Possible origin of recessed date on SL quarters - Update

RWB · August 30, 2009 2:56AM

The following letter was discovered yesterday in the archives. It offers a hint about who suggested recessing the date on Standing Liberty quarters beginning in 1925. The search continues for Mr. Franc’s original letter to Treasury Secretary Mellon.

January 23, 1924

Mr. Henry J. Franc, Jr.
401 7th St. N.W.
Washington, DC

Sir:

Your letter of January 21, 1924, addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury has been referred to this office, and your suggestion as to the date on the quarter noted.

Respectfully,
R.J. Grant
Director of the Mint

[NARA-CP RG 104, entry 235, vol. 461]

crypto79 · August 30, 2009 3:05AM

Thank you for your efforts to further real numismatic research and knowledge

RWB · August 30, 2009 9:53AM

Well, that died fast.

tydye · August 30, 2009 10:07AM

Too bad the idea to recess the date was not thought of earlier. I have a bunch of earlier dateless ones that I cant let go of because they have mintmarks. Crazy how you cant read the date on an otherwise fine coin

AUandAG · August 30, 2009 10:17AM

Very interesting. I thank you for your hard work. Anybody that has taken on
the task of researching archives has my pat on the back. Your eyes go buggy,
your butt gets sore and endless hours of nothing after nothing. Thanks for all
your hard work RWB

bob

tydye · August 30, 2009 10:27AM

That is really cool! I did not realize at first that you where the actual guy that discovered the letter.

sinin1 · August 30, 2009 10:43PM

thats cool

would be interesring to discover something about Henry Frank from Washington DC

PerryHall · August 30, 2009 11:00PM

I guess no one knows the answer.

Swampboy · August 30, 2009 11:23PM

Interesting and historic.
Had there been any mention of changing the date during the preceding years?

Thanks for posting the breaking news RWB.

messydesk · August 30, 2009 11:28PM

Interesting it took them 8 years to figure it out, since the dates on the half dollars were already made as proposed. Did it really take that long for the problem to present itself through wear? Thanks for posting, and good luck finding the other letter!

CaptHenway · August 30, 2009 11:28PM

<< Well, that died fast. >>

Hey, it was the last Sunday of meteorlogical Summer. I was out stimulating the economy by buying ice cream!!!!

TD

RWB · August 31, 2009 12:20AM

If I can find Mr. Franc's original letter, that will tell us if he suggested recessing the date. Notice that no action had been taken to do this for 9 years, even though excess wear on the date should have been obvious. I've seen other instances where it took an outside suggestion to get the ball rolling.

This could also be a dead end - maybe Mr. Franc suggested adding fig leaves to the dates......

MrHalfDime · August 31, 2009 12:22AM

Very interesting. Do we know who Mr. Henry J. Franc, Jr. is? Is he a Mint employee, Treasury Department official, or just an interested citizen?

RWB · August 31, 2009 12:32AM

A quick Google books search comes up empty. Not on any of the Treasury employees lists I have for the 1920s (they aren’t necessarily complete). Census data would identify his occupation and family. Anyone who subscribes to ancestry.com or familyTree.com could look him up. Mint files include lots of letters from individuals offering suggestions, wanting to know the value of an old coin, wanting a sample of dirt assayed, or if 1913 Liberty nickels were made.

In the 19th century it was common to repeat the substance of a letter when writing the reply. By the 1920s that was no longer done, and it is more difficult to reconstruct the exchange.

veryfine · August 31, 2009 3:04AM

RWB,
Very interesting, as always.
I wonder why the Mint continued to use the raised date on the Buffalo Nickel. Surely they would have learned from their SLQ mistakes. In terms of design and metallic content, the Buffalo date was more durable, but as we all know, it is often completely unreadable in the low circulated grades.

Overdate · August 31, 2009 3:10AM

>>I wonder why the Mint continued to use the raised date on the Buffalo Nickel. Surely they would have learned from their SLQ mistakes. In terms of design and metallic content, the Buffalo date was more durable, but as we all know, it is often completely unreadable in the low circulated grades.<<

I wonder if we'll have the same problem with the Buffalo gold!

Nysoto · August 31, 2009 3:15AM

This is good information. It would be interesting to know how often a suggestion or complaint from the public resulted in a design modification for US coins.

CaptHenway · August 31, 2009 3:19AM

<< RWB,
Very interesting, as always.
I wonder why the Mint continued to use the raised date on the Buffalo Nickel. Surely they would have learned from their SLQ mistakes. In terms of design and metallic content, the Buffalo date was more durable, but as we all know, it is often completely unreadable in the low circulated grades. >>

Quite seriously, because nobody complained about it, or suggested that they change it.

RWB · August 31, 2009 3:24AM

wonder why the Mint continued to use the raised date on the Buffalo Nickel. Surely they would have learned from their SLQ mistakes.

