Aren't all pattern coins examples of "failed designs?" Lately, most pattern coins have hardly gone begging for buyers !!
I agree with IGWT here ... doesn't "failed" here simply mean "not adopted?" (or does it just mean, "I don't like it") ... either way, I can understand liking that beautiful obverse cast five times more than the reverse cast, and I was not surprised at the price differential. I was only surprised that the winner of the obverse didn't also want the reverse to complement his collection.
It is so typical of the Mint to accept an artist's design, and then turn around and reconstitute it in their own watered down (and artistically inferior) version. The state quarters series has been full of these controversies. I suspect they never bothered making dies for the dolphin obverse, but it would amazing if a struck pattern coin turned up someday.
For those who can't understand why the reverse sold for so much less, I'd suggest a little mental exercise.
First, imagine you're a very serious collector of Standing Liberty Quarters and you look forward to the day when your collection will be displayed for all to see, either at a coin show, an auction or a museum. Wouldn't you just about kill to have the 1916 obverse cast included in that display/collection? (I would, and I'd consider it the star of the collection.)
Second, if the obverse cast did not exist and all that was offered was the reverse, would you feel you needed to own it? (I wouldn't.)
Third, if you've already bought the obverse cast, would buying the reverse add much to the exhibit? (I don't think so, but only because it doesn't pair up with the obverse.)
That said, if I were in JHF's shoes, I might have played on the reverse, but I wouldn't have hesitated to drop out at a level that might seem cheap compared to the obverse.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic. Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
-- First, imagine you're a very serious collector of Standing Liberty Quarters and you look forward to the day when your collection will be displayed for all to see, either at a coin show, an auction or a museum. Wouldn't you just about kill to have the 1916 obverse cast included in that display/collection? --
Yes.
-- Second, if the obverse cast did not exist and all that was offered was the reverse, would you feel you needed to own it? --
Yes.
-- Third, if you've already bought the obverse cast, would buying the reverse add much to the exhibit? (I don't think so, but only because it doesn't pair up with the obverse.) --
I understand that the casts were produced one year apart and don't strictly qualify as "two sides of the same coin." Still, I think the reverse does pair up with the obverse in a broader sense: both unique, both designed and produced by the same artist, and each reflecting a stage in the design process. I think that placing each in the context of the other enhances the whole. That view doesn't mean that they're of the same value; but, it does mean that I'd have made a good effort on both.
None of this commentary is intended as a criticism of JHF, and I'm sure that he won't take it that way. His reasoning is likely sharper than mine . . . after all, it's his money, and there's nothing like the prospect of spending a lot of money to make one think hard.
The place where the 1917 proposed reverse would star is in an exhibit that included the 1917 Ty-II obverse cast and the two other proposed reverse design casts. (These latter three items should still be at the Philadelphia Mint – possibly in a dank vault in the basement next to the roach motels and a box of rat poison.)
The mint also has the plaster models of the 1917 Ty-II.
Had there been a 1917 obverse cast in the auction, the reverse, even if it was a rejected design, would have brought much more. (The reverse is, by itself, a spectacular piece of numismatic art. Its detail and quality also reminds one of just how limited were the mint’s design reduction skills back then.)
I agree with Andy and what I found refreshing about the ultimate "marching orders" from JHF were:
1. He wanted what he wanted and he could care less about something he didn't want going too "cheap" to someone else. As you see, it had nothing to do with the money (and I have already received an email asking me to name a price for the obverse cast, which obviously is not for sale)- he simply didn't want the reverse cast as it did not look all that attractive to him (at any price). It is true as John previously mentioned that when I hung up the phone with Stacks, the next lot had just opened at $12k - even if the lot had sold at $12k, JHF did not want it and would not have cared if someone "got a steal".
2. The "anti-registry" mindset - not wanting something many others tell you that you should have or want. Collect only what you have a passion to collect. The reverse cast did not trigger the "passion" button - why force it.
What is amazing (and RWB please amplify here) - is that not only does the 1916 SLQ have a design on it which bears its artist's initial but was not the design the artist created and approved - but, also that no one knows to this day how (and why) exactly the design was changed and the dolphins, etc. were lost. Fascinating 20th Century story.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
…not only does the 1916 SLQ have a design on it which bears its artist's initial but was not the design the artist created and approved - but, also that no one knows to this day how (and why) exactly the design was changed and the dolphins, etc. were lost. Fascinating 20th Century story.
Both the 1916 quarter and the 1917 type -1 have obverse compositions that, while similar to MacNeil’s original submission in May 1916, were concoctions of the mint engravers. The May design had been superseded by the August one (with dolphins and other important modifications), and it is this one (paired with the original reverse with olive branches) that MacNeil apparently expected to see when Mint Superintendent Adam Joyce sent him some of the new coins in January 1917.
