Rare Coins and Politics
fastcoin
Posts: 161 ✭
Hello fellow forum members. My name is Joel D. Rettew, a name you have probably heard, considering that I have been in the rare coin business since 1953. I am a life member of the ANA and PNG, as well as a contributor to the PCGS price guide and the Guide Book of U.S. Coins (a.k.a. Red Book). Since David Hall is a friend--in fact he got his start in the coin business working with me in 1975-1976--I decided to join this forum. Actually, I joined awhile ago, but never took the time to post. I have, however, been reading some of the posts here and I can see the benefit to the hobby. The PCGS forum is clearly an educational forum that I have enjoyed as of late. As such, I have decided to start contributing educational articles here and be more available to answer questions. In other words, I want to participate and share my decades of experience......and continue to learn from fellow forum members.
Here's an article I wrote that you may enjoy, considering the upcoming election:
Rare Coins and Politics
A scandalous coin!
Politics and rare coins might not seem to go together, but they are linked throughout the history of the United States. From the first coins of the 1650s to the change you carry in your pocket today, political influence has been a significant part of United States coinage.
The first coins struck in what is now the United States were minted in 1652, more than a century before the "United States" existed. The Massachusetts Bay Colony struck silver coins from 1652 through about 1682, yet all but one of the denominations always carried the date 1652 regardless of the actual year of issue. Why? Politics. Since the coins were minted openly, there was real intent to fool the British Crown into believing that all of coinage in circulation was actually minted in 1652, when there was no monarchy. Instead, it was probably a courtesy. The colonists were saying: "We're going to continue to mint our own coins while not appearing to flagrantly ignore your edicts."
In 1665, after receiving a book of laws from the colonists, the King's Commissioners requested that a number of laws be changed or repealed. Among them was the following: ". . .title money, the law about a mint house, etc., be repealed, for coining is a royal prerogative, for the usurping of which yet act of indemnity is only a salvo."
Salvo? More like a salvation, as the coins were desperately needed in the colonies. It was time when wampum, musket bullets, and counterfeit foreign coins were used as money alongside the few legitimate coins that were available. The colonists ignored the request of the Crown, evidently without penalty.
The Civil War of 1861-65 presented tremendous problems for circulating coinage. The silver half dime was one of the many denominations that wasn't circulating, and the five-cent fractional currency was considered to be a poor substitute. A solution to the problem was a coin of a new metal, and coins struck in nickel were introduced.
Nickel is impractical for coin production, as its hardness is conducive to laminations, die breaks, poor strikes, and many other problems. When James Pollock, director of the Mint in 1865, proposed a new nickel alloy for coinage, he was under the influence of political pressure. His personal preference was for coins made of French bronze, but nickel magnate Joseph Wharton had many friends in Congress, and the new nickel alloy won out. Nickel had been used in the copper-nickel cents of 1856-64, but the demand or nickel became unprecedented with the introduction of the three cent nickel (1865) and the five cent nickel (1866).
Nickel coins are still struck today, of course, and many of the problems are just as prevalent. Try putting together a set of problem-free Jefferson nickels, let alone such series as Buffalo nickels or Shield nickels.
The political clout of the followers of the late Anthony Comstock led to a significant change in our coinage in 1917. Hermon MacNeil's magnificent Standing Liberty quarter design, first introduced in 1916, was beautiful and popular. It was also scandalous, at least to the highly vocal Society for the Suppression of Vice. Treasury Secretary William McAdoo was bombarded with complaints about Miss Liberty's partial nudity, and in mid-1917 the design was modified to cover the lady. It is often argued that there were other reasons for the change, such as 1) the type one coins wouldn't stack, or 2) the chain mail placed on Miss Liberty was a symbol of war, or 3) it was done so the coin would strike up better. Argument #3 is totally invalid, as the type one Standing Liberty quarter is consistently far superior in strike to the type two. The other two arguments have a degree of credibility based on surviving documents, but the most important reason for the change was almost assuredly a case of "comstockery" as the prudery was labeled by prominent writers of the era.
