| Author |
 Replies: 10 / Views: 1,210 |
|
|
CCF Master Historian of USA Commemoratives
 United States
12252 Posts |
Here's a quick look back at the Congressional origin story for the 1925 California Statehood Diamond Jubilee Half Dollar...A bill calling for "50-cent pieces in commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the admission of the State of California into the Union" was introduced in the Senate in January 1925. The bill requested up to 300,000 coins of standard specifications be struck "at the mints of the United States" (i.e., implicit authorization for the creation of three-coin P/D/S sets). The bill did not include language limiting the striking of the coin in terms of date to appear on the coin or when coining authority would expire - it left such matters open-ended. The bill only stated the coins were to be issued upon the request of the San Francisco Clearing House Association and the Los Angeles Clearing House Association (of 1923 Monroe Doctrine Centennial half dollar fame) - the coin's sponsors. (Note: The Clearing Houses were associations of area banks that encouraged collaboration among members and helped manage their payment processing.) As would be expected, the bill was immediately referred to the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency. After reviewing it, the Committee reported it out favorably without amendment. The bill was subsequently brought up for consideration in the Whole Senate with a request for Unanimous Consent. No objections were voiced, so the bill was passed and sent to the House of Representatives for concurrence. Things took a turn in the House, however, with a proposal to amend the Battle of Bennington-Vermont Independence Sesquicentennial bill with the provisions of the standalone California bill vs. the California bill proceeding on its own. A debate ensued that questioned the continued approval of commemorative coins in Congress, especially in view of the explicit objections of the Treasury Department. The debate ended, however, with the House approving the amending of the Bennington-Vermont bill via addition of the California coin bill's language. The bill would also ultimately incorporate language calling for a Fort Vancouver Centennial half dollar and thus become the first triple-program commemorative coin bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President; previous multi-coin bills were for a single program. 1925 California Statehood Diamond Jubilee Half Dollar  For more of the multi-coin bill story, see: - 1925 Fort Vancouver Centennial - Redux- 1927 Battle of Bennington-Vermont Independence SesquicentennialFor more on the California half dollar, check out: - 1925 California Statehood Diamond Jubilee- 1925 California Statehood Diamond Jubilee - RevisitedFor other of my posts about commemorative coins and medals, check out: Commems Collection. Collecting history one coin or medal at a time! (c) commems. All rights reserved.
Edited by commems
02/21/2022 9:27 pm
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Both sides of this coin are just wonderful.
|
|
CCF Master Historian of USA Commemoratives
 United States
12252 Posts |
@Coinfrog: Thanks for checking in here and your regular support of my posts. Much appreciated! I agree, the coin's design is a sharp one! I still think it would have looked great in gold: It Should Have Been Gold!Collecting history one coin or medal at a time! (c) commems. All rights reserved.
|
|
Moderator
United States
15386 Posts |
Great origin story commems, as always whenever you write.
Your post raises the question of how/where did the enabling legislation become modified to place limits on the quantity, dates and mint facilities?
It's clear from other threads you have written that in the mid-1930's the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency had developed a standardized set of requirements that saved the day from many potential collector abuses - but in this 1925 example the Senate concurred with the bills provisions that were as you stated 'open ended'.
The limitations must have happen in the House deliberation, but your post does not mention them. Can you please enlighten us on that topic?
On a different topic related to the coin; do you have any record evidence to support the anecdotal 'history' that James Earl Fraser in his capacity as a member of the Commission of Fine Arts objected to Jo Mora design calling it 'inexperienced and amateurish' and asked for Chester Beach to re do the work?
Today most of us view the California half dollar design as a powerful member of the classic series - thank goodness Fraser was overruled (if it's true he placed those objection).
|
|
Moderator
United States
187582 Posts |
A very interesting article and a lovely example!  |
|
CCF Master Historian of USA Commemoratives
United States
12252 Posts |
Quote:
Your post raises the question of how/where did the enabling legislation become modified to place limits on the quantity, dates and mint facilities? None of the restrictions you mention were ever legislated - the language of the Public Law, as passed, continued to specify a maximum mintage of 300,000 coins, allow for multiple mints to be used and did not restrict the date to be placed on the coin(s). From what I can tell, the realized outcome for the California Jubilee coin was a matter of sane and logical management by the California Diamond Jubilee Souvenir Coin Committee and the SF/LA Clearing Houses that were the financial backers.  After an initial order of 150,000 coins could not be fully sold, there seemed little point in requesting the remaining balance of 150,000; over 63,000 coins were returned to the Mint to be melted. The coin was intended to commemorate a California-specific anniversary, with its official celebration to be held in San Francisco. As such, it made logical sense for the coins to be struck solely at a California-based Mint - San Francisco! As the anniversary year was 1925, it was likely realized that subsequent, non-anniversary years would face sales obstacles that would make continued sales efforts an exercise with rapidly diminishing returns (if they couldn't even sell one-third of their allotment in the anniversary year...). Add in the fact that the Jubilee was officially celebrated for a single week in September 1925 (in San Francisco) vs. a multi-month or multi-year Exposition, and the allure of follow-on coin years/dates becomes limited at best. IMO, the California Diamond Jubilee Committee and its Souvenir Coin Committee, chaired by George Filmer, simply exercised good judgement and decision-making. Too bad it didn't catch on with all coin sponsors! Collecting history one coin or medal at a time! (c) commems. All rights reserved.
|
|
Moderator
United States
15386 Posts |
Quote:
IMO, the California Diamond Jubilee Committee and its Souvenir Coin Committee, chaired by George Filmer, simply exercised good judgement and decision-making. Too bad it didn't catch on with all coin sponsors! Fully concur commems - and this 1925 example of moderation should have been a worthy example for the promoters of the various 1930's coins which abused collectors wit multiple dates & mints. Thank you for the the update to this thread. Take a look at my other hobby ... http://www.jk-dk.art |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3634 Posts |
Thanks for the interesting backstory on the California commemorative, and also for the informative follow-on answers. I've always thought this was one of the nicest commemorative designs.
Edited by hokiefan_82
02/21/2022 10:05 pm
|
|
CCF Master Historian of USA Commemoratives
United States
12252 Posts |
Quote:
On a different topic related to the coin; do you have any record evidence to support the anecdotal 'history' that James Earl Fraser in his capacity as a member of the Commission of Fine Arts objected to Jo Mora design calling it 'inexperienced and amateurish' and asked for Chester Beach to re do the work? Yes, Fraser is on record with the Commission on Fine Arts as disapproving of the design sketches prepared by Mora. Here's Fraser's full quote: "I must say that I am not much impressed with the composition, or any of the indications contained in the drawing. It strikes me that the artist has not had proper experience to do a successful coin. The bear is entirely too short, and the whole thing inexperienced and amateurish." (Emphasis added.) Fraser did recommend using a more experienced medallic sculptor - such as Beach or Aitken. The San Francisco Citizens Committee, the group managing the coin project - did look into options, but decided not to switch artists due to financial limitations - besides, they liked Mora's work and, thus, moved forward with it. Collecting history one coin or medal at a time! (c) commems. All rights reserved.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Remarkable comments from Fraser. Accurate scale has never been a hallmark of our commemorative designs, of course. This ever so slightly tarnishes his image in my mind.
Edited by Coinfrog
02/22/2022 7:04 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
15386 Posts |
Quote:
Yes, Fraser is on record with the Commission on Fine Arts as disapproving of the design sketches prepared by Mora Great work commems to find the historical record - your continued contributions are indeed valued and much appreciated. I say most modern collectors consider Jo Mora California half dollar design to be a beautiful member of the classic series - thankful the Fraser was somehow overruled. Take a look at my other hobby ... http://www.jk-dk.artEdited by nickelsearcher
02/22/2022 7:06 pm
|
| |
Replies: 10 / Views: 1,210 |
|
Posted 02/21/2022 2:01 pm