We can only speculate about why the dolphin design was not used. There are no known letters to/from Sec. McAdoo authorizing anything other than the dolphin obverse and olive-branch reverse. The 1916 and 1917 Type-1 reverse was also a mint design – MacNeil’s own early sketches have few stars with the eagle and mostly show only olive or laurel branches. Further, notice that on the 1916/1917 Ty-1 coins, MacNeil’s initial is simply cut and slightly crooked – put into the master die by hand. On the dolphin cast, the initial is slightly curved and correctly shaped.
My own speculation is that by September, with a new mint director in charge, everyone just wanted to get the project finished – preferably before election day in November – but definitely before the end of the year. The 1916 quarters are of low quality and simply sloppy workmanship. In other situations, they would probably have been destroyed as unsatisfactory trial strikes. (Analogous to the 34,000+ high relief 1922 Peace dollars.) But the new coins were supposed to be ready July 1, 1916, and the Wilson administration wanted them in the public’s hands.
(Side note – von Engelken took the mint director’s job only because he saw it as a stepping stone to the job he wanted at the Federal Land Bank for the southeastern SE U.S. One plan had been for Robert Woolley to return to the mint after the fall election. Woolley liked the director’s job and was much admired by mint employees.)
It would be cool to see that cast along with the MacNeil drawings at the Newman Museum in St. Louis. Hopefully JHF will find a suitable venue for exhibition
Thank you, Mr. RWB, for your thoughtful research on this coin cast. Very helpful and very interesting.
And let me re-extend Mr. Wondercoin's invitation ... if you're ever out in Thailand, give me a buzz and we'll lay out a great dinner spread for you of authentic Thai food. And at least one friend of mine out there has become interested in numismatics and I'm sure he'll want to join us in an after dinner chat.
Thanks again, and ...
Warm regards,
Just Having Fun
Jefferson nickels, Standing Libs, and US-Philippines rock
<< <i>Broadstruck - I think JHF may have that "problem" solved. More on that later. Wondercoin >>
That's just Wonderful news Wondercoin!!!
I'd just about give a kindey to see a pic of JHF's Broadstruck MS67FH 1919-P SLQ... Oops mentioning offering organs to someone who resides in Thailand might not be a good thing
Anyhow I bought the Auction Catalog as I wasn't aware of this SLQ Error, but the pic in the catalog is SO POOR that all one can do to get a taste is Scratch-n-Sniff it!
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
Than you for pointing out how absurd it is for total strangers to tell me how I should best spend my money.
And the Standing Liberty Quarter is indeed a two-sided coin to me, i.e., I very much enjoy that gorgeous, soaring eagle.
But the second cast, wasn't that gorgeous, soaring eagle. It was that eagle with two design flaws stealing away its beauty and strength. I didn't bid on it because it was a failed design, and I didn't like it. I felt it would be an eye sore in my collection.
Dear IGWT: You write: "Both designs 'failed' in the sense that neither was adopted."
Yes, but that isn't the sense that I meant. The state quarter series is filled with failed designs that were adopted. Adoption or not adoption wasn't my standard.
I'm a professional editor, and while there are always many "right ways" to say something, a good writer can always tell what's a good way to say something and what's not. Ditto for coin design. While there are many possible good ways to execute a given theme, it is possible to tell what's a good design and what's not. And the obverse die cast design is a winner -- a beautiful execution of the theme. The reverse die cast is an interesting historical relic, but in my opinion, only to show a failed design.
Dear Mr. Eureka:
"First, imagine you're a very serious collector of Standing Liberty Quarters and you look forward to the day when your collection will be displayed for all to see, either at a coin show, an auction or a museum. Wouldn't you just about kill to have the 1916 obverse cast included in that display/collection? (I would, and I'd consider it the star of the collection.)
"Second, if the obverse cast did not exist and all that was offered was the reverse, would you feel you needed to own it? (I wouldn't.)"
Gosh, you said it perfectly! Thank you.
Warm regards,
Just Having FUn
Jefferson nickels, Standing Libs, and US-Philippines rock
A collector has asked “How many of these casts and models exist?”
For adopted coin designs, very few original plaster models, galvanos or casts exist outside of the Philadelphia Mint vaults. The mint’s policy in working with outside artists was to require the final models be delivered to the mint (along with the bronze casts), and that the artists destroy any working copies. This was not rigidly enforced the most notable exceptions being Saint-Gaudens’ $10, $20, and Fraser’s coin-size “electroshells.” MacNeil’s 1916 dolphin quarter is, as far as I am aware, the only example of an adopted, but not used design that still exists as a cast or model available for private ownership.