While the incidents of coins mixing with politics mentioned above are famous ones, perhaps no other case can quite compare to the Morgan dollar. The Mint Act of 1873 abolished this denomination, along with the other issues such as the three-cent silver and the half dime. By 1878 the silver dollar was back as the result of extreme political pressure from the silver interests, such as the owners of the gigantic Comstock Lode, a monumental silver mine in Nevada. Overriding a presidential veto, the Bland-Allison Act of February 28, 1878 provided that the government would purchase $2 million to $4 million in domestic silver for coinage into silver dollars. It took less than two weeks for the new design to be approved, the dies made, and the first proofs struck.
The Sherman Silver Purchase Act set the amount of silver to be purchased monthly at an exact figure-187 tons per month. When the act was repealed in 1893, the mine owners were rich and the Treasury vaults were overflowing with unneeded silver dollars. It wasn't until 1898 that legislation provided for the disposal of the remaining silver through continued silver dollar mintage. In 1904, the silver finally ran out in 1893, the mine owners were rich and the Treasury vaults were overflowing with unneeded silver dollars. It wasn't until 1898 that legislation provided for the disposal of the remaining silver through continued silver dollar mintage. In 1904, the silver finally ran out, and Morgan dollar production ended for 17 years.
The story of the Morgan dollar was nearly finished-but not quite. In 1918 the Pittman Act was instituted, which required the melting of up to 350,000,000 silver dollars. A little over a quarter of a billion-that's right, billion-were actually melted, but political pressure caused another weird scenario. The silver lobby persuaded Congress to include a clause that domestic silver be purchased to replace the silver dollars lost in the melting. What was this silver used for? Starting in 1921, it was used to mint silver dollars!
Coins and politics. Politics and coins. After nearly 350 years, they are still inextricably entwined, an integral part of our past and an inevitable part of our future.
The three-cent nickel: the alloy won out over silver
Here's an article I wrote that you may enjoy, considering the upcoming election:
Rare Coins and Politics
A scandalous coin!
Politics and rare coins might not seem to go together, but they are linked throughout the history of the United States. From the first coins of the 1650s to the change you carry in your pocket today, political influence has been a significant part of United States coinage.
The first coins struck in what is now the United States were minted in 1652, more than a century before the "United States" existed. The Massachusetts Bay Colony struck silver coins from 1652 through about 1682, yet all but one of the denominations always carried the date 1652 regardless of the actual year of issue. Why? Politics. Since the coins were minted openly, there was real intent to fool the British Crown into believing that all of coinage in circulation was actually minted in 1652, when there was no monarchy. Instead, it was probably a courtesy. The colonists were saying: "We're going to continue to mint our own coins while not appearing to flagrantly ignore your edicts."
In 1665, after receiving a book of laws from the colonists, the King's Commissioners requested that a number of laws be changed or repealed. Among them was the following: ". . .title money, the law about a mint house, etc., be repealed, for coining is a royal prerogative, for the usurping of which yet act of indemnity is only a salvo."
Salvo? More like a salvation, as the coins were desperately needed in the colonies. It was time when wampum, musket bullets, and counterfeit foreign coins were used as money alongside the few legitimate coins that were available. The colonists ignored the request of the Crown, evidently without penalty.
The Civil War of 1861-65 presented tremendous problems for circulating coinage. The silver half dime was one of the many denominations that wasn't circulating, and the five-cent fractional currency was considered to be a poor substitute. A solution to the problem was a coin of a new metal, and coins struck in nickel were introduced.
Nickel is impractical for coin production, as its hardness is conducive to laminations, die breaks, poor strikes, and many other problems. When James Pollock, director of the Mint in 1865, proposed a new nickel alloy for coinage, he was under the influence of political pressure. His personal preference was for coins made of French bronze, but nickel magnate Joseph Wharton had many friends in Congress, and the new nickel alloy won out. Nickel had been used in the copper-nickel cents of 1856-64, but the demand or nickel became unprecedented with the introduction of the three cent nickel (1865) and the five cent nickel (1866).
