| Author |
 Replies: 21 / Views: 3,340 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5863 Posts |
Quote:
The rule was that the design could not be changed for twenty-five years I'm confused about this part. How could they replace the SLQ if the design was only 16 years old? |
|
CCF Advertiser
United States
1533 Posts |
Its an ideal set for collectors. Its short, it has 2 big keys and a number of semi-keys and a number of common dates. And its beautiful. I am 3 coins away from a complete set. Looking forward to Days of... I will post my best of each year.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
189767 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
The rule was that the design could not be changed for twenty-five years, which meant that pretty much all of the then-current circulating US coin designs could have been dumped. Actually NONE of the coin designs could be dumped without Congressional action. The closest one would have been the cent which would be eligible in 1934, two years too late. The nickel was only 17 years, the dime, quarter, and half were only 14 years. The dollar was only 11 years old. So no matter what coin was chosen it would require legislation to change it. Quote:
The SLQ looked good: not only were quarters not circulating widely by 1930, the series had been run through with problems since it launched, from the exposed breast controversy (chainmail-gate?) to striking issues to the date wear problem. Quote:
partly due to the whole exposed-breast controversy, which had church leaders calling for boycotts and threatening to file obscenity charges against members of Congress and/or have them recalled by elections. Quarters were widely circulating at the time (In fact that was one of the reason the quarter WAS chosen.) There never was a bare breast controversy over the initial design. (In fact the addition of the chain mail was against the instructions from the mint.) There has never been any contemporary evidence presented that there was any published objection to the bare breast design, and no documents in the national archives on the subject. The bare breast controversy is a numismatic myth. And even with the changes to the date area the coins still had wear problems around the date. Yes the coin was originally to have been a half dollar, but with the Depression in full swing, and with the desire that this coin honoring Washington to be available to all, the choice of the quarter rather than the half dollar would allow it to get into more hands than a half dollar would. Yes, there may have been some disillusionment with the half dollar because of the problems with the commemorative programs, but this was to be a circulating coin, and most of the abuses of the commemorative half programs were still several years in the future. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Great background info. Thanks Adam, Conder and others.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4211 Posts |
I have enjoyed learning more about these coins. Thank you all for the contributions!  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
I'll have to find sources tonight, but I remember a presentation (back in the slide era!) given awhile back which had clippings from a Philadelphia newspaper, editorializing on the issue.
Thanks for correcting the other mistakes in my original post, I'm working off 20-30 years of retained "memory", much of which is probably damaged ;)
I should mention that what I meant when I said "not circulating widely" was that the Mint was not anticipating the need to strike a large amount of quarters heading into 1931. There was still a more than adequate mintage of 1930-dated quarters, which were not in demand from banks, as there were already enough quarters in circulation to meet the demands of businesses and the public. In other words, it wasn't likely that there was going to be an immediate need to increase the mintages. Fortunately, the high mintage and low demand resulted in lots of really nice higher grade 1930-dated SLQ's to collect!
Member ANA - EAC - TNA - SSDC - CCT #890 "Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." -- Louis D. Brandeis |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1450 Posts |
You know for some classic coins the Mint did not even mint coins for some of the Depression years. There are gaps in mintage in quite a few coins during great depression.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
The truth of why such coins are dropped from mintage is the Mint just doesn't want people keeping all that change from circulating. So as soon as they find a design that people like, they change it to something people don't like. Proof is look at all the present coins now being produced.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3516 Posts |
Great info and  with Carl in some ways. Not many people loved Susan B. Anthony's , but the mint still discontinued them until 99 when they made the proof. And Ikes. I can think of one person especially who loves Ikes, and those were discontinued quick. (Cough Cough) (Jbuck) (Cough)  So in some ways yes, and some ways no. Really what the mint wants more than the people unless it is a collector issued coin Edited by Dustin6
12/01/2016 1:50 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
There was still a more than adequate mintage of 1930-dated quarters, which were not in demand from banks, as there were already enough quarters in circulation to meet the demands of businesses and the public. Agreed there wasn't much need for new coinage in 32, but much of the blame for that falls on the deepening depression. With more and more people out of work and business and banks closing down, there just isn't much need for new coins. Plus any coins people already had came out of hiding and went back into circulation further reducing the need for new coins (In our own lifetimes, look at what happened to the 2009 coinage.) That is why no nickels, dimes, or quarters were made in 1933, and few cents or half dollars. Quote:
I'll have to find sources tonight, but I remember a presentation (back in the slide era!) given awhile back which had clippings from a Philadelphia newspaper, editorializing on the issue. If you find it I'd like to see it, but you will probably find that it is not contemporary, but is from at least several years later. The time window to be considered to be pertinent is very small though. The 1916 quarter came out in late December of 16 and the revisions to the design were already underway by the end of January of 17. The internal documents at the mint discussed the changes to be made, none of them mention covering the breast, and they do state that no changes were to be made other than the ones discussed. MacNeil made the changes on his own anyway. (He probably realized that if you are preparing to possibly go to war, you're not going to go in "undressed". |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
982 Posts |
Quote:
Not many people loved sacagaweas, but the mint still discontinued them until 99 when they made the proof. Dustin, I believe you meant to write Susan B. Anthonys, not Sacagaweas; but I think most of us know what you intended.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3516 Posts |
Yep you are right!! Thanks! Fixed it
|
|
Moderator
United States
189767 Posts |
Quote:
Agreed there wasn't much need for new coinage in 32, but much of the blame for that falls on the deepening depression. With more and more people out of work and business and banks closing down, there just isn't much need for new coins. Plus any coins people already had came out of hiding and went back into circulation further reducing the need for new coins (In our own lifetimes, look at what happened to the 2009 coinage.) When I read the comment on the previous page, I started to formulate a reply (based on what I have learned from you in the past). However, I quickly realized that you had probably responded by now. I click next and found I was correct.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1450 Posts |
The modern coins Carl may be talking about just suck IMO. They are not worth the cost it takes to mint them. When the mint creates billions of dimes or pennies what is the point of collecting them.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 21 / Views: 3,340 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 11/30/2016 10:38 am
