren't you saying simply that you like the design of the obverse more than the design of the reverse for aesthetic reasons alone; and, if so, why doesn't the historical significance of the pieces count for more and bring them closer in value?
Congratulations on the acquisition.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)