Nickel coins are still struck today, of course, and many of the problems are just as prevalent. Try putting together a set of problem-free Jefferson nickels, let alone such series as Buffalo nickels or Shield nickels.
The political clout of the followers of the late Anthony Comstock led to a significant change in our coinage in 1917. Hermon MacNeil's magnificent Standing Liberty quarter design, first introduced in 1916, was beautiful and popular. It was also scandalous, at least to the highly vocal Society for the Suppression of Vice. Treasury Secretary William McAdoo was bombarded with complaints about Miss Liberty's partial nudity, and in mid-1917 the design was modified to cover the lady. It is often argued that there were other reasons for the change, such as 1) the type one coins wouldn't stack, or 2) the chain mail placed on Miss Liberty was a symbol of war, or 3) it was done so the coin would strike up better. Argument #3 is totally invalid, as the type one Standing Liberty quarter is consistently far superior in strike to the type two. The other two arguments have a degree of credibility based on surviving documents, but the most important reason for the change was almost assuredly a case of "comstockery" as the prudery was labeled by prominent writers of the era.
While the incidents of coins mixing with politics mentioned above are famous ones, perhaps no other case can quite compare to the Morgan dollar. The Mint Act of 1873 abolished this denomination, along with the other issues such as the three-cent silver and the half dime. By 1878 the silver dollar was back as the result of extreme political pressure from the silver interests, such as the owners of the gigantic Comstock Lode, a monumental silver mine in Nevada. Overriding a presidential veto, the Bland-Allison Act of February 28, 1878 provided that the government would purchase $2 million to $4 million in domestic silver for coinage into silver dollars. It took less than two weeks for the new design to be approved, the dies made, and the first proofs struck.
The Sherman Silver Purchase Act set the amount of silver to be purchased monthly at an exact figure-187 tons per month. When the act was repealed in 1893, the mine owners were rich and the Treasury vaults were overflowing with unneeded silver dollars. It wasn't until 1898 that legislation provided for the disposal of the remaining silver through continued silver dollar mintage. In 1904, the silver finally ran out in 1893, the mine owners were rich and the Treasury vaults were overflowing with unneeded silver dollars. It wasn't until 1898 that legislation provided for the disposal of the remaining silver through continued silver dollar mintage. In 1904, the silver finally ran out, and Morgan dollar production ended for 17 years.
The story of the Morgan dollar was nearly finished-but not quite. In 1918 the Pittman Act was instituted, which required the melting of up to 350,000,000 silver dollars. A little over a quarter of a billion-that's right, billion-were actually melted, but political pressure caused another weird scenario. The silver lobby persuaded Congress to include a clause that domestic silver be purchased to replace the silver dollars lost in the melting. What was this silver used for? Starting in 1921, it was used to mint silver dollars!
Coins and politics. Politics and coins. After nearly 350 years, they are still inextricably entwined, an integral part of our past and an inevitable part of our future.
The three-cent nickel: the alloy won out over silver
0
Comments
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
While I don't think your post is what this is about (they just don't want us arguing current politics I believe), the title alone made me think it may be good to point this out, a recent post from the Moderator here.
Carol Post on political threads
Since you look to be a new member here, just thought I would give you a heads up. Enjoy the forum!
Rob
Hi Joel!!
And Welcome!!
~
"America suffers today from too much pluribus and not enough unum.".....Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
I am not usually one to stir the pot, but if you could do a search on your name (for other threads that relate to you) and address those points it might be a good thing.
<< <i>Great read, and clearly doesn't find under the political issues concerns Carol posted on, the post does not push any political idealogy nor favor any party or canidate. >>
Well said Walmann. Too bad your point will be lost on many.
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
I moved to Southern California one year ago and just recently had a chance to meet with Joel face-to-face. I can tell you that he is a pleasure to deal with and very honest. Most of his coins are PCGS and NGC certified and he showed me some real gems.....really rare varieties. His raw coins were accurately graded and the prices were fair. I enjoyed visiting his shop--the type of coin establishments that are becoming extinct.
