Coin Community Family of Web Sites
Like us on Facebook! Subscribe to our Youtube Channel! Check out our Twitter! Check out our Pinterest!
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?


Welcome Guest! Need help? Got a question? Inherit some coins?
Our coin forum is completely free! Register Now!

Commems Collection: 1936 Wisconsin Territorial Centennial - House Vs. Senate

 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 4 / Views: 298Next Topic  
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
United States
7519 Posts
 Posted 01/16/2022  07:21 am Show Profile   Bookmark this topic Add commems to your friends list Get a Link to this Message
The proposal for the 1936 Wisconsin Territorial Centennial Half Dollar was introduced in the Senate in January 1936, and was immediately referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency.

An interesting facet of the proposed legislation is the fact that its language indicated the coins were to be struck "in commemoration of the one hundredth anniversary of the statehood of Wisconsin." Of course, the coin was meant to help mark the centennial of the Territory of Wisconsin, not its statehood centennial anniversary (a date coming in 1948!).

The bill's provisions, however, ran counter to what the Committee on Banking and Currency strongly recommended for commemorative coin bills. Namely, the bill allowed coins to be struck at multiple Mint facilities, did not require all coins struck to bear a single, specific date and did not specify an expiration date for coining authority. The coin's sponsor - Wisconsin Centennial Celebration - was to be allowed to order coins from the Mint in the amount(s) of its choosing at the times it chose. A multi-year, multi-Mint program was a clear possibility.

The Committee on Banking and Currency stepped in, however, and recommended its standard "Substitute Amendment" language that restricted each of these provision. The revision would result in a much more collector-friendly proposal.

By the time the updated bill was brought up for consideration in the Full Senate, its language had also been updated to reflect its intended purpose "commemoration of the one hundredth anniversary of the establishment of the Territorial Government of Wisconsin."

The Senate passed the amended bill without debate and sent it to the House for its consideration. The House reviewed the bill and only had one amendment it wished to make - it wanted the maximum mintage to be increased from 20,000 to 25,000. With that change incorporated, the House passed the bill without objection. The Senate concurred with the House amendment without debate, and the bill was sent to the President for approval. Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the bill into law on May 15, 1936.

Another potential wildcard bill changed for the good and for the benefit of collectors!


1936 Wisconsin Territorial Centennial Half Dollar



You can read more about the Wisconsin Territory Centennial half dollar here:

- 1936 Wisconsin Territorial Centennial
- 1936 Wisconsin Territorial Centennial - Revisited
- 1936 Wisconsin Territorial Centennial - Coins with Hands Thread
- 1936 Wisconsin Territorial Centennial - Coins with Flora Thread

Note: These earlier post use the prevalent thinking regarding obverse/reverse. The side specification included in this post is the official description per the Mint.

For other of my posts on commemorative coins and medals, see: Commems Collection.




Collecting history one coin or medal at a time! (c) commems. All rights reserved.
Bedrock of the Community
Learn More...
United States
67635 Posts
 Posted 01/16/2022  10:42 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Coinfrog to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I know it's the Badger state, and I admire the badger's tenacity, but I think the badger is a difficult subject to capture for a die engraver.
Moderator
Learn More...
United States
112162 Posts
 Posted 01/17/2022  11:32 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add jbuck to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Excellent information!


Quote:
An interesting facet of the proposed legislation is the fact that its language indicated the coins were to be struck "in commemoration of the one hundredth anniversary of the statehood of Wisconsin." Of course, the coin was meant to help mark the centennial of the Territory of Wisconsin, not its statehood centennial anniversary (a date coming in 1948!).
Part of their ploy to get twelve years worth of coins.
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
United States
7722 Posts
 Posted 01/19/2022  05:23 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add nickelsearcher to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I somehow missed this thread - catching up now on the excellent House vs Senate mini-series. Many thanks to commems for bringing us this wealth of information.


Quote:
The House reviewed the bill and only had one amendment it wished to make - it wanted the maximum mintage to be increased from 20,000 to 25,000.


commems - I humbly ask that you check your notes to ensure your use of 'maximum mintage' is not a typo. It makes sense to me the requested change was to ensure a minimum number of coins were minted thus eliminating the possibility of a rare issue.

Another interesting tidbit about the Wisconsin coin is that it contains an actual date, in the case July 4th, 1836. I know the Antietam half carries the date of the battle at Burnside Bridge.

What other commemorative coins carry an actual date, and what is the significance of those dates?

edited for spllneging
Take a look at my other hobby ... http://www.jk-dk.art
Too many hobbies .... too much work .... not enough time.
Edited by nickelsearcher
01/19/2022 05:24 am
Pillar of the Community
Learn More...
United States
7519 Posts
 Posted 01/19/2022  07:40 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add commems to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply

Quote:
commems - I humbly ask that you check your notes to ensure your use of 'maximum mintage' is not a typo. It makes sense to me the requested change was to ensure a minimum number of coins were minted thus eliminating the possibility of a rare issue.

Good catch! It should have been "minimum" vs. "maximum." I wrote about the very topic in my "Quick Bits #22" post. (You can find it here: How Many Would You Like?) So, there's no excuse!



Collecting history one coin or medal at a time! (c) commems. All rights reserved.
Edited by commems
01/19/2022 08:44 am
  Previous TopicReplies: 4 / Views: 298Next Topic  
 
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.





Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2022 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us  |  Advertise Here  |  Privacy Policy / Terms of Use

Coin Community Forum © 2005 - 2022 Coin Community Forums
It took 0.31 seconds to rattle this change. Powered By: