Author |
Replies: 11 / Views: 2,264 |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
9641 Posts |
It's been a while since I last posted about a commemorative half dollar that "almost was." So, here goes.
By 1936, Congress had already favored several states with a commemorative half dollar celebrating its statehood anniversary. Illinois was the first in 1918, but it was followed by Maine (1920), Alabama (1921), Missouri (1921), California (1925) and Arkansas (1935). In addition to these statehood coins, Congress had also authorized coins to mark important colonial (Maryland, Connecticut), territorial (Hawaii) or "independence" (Vermont, Texas) anniversaries of present-day states.
It was only natural that other states of the Union would desire a coin to mark their statehood date. One such state was Michigan which was admitted to the Union on January 26, 1837 as the 26th state.
An interesting note about its date of admittance: the residents of Michigan had petitioned for statehood after approving a state constitution and forming a state government in 1835, but Congress would not recognize its statehood until its boundary dispute with Ohio was resolved. Congress made a proposal in 1836 that called for Michigan to give up the common border territory jointly claimed by it and Ohio in exchange for the majority portion of the Upper Peninsula. Though Michigan initially rejected the proposal, it eventually agreed to it in December 1836 and became a state approximately six weeks later.
In May 1936, during the 74th Congress, a bill calling for a 50-cent piece "in commemoration of the one-hundredth anniversary of the admission of the State of Michigan as one of the United States." was introduced in the House by Louis Charles Rabaut (D-MI). The bill specified a mintage of just 5,000 coins to be struck on behalf of the Detroit Coin Club Committee; the proposed mintage would have made the piece the key type coin within the silver series. It was referred to the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures, but was never heard from again.
In February 1937, the proposal was revisited in the 75th Congress via companion bills introduced in the House and Senate. The bills called for 25,000 silver half dollars this time around (vs. just 5,000) and restated the name of the sponsor as the Detroit Coin Club Commemorative Half-Dollar Committee (emphasis added). Each of the bills was open-ended in regards to mintage specifications: the Director of the Mint was not limited to using just one Mint facility (i.e., P-D-S sets could have been struck) and striking of the coins was not limited to 1937. Only the relatively small mintage limit of 25,000 would have prevented the potential issue from becoming another extended multi-year series coin like the Arkansas and Texas pieces, but I could imagine coins being issued with "1937" and "1938" dates.
Each of the bills was referred to its respective committee in charge of coinage matters - neither was reported out for consideration.
Gaining approval for a new commemorative coin was getting harder and harder to achieve in 1937 as Congress had finally begun to understand all the negatives associated with approving a large, steady stream of new coins and had begun to curtail its agreements with such proposals. In such an environment, the Michigan Statehood half dollar was never able to gain the level of support needed to get it out of committee and be put to a vote on either chamber's floor.
After failing to gain authorization for a silver half dollar, the Detroit Coin Club apparently did not pursue a privately-struck commemorative medal for Michigan's centennial - nor did any other group - as I've not yet encountered such a piece.
Collecting history one coin or medal at a time! (c) commems. All rights reserved.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2576 Posts |
Interesting, well at least they got a postage stamp. 
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
11052 Posts |
Many thanks commems for another insightful thread on these coins that might have been. Wondering if this make the 'What If' appendix in the upcoming book.  David
Take a look at my other hobby ... http://www.jk-dk.artToo many hobbies .... too much work .... not enough time.
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6443 Posts |
What if the State Quarters were state half dollars! It would get kids to have to search rolls to fill their books and they would circulate.
|
Moderator
 United States
128364 Posts |
Interesting piece of history. As always, thank you for sharing. 
|
Pillar of the Community
Topic Starter United States
9641 Posts |
Quote:What if the State Quarters were state half dollars! It would get kids to have to search rolls to fill their books and they would circulate. I previously posted about that very thing! http://goccf.com/t/178318
Collecting history one coin or medal at a time! (c) commems. All rights reserved.
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6443 Posts |
 Great minds think alike 
|
Valued Member
United States
336 Posts |
Thats too bad they never went through with creating the coin. I would have loved to own it (being that I'm from Michigan). Guess I'll just have to be happy with my Michigan State Quarter coin and die set. Nice post commems! I had no idea that Michigan was even proposed as a possible commemorative back then.
|
Pillar of the Community
Topic Starter United States
9641 Posts |
A quick addendum... I just came across a brief note about the Michigan Statehood Centennial commemorative half dollar that discusses a mintage request change to the original 1936 bill that differs from what was included in the 1937 companion bills discussed above. The note, published in the August 1936 issue of the official publication of the American Numismatic Association ( ANA), The Numismatist, came from the coin's sponsor - the Detroit Coin Club - and stated that a request had been sent (presumably to Representative Louis Charles Rabaut (D-MI), the Congressional sponsor of the original bill) to increase the requested mintage from 5,000 to 15,000. The coins were all to be struck by a single Mint facility - the club was not trying to convert its bill into a three-coin P-D-S set request. Though the mintage change request was sent after the bill had already been referred to the Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures, it would not have been a problem. If the request had been agreed to, the Committee would have included an amendment in its Report on the bill. The note also discussed how the club was not then taking orders for the coin. This makes me think that the club had learned of a level of collector interest in excess of its original 5,000 coin request and wanted to make sure it had enough coins to fill demand. By refusing to accept pre-orders, however, the Club protected itself against potential collector backlash if its bill was not approved - which it wasn't! As noted above, by the time the bill was re-introduced in 1937 - with a Senate companion bill - the mintage request had increased to 25,000. The mintage request, however, was not the problematic issue for the coin bills - the widespread frustration over the negative impact of US commemorative coin distribution issues/dealer shenanigans targeting collectors and the marketplace was the far more important issue working against the coin!
Collecting history one coin or medal at a time! (c) commems. All rights reserved.
|
Moderator
 United States
128364 Posts |
Thank you for the addendum! 
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
81377 Posts |
Yes, interesting for sure.
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
11052 Posts |
I appreciate you providing the updated mintage information. 
Take a look at my other hobby ... http://www.jk-dk.artToo many hobbies .... too much work .... not enough time.
|
|
Replies: 11 / Views: 2,264 |
|