There are a few artist’s models for proposed, but not accepted, designs in museum collections. (DeFrancisci and Manship coin design models and casts are in the Smithsonian American Art Museum collection.) There are also a few in private collections, and I’m certain there are a handful more that I’m not aware of.
Overall, the MacNeil casts (both of them) are at the pinnacle of a very small surviving population of professional numismatic work available to collectors.
Comments
I agree with IGWT here ... doesn't "failed" here simply mean "not adopted?" (or does it just mean, "I don't like it") ... either way, I can understand liking that beautiful obverse cast five times more than the reverse cast, and I was not surprised at the price differential. I was only surprised that the winner of the obverse didn't also want the reverse to complement his collection.
It is so typical of the Mint to accept an artist's design, and then turn around and reconstitute it in their own watered down (and artistically inferior) version. The state quarters series has been full of these controversies. I suspect they never bothered making dies for the dolphin obverse, but it would amazing if a struck pattern coin turned up someday.
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
First, imagine you're a very serious collector of Standing Liberty Quarters and you look forward to the day when your collection will be displayed for all to see, either at a coin show, an auction or a museum. Wouldn't you just about kill to have the 1916 obverse cast included in that display/collection? (I would, and I'd consider it the star of the collection.)
Second, if the obverse cast did not exist and all that was offered was the reverse, would you feel you needed to own it? (I wouldn't.)
Third, if you've already bought the obverse cast, would buying the reverse add much to the exhibit? (I don't think so, but only because it doesn't pair up with the obverse.)
That said, if I were in JHF's shoes, I might have played on the reverse, but I wouldn't have hesitated to drop out at a level that might seem cheap compared to the obverse.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Yes.
-- Second, if the obverse cast did not exist and all that was offered was the reverse, would you feel you needed to own it? --
Yes.
-- Third, if you've already bought the obverse cast, would buying the reverse add much to the exhibit? (I don't think so, but only because it doesn't pair up with the obverse.) --
I understand that the casts were produced one year apart and don't strictly qualify as "two sides of the same coin." Still, I think the reverse does pair up with the obverse in a broader sense: both unique, both designed and produced by the same artist, and each reflecting a stage in the design process. I think that placing each in the context of the other enhances the whole. That view doesn't mean that they're of the same value; but, it does mean that I'd have made a good effort on both.
None of this commentary is intended as a criticism of JHF, and I'm sure that he won't take it that way. His reasoning is likely sharper than mine . . . after all, it's his money, and there's nothing like the prospect of spending a lot of money to make one think hard.
The mint also has the plaster models of the 1917 Ty-II.
Had there been a 1917 obverse cast in the auction, the reverse, even if it was a rejected design, would have brought much more. (The reverse is, by itself, a spectacular piece of numismatic art. Its detail and quality also reminds one of just how limited were the mint’s design reduction skills back then.)
1. He wanted what he wanted and he could care less about something he didn't want going too "cheap" to someone else. As you see, it had nothing to do with the money (and I have already received an email asking me to name a price for the obverse cast, which obviously is not for sale)- he simply didn't want the reverse cast as it did not look all that attractive to him (at any price). It is true as John previously mentioned that when I hung up the phone with Stacks, the next lot had just opened at $12k - even if the lot had sold at $12k, JHF did not want it and would not have cared if someone "got a steal".
2. The "anti-registry" mindset - not wanting something many others tell you that you should have or want. Collect only what you have a passion to collect. The reverse cast did not trigger the "passion" button - why force it.
What is amazing (and RWB please amplify here) - is that not only does the 1916 SLQ have a design on it which bears its artist's initial but was not the design the artist created and approved - but, also that no one knows to this day how (and why) exactly the design was changed and the dolphins, etc. were lost. Fascinating 20th Century story.
Wondercoin
Both the 1916 quarter and the 1917 type -1 have obverse compositions that, while similar to MacNeil’s original submission in May 1916, were concoctions of the mint engravers. The May design had been superseded by the August one (with dolphins and other important modifications), and it is this one (paired with the original reverse with olive branches) that MacNeil apparently expected to see when Mint Superintendent Adam Joyce sent him some of the new coins in January 1917.
We can only speculate about why the dolphin design was not used. There are no known letters to/from Sec. McAdoo authorizing anything other than the dolphin obverse and olive-branch reverse. The 1916 and 1917 Type-1 reverse was also a mint design – MacNeil’s own early sketches have few stars with the eagle and mostly show only olive or laurel branches. Further, notice that on the 1916/1917 Ty-1 coins, MacNeil’s initial is simply cut and slightly crooked – put into the master die by hand. On the dolphin cast, the initial is slightly curved and correctly shaped.