He is a wealth of information and I look forward to picking his brain more in the future. He probably wouldn't go out of his way to say this, but he knew legendary numismatists such as Kam Awash, Walter Breen, Al Overton, Dave Bowers, Katherine Bullowa, Harry Foreman, etc., etc. Joel had some great stories, but I will not steal his thunder. Perhaps he can share some of those stories here.
Great article, by the way!
roadrunner
However, the Comstock lode was largely played out years before the Morgan dollar was introduced. The standard dollar’s design had been in preparation since 1876. One of director Linderman’s pet projects was a “ideal” head of liberty for all the coins. By mid-1877 Linderman had Morgan and William Barber competing for the new design and patterns were sent to President Hayes in December. Hayes liked both. The mint director selected the winning design because the relief was lower, although he was also Morgan’s benefactor. President Hayes expressed confidence that his veto would be overridden.
“February 17.-The Silver Bill has passed the Senate with amendments that will send it back to the House. It will no doubt reach me during this week. I have given the subject some study and much anxious reflection. I shall veto the bill. It will probably become a law notwithstanding my veto.” [Hayes personal diary.]
The veto was a primary reason Hayes did not get his party’s nomination for re-election.
Re: the part about the Type 1 Standing Liberty quarter being scandalized because of Liberty's bare chest is total hog wash.
Thanks for posting!
Gardnerville, NV
=========================
Our Website -->Innovation, Native & Presidential Dollar Errors, Lincoln Cents and more
Check it out --> Our eBay Auctions
This thread is good reading
I hope you post there with your thoughts, too.
Joe
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Aye...another grumpy old bastage...
Yep, coins & their designs aint nothing but politics.
<< <i>
Re: the part about the Type 1 Standing Liberty quarter being scandalized because of Liberty's bare chest is total hog wash. >>
Citations?
This SHOULD be an interesting thread - esp. the Sr./Jr. question. A quick search of past threads should well clarify my meaning.
In any event, welcome.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>Re: the part about the Type 1 Standing Liberty quarter being scandalized because of Liberty's bare chest is total hog wash. >>
Agree. This has been well researched and in no case could a contemporary news account be found criticizing Liberty's bare breast on the early SLQ's Just another coin myth.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Stefanie
.
CoinsAreFun Toned Silver Eagle Proof Album
.
Gallery Mint Museum, Ron Landis& Joe Rust, The beginnings of the Golden Dollar
.
More CoinsAreFun Pictorials NGC FOR SALE
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)
Joel, welcome to the boards. I find your post refreshing and look forward to others.
What is your take on the 16 to 1 gold and silver controversy? I am fascinated by the history of the Lesher referendum and Pedley-Ryan dollars. Hopefully, you can weigh in on these.
-Randy Newman
Thank you for the many kind posts welcoming me to the forum. With regard to the posts suggesting that the story about the Type I quarters is inaccurate, I want to state here that this article was written about six years ago and, at that time, this was still one of the accepted reasons for the addition of chain mail to cover Liberty's bare breast. I would further like to note that my dear friend, the late Bruce Amspacher, assisted me in the research of the Rare Coins and Politics article. We discussed the controversy surrounding the reasons why Liberty's breast was covered and I actually listed the other possible reasons in the article. Although there are--supposedly--no known contemporary records substantiating the claim, I do find it interesting that past researchers have upheld this "numismatic myth." Furthermore, I want to bring to the forum's attention that CoinFacts.com (a PCGS company) references the same nudity story on their website. For whatever that is worth.
In general, the article was intended for a broad cross section of readers, including non-numismatists. It is an overview only, with the main goal being entertainment, which is my typical writing style. When I wrote a coin column for the LA Times for 17 consecutive years, the editors often reminded me to "write to an 8th grade level for their average readers," which was challenging for me. I should remember, as I post on this forum, to write in a more indepth style, as I am aware of the level of eruditional sophistication here. I am impressed by the participation of this hobby's elite researchers, scholars, and writers, such as Mr. Burdette, who posted to this forum. As such, I look forward to participating more actively here, and I encourage any forum member to provide constructive criticism and make suggestions on any articles I post.