There is a letter by Charles Barber from 1913 that recommended against recessing the nickel’s date. This was considered about a month after the revised reverse was approved. If I remember correctly, Barber was concerned about raising the die metal to accommodate a recessed date would cause problems with striking. He also recommended against incuse digits on the coin (like the initial “F”) because the die’s raised metal was likely to break off and leave coins with damaged dates.

[Note that Morgan was the only engraver from Feb 1917- Jan. 4, 1925, except for a short period when John Sinnock was an assistant. Sinnock didn't start work until August 3, 1925.]

jhdfla · August 31, 2009 4:31AM

Quite seriously, because nobody complained about it, or suggested that they change it. >>

Guess it wasn't as high on their agenda like the bare breasts on the '16 and '17 issues...

RWB · August 31, 2009 4:37AM

The quarter wasn’t on anyone's agenda until McNeil complained about his design being changed in Jan 1917. The "bare breast" story is pure nonsense - it never happened.

jhdfla · August 31, 2009 4:50AM

<< The quarter wasn’t on anyone's agenda until McNeil complained about his design being changed in Jan 1917. The "bare breast" story is pure nonsense - it never happened. >>

Really?

How about the wives of certain members of congress at that time who objected to the bare breast design? Wasn't this the real impetus for the deign change?

j.

LeeG · August 31, 2009 4:52AM

<< Well, that died fast. >>

Numismatic Research is a lonely and underappreciated skill.

Coinosaurus · August 31, 2009 4:58AM

<< 
How about the wives of certain members of congress at that time who objected to the bare breast design? Wasn't this the real impetus for the deign change?
>>

We need a citation on that - kinda like the one RWB gave above (record group, entry number & box number please).

Alternatively we'll settle for a contemporary article, like in the New York Times.

RWB's problem is that he can't prove such an article doesn't exist.

Your problem is that you can't prove it does.

Who has the burden of proof in such a case

jhdfla · August 31, 2009 5:35AM

<< 

<< 
How about the wives of certain members of congress at that time who objected to the bare breast design? Wasn't this the real impetus for the deign change?
>>

We need a citation on that - kinda like the one RWB gave above (record group, entry number & box number please).

Alternatively we'll settle for a contemporary article, like in the New York Times.

RWB's problem is that he can't prove such an article doesn't exist.

Your problem is that you can't prove it does.

Of course I can't prove it, I wasn't around

Jay Cline's book on Standing Quarters is the only ref I can give.

messydesk · August 31, 2009 5:47AM

<< RWB's problem is that he can't prove such an article doesn't exist.

Your problem is that you can't prove it does.

Who has the burden of proof in such a case

>>

The Langbords?

RWB · August 31, 2009 6:50AM

jhdfla:
There is not one letter or article complaining about the SL “bare breast” that is contemporary with the coins. There is nothing in Congressional documents, either. Not one modern article referring to this non-issue includes any references from 1917. The story is simply an embellished fabrication. The same goes for the on-line garbage and other copycat junk.

The only controversy was about the eagle’s talons. This appeared in the New York Times, Time of London, Christian Science Monitor, etc. and if Mint Director Robert Woolley’s autobiography.

If you want to know the real story of the SL quarter, borrow a copy of “Renaissance of American Coinage 19161-1921.” There you will find quotation from hundreds of original document and complete references to their origin. You can literally take ther book to NARA or Library of Congress or Smithsonian Archives of American Art or dozens of other archives and read the originals yourself.

Mr. Cline’s book is excellent for SL quarter varieties and striking characteristics. The historical background is, however, useless.

Coinosaurus · August 31, 2009 6:56AM

<< jhdfla:
There is not one letter or article complaining about the SL “bare breast” that is contemporary with the coins. There is nothing in Congressional documents, either. Not one modern article referring to this non-issue includes any references from 1917. The story is simply an embellished fabrication. The same goes for the on-line garbage and other copycat junk.
>>

RWB-

Any idea when/where the "bare breast" story originated?

Longacre · August 31, 2009 7:13AM

RWB-- you might have addressed this already, but how do we know that the letter is addressing the recessed date issue?

RWB · August 31, 2009 7:28AM

1. Bare breast story seems to date from WW-II era. Breen gave it prominence as he invented other stories to fill in when he didn’t have facts.
2. Date - That is a guess based on the letter quoted in the first post. Clearly, Mr. Franc referred to the date and made some sort of suggestion. Maybe his experience in business (he owned a clothing store in DC) brought him into contact with dateless quarters. Maybe he was a coin collector. Maybe he was just curious and offered a suggestion. If I can find his first letter to Sec. Mellon, we might know.