My own speculation is that by September, with a new mint director in charge, everyone just wanted to get the project finished – preferably before election day in November – but definitely before the end of the year. The 1916 quarters are of low quality and simply sloppy workmanship. In other situations, they would probably have been destroyed as unsatisfactory trial strikes. (Analogous to the 34,000+ high relief 1922 Peace dollars.) But the new coins were supposed to be ready July 1, 1916, and the Wilson administration wanted them in the public’s hands.
(Side note – von Engelken took the mint director’s job only because he saw it as a stepping stone to the job he wanted at the Federal Land Bank for the southeastern SE U.S. One plan had been for Robert Woolley to return to the mint after the fall election. Woolley liked the director’s job and was much admired by mint employees.)
Wondercoin
Now if you could find someone in Thailand to photograph his wonderful SLQ collection for the rest of us to see that would be awesome!
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Let's add to that Exhibit the PI coins!!
Wondercoin
And let me re-extend Mr. Wondercoin's invitation ... if you're ever out in Thailand, give me a buzz and we'll lay out a great dinner spread for you of authentic Thai food. And at least one friend of mine out there has become interested in numismatics and I'm sure he'll want to join us in an after dinner chat.
Thanks again, and ...
Warm regards,
Just Having Fun
<< <i>Broadstruck - I think JHF may have that "problem" solved. More on that later. Wondercoin >>
That's just Wonderful news Wondercoin!!!
I'd just about give a kindey to see a pic of JHF's Broadstruck MS67FH 1919-P SLQ... Oops mentioning offering organs to someone who resides in Thailand might not be a good thing
Anyhow I bought the Auction Catalog as I wasn't aware of this SLQ Error, but the pic in the catalog is SO POOR that all one can do to get a taste is Scratch-n-Sniff it!
Than you for pointing out how absurd it is for total strangers to tell me how I should best spend my money.
And the Standing Liberty Quarter is indeed a two-sided coin to me, i.e., I very much enjoy that gorgeous, soaring eagle.
But the second cast, wasn't that gorgeous, soaring eagle. It was that eagle with two design flaws stealing away its beauty and strength. I didn't bid on it because it was a failed design, and I didn't like it. I felt it would be an eye sore in my collection.
Dear IGWT: You write: "Both designs 'failed' in the sense that neither was adopted."
Yes, but that isn't the sense that I meant. The state quarter series is filled with failed designs that were adopted. Adoption or not adoption wasn't my standard.
I'm a professional editor, and while there are always many "right ways" to say something, a good writer can always tell what's a good way to say something and what's not. Ditto for coin design. While there are many possible good ways to execute a given theme, it is possible to tell what's a good design and what's not. And the obverse die cast design is a winner -- a beautiful execution of the theme. The reverse die cast is an interesting historical relic, but in my opinion, only to show a failed design.
Dear Mr. Eureka:
"First, imagine you're a very serious collector of Standing Liberty Quarters and you look forward to the day when your collection will be displayed for all to see, either at a coin show, an auction or a museum. Wouldn't you just about kill to have the 1916 obverse cast included in that display/collection? (I would, and I'd consider it the star of the collection.)
"Second, if the obverse cast did not exist and all that was offered was the reverse, would you feel you needed to own it? (I wouldn't.)"
Gosh, you said it perfectly! Thank you.
Warm regards,
Just Having FUn
JHF congratulations from one Quarter collector to another!
(almost makes me want to collect some stuff after 1900!)
Go to Early United States Coins - to order the New "Early United States Half Dollar Vol. 1 / 1794-1807" book or the 1st new Bust Quarter book!
For adopted coin designs, very few original plaster models, galvanos or casts exist outside of the Philadelphia Mint vaults. The mint’s policy in working with outside artists was to require the final models be delivered to the mint (along with the bronze casts), and that the artists destroy any working copies. This was not rigidly enforced the most notable exceptions being Saint-Gaudens’ $10, $20, and Fraser’s coin-size “electroshells.” MacNeil’s 1916 dolphin quarter is, as far as I am aware, the only example of an adopted, but not used design that still exists as a cast or model available for private ownership.
There are a few artist’s models for proposed, but not accepted, designs in museum collections. (DeFrancisci and Manship coin design models and casts are in the Smithsonian American Art Museum collection.) There are also a few in private collections, and I’m certain there are a handful more that I’m not aware of.
Overall, the MacNeil casts (both of them) are at the pinnacle of a very small surviving population of professional numismatic work available to collectors.
You said:
<< <i>Dear Oreville:Than you for pointing out how absurd it is for total strangers to tell me how I should best spend my money.
>>
True, you have your family to take care of that!! Enough is enough!!