Joel D. Rettew
PS - coming tomorrow: Rare Coins and Politics, Part II
http://www.fastcoin.com
My Ebay Auctions
<< <i>Joel, welcome to the boards. I find your post refreshing and look forward to others.
What is your take on the 16 to 1 gold and silver controversy? I am fascinated by the history of the Lesher referendum and Pedley-Ryan dollars. Hopefully, you can weigh in on these. >>
Hello LickThoseStamps. Thanks for the welcome. I wrote an article on this subject and will dig through my archives to see what I find. Stay tuned....
Joel
http://www.fastcoin.com
My Ebay Auctions
merse
refer to the Mint Act of 1873 that you are actually referring to the Congressional Coinage Act of 1873. The Mint made no acts, but it was
politics as usual. The Morgan dollar was not abolished. It was just not enacted until 1878. Of utmost concern to the politicians was helping
their peers line their pockets and thus the Trade Dollar came into being so as to compete with Mexican silver "dollars" in the
business of dealing with those in the Orient (Chinese, Japanese and others). We needed their goods on the left coast and trading
with the Orient was established and easier than trading with Europe. Thus the Trade Dollar; heavier in silver than the current
seated dollar or proposed standard dollar.
I look forward to reading your tidbits and I do welcome you to this wonderful forum.
bob
The foolishness of the Type I SLQ bare beast story is a prime example of a speculative "tale" being repeated and embellished by many writers who didn't bother to check the accuracy of their material. One particularly inventive and completely false article appeared in the Numismatist – twice!
As for citations, as requested by one poster, you can look in the book Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921 for information on the origin, design and early production of these coins. Everything is referenced to original sources so the poster can go check them for himself. In researching the book, every archive file box and folder available for the 1915-22 period was checked page-by-page, as were press copy books, journals, Director Woolley's personal papers, Director von Engleken's personal papers and those of President Wilson and many others including members of congress such as William Ashbrook who was Chairman of the House Coinage Committee. There was not one letter, telegram or memorandum indicating any objection to the figure of Liberty on the new quarter. There were many references to objections to the eagle, including newspaper articles in the US and Britain. (The eagle controversy takes up several pages in Woolley’s unpublished autobiography.) One can never "prove" a negative assertion...but the absence of anything suggests that the "bare breast" story is, as stated above, "hog wash."
Analogous situations can also be helpful. The assertion of the bare breast story is that there was a massive public outcry against "nakedness" on the coin. Yet there are not documents, supporting that. A similar story exists about the Peace dollar. In 1921 it was asserted that the reverse of the coin was changed due to massive objection to inclusion of a broken sword in the design. In this case, we have a published editorial, and thousands of letters, cards and telegrams – to members of Congress, the President, the Commission of Fine Arts, the Mint the Treasury and letters to local newspapers, and follow up articles in newspapers, and an official press release. The sum of these support the story’s basic validity (although most details were wrong due to Treasury trying to “spin” events).
RWB, thank you for your detailed post. In your book, Renaissance of American Coinage, 1916-1921, I find it interesting that you provide in-depth documentation and explanation of other design changes to MacNeil's quarter design, but the issue of the chain-mailed Liberty is treated as speculation. Perhaps that is why the controversy has remained alive and well to this day--lack of direct documentation in the Mint (and related) archives. It is also interesting to me that nearly all of the official documentation on the subject that you reproduce in your book pertains to seemingly trivial design changes. For example, minor size corrections to the letters of the legend, small changes to the rim, etc. Yet a major design modification--the chain mail--is not mentioned in correspondence between Mint officials, the Federal government, and the artist. Or did I miss something?
The chain mail material in the book uses all the documentation that was available, and attempts to make reasonable conclusions based in factual material. There is nothing explicit in MacNeil's letters stating "I did this because...." I could have added considerable background on artistic uses of various kinds of clothing and military accessories, but it would have been very much out of place.