This is how a lot of research gets done. A clue suggests an answer which suggests a path. This clue indicates I need to check the “Letters Received-HQ” for 1924 and also “Letters Sent - Philadelphia” for late 1924 (when annual hub work was being done), also “Letters Sent – Sec of Treasury,” pplus some other archive files.

RWB · September 2, 2009 5:04AM

Mr. Franc owned a clothing store in Washington DC in the 1920s. I wonder if he was an ANA member or a member of the Washington Numismatic Society?

RWB · September 19, 2009 4:35AM

Update -- Mr. Franc's letter to Secretary of the Treasury Mellon has been located. Look for a short article in Coin World in the near future.

EagleEye · September 19, 2009 4:50AM

Very cool! Thanks for the heads up and , BTW, great work!

RWB · September 21, 2009 8:13AM

I am told it is in the October 5 issue of Coin World, but have not see it as yet. Will have to await the postman.

If the mint actually acted on Mr. Franc's suggestion, it would have been nice for them to have told him....but that's not how they did things back then. 'Course it might simply have been a coincidence.

RWB · December 16, 2009 2:58AM

The full article and image of Mr. Franc's letter are in the current issue of Coin World.

lkeigwin · December 16, 2009 3:10AM

I read it and thought it was nicely done, Roger.
Lance.

RWB · December 16, 2009 7:31AM

I'm still hoping to find an internal mint memo that says:

"An excellent idea for preserving the date on the new quarters was submitted my Mr. Franc of Washington, DC. (See attached letter.) The engraver is ordered to immediately implement this suggestion by recessing the digits of the date beginning with the 1925-dated quarters. The result will resemble the date on the half-dollar designed by Mr. Weinman in 1916."

“Do not mention this change to the press or Mr. Franc. Otherwise there will be criticism and we will be forced to recognize Mr. Franc in some way or give him samples. The mint service must not be embarrassed in having ignored this difficulty since 1916.”

[NO! The above is not real – It is my imagination of something I’d like to find…]

yellowjacket · December 16, 2009 7:39AM

As a Buffalo Nickel collector, I wish this same discussion would have resulted in a recessed date for the nickels of that same period.
Garrow

CaptHenway · December 16, 2009 10:22AM

RWB....is there any connection between the introduction of the new style date in 1925 and the fact that they did not strike any branch mint quarters in 1925, or was it mere coincidence? Considering the general scarcity of branch mint silver strikings in the 1920's (look at the halves!), I would assume it was mere coincidence, but was wondering if you had ever seen any connection.
TD

RWB · December 16, 2009 10:28AM

Capt. - Have not seen anything as yet discussing the "whys" of production schedules in the 1920s. There are quite a few press copy books in the archives, but you have to search them page-by-page. There are also several series of copy books dumped under the same entry number - --

Yellowjacket - The date was discussed by Fraser and the mint director of engraver Barber in May 1913, not long after Fraser OK'd changing the reverse. Barber said not to make another change, because collectors would hoard the coins. That's where the matter ended, although each year's hubs had slight changes to the date area, and completely new master dies were introduced in 1916.

kaz · December 16, 2009 10:29AM

Interesting thread, I completely missed it the first time around.

CoinRaritiesOnline · May 7, 2010 5:56AM

<< Interesting thread, I completely missed it the first time around. >>

Ditto.

RWB · May 7, 2010 6:37AM

Here's an image of the original letter for those who missed the Coin World article. (If you go to CW on-line I think you can read the article.]

MikeInFL · May 7, 2010 6:44AM

Neat! THanks for sharing RWB.

Frankcoins · May 7, 2010 6:52AM

Here is the Franc Building today, main tenant is Oyamel restaurant. It's 3 blocks from Ford's theater, 2 blocks from Pennsylvania Ave.

RWB · May 7, 2010 10:32AM

Thanks for the location photo!

AUandAG · May 7, 2010 11:14AM

Not dead yet, love the updates and admire your perseverance!

bob

Frankcoins · May 7, 2010 12:03PM

HARVARD COLLEGE
CLASS OF 1888
FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY
December. 1928

NON-GRADUATES.
(This list is intended to include all men socially connected with the Class but who did not
receive a degree in College or Scientific School.)

HENRY FRANC, Jr.

Bom June 28, 1866, Washington, D. C.

Parents Henry Franc and Babette Rosenthal.
Married Lena Leucht, Newark, N. J., Feb. 23, 1892.
Children Miriam, March ??, 1893.

Ruth, Feb. 2, 1900.
Address 401 Seventh Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.

He was a member of the Class in freshman and sophomore
years. The present Class Secretary has succeeded in eliciting
from Franc two pleasant letters. Franc continues as a mer-
chant.

ricko · May 7, 2010 11:25PM

Very informative thread... somehow I missed this originally. I really enjoy these historical studies. Cheers, RickO

Possible origin of recessed date on SL quarters - Update

Comments

Leave a Comment