What is documented in the book explains why the change was made to the quarter but not directly MacNeil’s thoughts on adding the chain mail, or the many other small modifications he made. Circumstantially, the ties to MacNeil’s use of a protective garment – added to the quarter just before the US entered the war, then showing it being removed for his Peace dollar reverse design – support the artist’s most likely approach. The models (as illustrated) also suggest that the artist might reasonably have expected better reproduction of his work by the mint.
One might also note that throughout the project, no one, ever, made any objection to his figure of Liberty, although revised versions were presented to and approved by Sec. McAdoo and others numerous times. Also, examples were sent to female friends of McAdoo’s – not exactly what would be expected if he considered the design offensive.
The bottom line: nothing supports the bare chest controversy myth; circumstantial and artistic evidence supports chain mail added being indicative of protection of Liberty at the onset of war.
<< <i>I think bare chest “controversy” continues and similar falsehoods continue because, 1) the books are relatively new (2005, 2006, 2007) and very few collectors or dealers have read them; 2) the web is great a perpetuating myth because it is so easy to simply cut and paste without putting thought or any meaningful work behind the action; 3) collectors like a good story even if the truth is much more interesting; 4) some of the most respected numismatic organizations see no profit in correcting their material….it is too easy to copy from some out-of-date catalog or an old article, or to otherwise cut corners. Nobody ever made money in numismatics by debunking the myths and nonsense – in part because it’s hard to do and also because no major organization has actually tried! It would be great if PCGS would update and correct their CoinFacts - but that would take time and cost money. It would be great if the ANA’s Numismatist would have articles peer reviewed so that some of the outlandish errors would get axed before publication. Etc., ad nauseam.
The chain mail material in the book uses all the documentation that was available, and attempts to make reasonable conclusions based in factual material. There is nothing explicit in MacNeil's letters stating "I did this because...." I could have added considerable background on artistic uses of various kinds of clothing and military accessories, but it would have been very much out of place.
What is documented in the book explains why the change was made to the quarter but not directly MacNeil’s thoughts on adding the chain mail, or the many other small modifications he made. Circumstantially, the ties to MacNeil’s use of a protective garment – added to the quarter just before the US entered the war, then showing it being removed for his Peace dollar reverse design – support the artist’s most likely approach. The models (as illustrated) also suggest that the artist might reasonably have expected better reproduction of his work by the mint.
One might also note that throughout the project, no one, ever, made any objection to his figure of Liberty, although revised versions were presented to and approved by Sec. McAdoo and others numerous times. Also, examples were sent to female friends of McAdoo’s – not exactly what would be expected if he considered the design offensive.
The bottom line: nothing supports the bare chest controversy myth; circumstantial and artistic evidence supports chain mail added being indicative of protection of Liberty at the onset of war. >>
Thanks for the great posts. I certainly appreciate the effort that goes into researching items as opposed to simply recycling old stories. I haven't read your book yet, but I hope to soon. That is the kind of independant research adds knowlege to the numismatic community.
merse
It would be great if PCGS would update and correct their CoinFacts - but that would take time and cost money.
Roger, it is my understanding that Ron Guth is taking the helm of CoinFacts.com again and many updates are forthcoming. So, perhaps I will contact him regarding your research on the subject, although I am sure that he is well aware of your fine new publications.
http://www.fastcoin.com
My Ebay Auctions
True, but the final product is very long lasting. Consider the quarters in ciculation today. 40 year old quarters from the 1960's show wear, but they still have much life in them. Speaking of the 1960's, the 30 year old silver quarters from the 1930's back then were very worn indeed.
Pure nickel wears much longer yet. I remember Canadian nickels of the earlier 1920's looking brand new in circulation in 1960. About that point they disappeared from circulation. A friend at work went to Switzerland in the early 1960's on his honeymoon. He brought me a handful of circulating coins. There was a pristine 20 rappen pure nickel coin from the 1880's in the batch. That was still the same design as the current cupro-nickel coin.
Now here is an official Swiss experiment reported in the 1921 "The World Almanac" page 493.
"Abrasion of Coins - It is reported officially in Switzerland that the comparative abrasion of various coins was tested by placing equal weights of many varieties inside a drum which was revolved for forty con-continuous [sic] hours. The results were as follows in percentages:
Ten-rappen piece of alum. alloy, 11.27; [I can't find this in Krause; there is a brass issue listed for 1918-1919][ * ]
1-franc piece of 0.835 silver, 0.165 copper, 7.79;
5-rappen piece of brass (100 rappen = 1 franc), 4.01; [coined only in 1918 - WW I nickel shortage?]
10-rappen piece of copper-nickel, 2.45;
1-rappen piece of bronze, 1.23;
20-rappen piece of pure nickel, .59."
What a wide variation in abrasion rates! 11.27% versus .59%. It might be worth a little die aggravation for that long life.
Note 5 franc pieces and gold were not used. Note what a rich variety of alloys- 8 different if you include gold and .900 silver 5 francs.
edited to add note on the 10 rappen aluminum alloy piece. Incidently notes within brackets [....] are my comments.
edit #2 * Perhaps this was an 1918 experiment with proposed pattern aluminum pieces. The results were such that they switched to brass for their emergency composition for the 10 rappen piece.
The Pittman Act had other interesting aspects. Melting of silver dollars was destroying the backing of silver certificates. Therefore the silver certificates were withdrawn from circulation leaving a small denomination shortage. The Federal Reseve Banks turned in these in for for Treasury IOU's otherwise known as Pittman Notes. The Fed could then issue small denomination Federal Reserve Bank Notes only to the extent of the withdrawn silver certificates. I would call the FRBN's Pittman Notes, but that name is already spoken for.
Thus a one dollar FRBN at the time of issue represented:
1) a Treasury IOU
2) The ghost of a melted silver dollar [why didn't I think of this by Halloweeen]
3) The promise of a silver dollar, as yet unborn. [promised fulfilled by 1928]
Can someone expand on the 2 different views about the reason for the change in design of the Type I Standing Liberty Quarter?
Can someone expand on the 2 different views about the reason for the change in design of the Type I Standing Liberty Quarter?
The full story with multitudes of footnotes and references to original letters is in the book Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921.
In summary, the original bare breast design went through three modifications and approvals. In all instances no objections were raised to the figure of Liberty. The 1916 issue and 1917 Type-I were actually prepared by Mint engravers imitation Hermon MacNeil’s original.
At his request, the Philadelphia Mint sent MacNeil some samples of the new quarters in early Januarys 1917 – before the coins were released. MacNeil discovered that the mint had modified his designs and the coins did not look like what he expected. The artist went to the mint, saw many more experimental pieces, went home and complained to the mint director and commission of fine arts. Release of the quarters was delayed while a settlement was negotiated with MacNeil. He was permitted to revise his designs (both sides). With the US close to entering the war against Germany, MacNeil added a chain mail garment to Liberty, thus creating the Type II.
When the first quarters were released later in January, ornithologists objected to the eagle, saying that the bird did not hold its talons as shown on the coin. (The same objections had been made in 1908 about the Saint-Gaudens $20.) Newspapers wrote about this, but there were no objections to the bare breasted obverse. All of the stories about congressional objections and other such event are false – not one of them can be confirmed. Further, there are no letters in the archives or Library of Congress relating to anything other than the eagle.
The bare breast scandal nonsense evidently started sometime after WW-II. It was reinforced by Walter Breen’s imagination and many dealers, catalogers and writers who were too busy copying from each other and inventing tall tales to check out the story’s truth.
[In the 19th and earlier 20th centuries, nude and seminude allegorical figures were commonplace. A look at the pediments on some of the finest public buildings of the era will show figures similar or more revealing than on the 1916-1917 quarter. The fact is that we’ve grown prudish while on a steady diet of increasingly explicit TV, and an inundation of on-line pornography. Many now associate nudity with this baseness and not with natural beauty and creativity.]
The approved legislation was more technical in nature that specific, and if you read the legislation it’s hard to see how that was implemented on the coin. To be honest, with the US in WW-I, and ill prepared for war, nobody really cared about the quarter. The Type-II pieces were released in August. Personally, I think the die work was awful when compared to the crisp, detailed model MacNeil provided.