Coin Community Family of Web Sites
300,000 items to help build your collection! Royal Canadian Mint products, Canadian, Polish, American, and world coins and banknotes. Shop for APMEX Bullion on eBay!Coin, Banknote and Medal Collectors's Online Mall Shop CCF Members on eBay! Vancouvers #1 Coin and Paper Money Dealer Specializing in Modern Numismatics








Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?


This page may contain links that result in small commissions to keep this free site up and running.

Welcome Guest! Registering and/or logging in will remove the anchor (bottom) ads. It's Free!

Commems Collection Classic: 1936 Cincinnati Music Center 50th Anniversary - Controversy Avoided?

To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Author Previous TopicReplies: 3 / Views: 982Next Topic  
CCF Master Historian of USA Commemoratives
Learn More...
commems's Avatar
United States
12251 Posts
 Posted 04/20/2022  08:20 am Show Profile   Bookmark this topic Add commems to your friends list Get a Link to this Message Number of Subscribers
One of the more controversial commemorative half dollars of the classic-era series was certainly the 1936 Cincinnati Music Center 50th Anniversary half dollar.

Bills calling for the coin were introduced in the House Senate (January 15, 1936) and (January 16, 1936). The Senate bill sought coins "in commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of Cincinnati, Ohio, as a center of music, and its contribution to the art of music for the past fifty years." The Senate bill was ultimately passed in both chambers of Congress, and was signed into law by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on March 31, 1936.

Critics quickly questioned the claim of Cincinnati being a center of music for 50 years (i.e., since 1886) and would later question the use of a portrait of Stephen Foster on the coin's obverse. (See the links below for more on these aspects of the coin.)

I think at least some of the controversy surrounding the coin could have been avoided if the House version of the bill was the one that progressed to the finish line vs. the Senate's bill. The House bill called for coins "in commemoration of the Fiftieth (Golden) Anniversary of Cincinnati, Ohio, as a center of music, and its contribution of the annual May Festival to the art of music for the past fifty years." (Emphasis added.) The included reference to the city's May Festival allows such an overall statement of purpose to align reasonably well with confirmed history.

The annual May Festival (a choral music festival) is known around the world and has played host to acclaimed US and international musicians and conductors. The Festival was launched in 1873 to "transform the musical tastes of America and, at the same time, enhance Cincinnati's image and national reputation." (www.mayfestival.com) If a coin bill that included language regarding Cincinnati's May Festival had advanced, I can Imagine folks being a bit more accepting of the coin's back story. The dates (i.e., 1873 vs. 1886) would still not have been a perfect match, but an internationally-acclaimed music festival linked to Cleveland for 50+ years would have given respectable credence to the "center of music" claim.

The House bill was introduced by Representative William Emil Hess (R-OH) and was referred to the House Committee on Coinage, Weights, and Measures. The Committee reported the bill favorably, and recommended that it pass, though it did specify several amendments: the total mintage for the coin was to be raised from 15.000 to 25,000 and the specifications of the mintage amount for individual Mint facilities (Philadelphia - 10,000, Denver - 2,000 and San Francisco - 3,000) were to be deleted (but no restrictions were to be placed on which facilities could strike the coins).

After its return from Committee, the House bill was Laid on the Table in favor of the Senate bill, which was passed by the House without issue. The Senate bill did not include a reference to Cincinnati's May Festival, and specified a mintage of just 15,000 coins. Unfortunately, as written, the Senate bill became law and triggered a long-standing controversy. Ah, the benefits of 20/20 hindsight!

1936 Cincinnati Music Center 50th Anniversary Half Dollar
Commems-Collection-Classic:-1936-Cincinnati-Music-Center-50th-Anniversary---Controversy-Avoided? Commems-Collection-Classic:-1936-Cincinnati-Music-Center-50th-Anniversary---Controversy-Avoided?

For more on the history of the Cincinnati half dollar, see:

- 1936 Cincinnati Music Center 50th Anniversary
- 1936 Cincinnati Music Center 50th Anniversary - Revisited
- 1936 Cincinnati Music Center 50th Anniversary - Ephemera
- 1936 Cincinnati Music Center 50th Anniversary - Mintage Requests
- What If? 1937 Cincinnati Music Center 50th Anniversary


For other of my posts about 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
Coinfrog's Avatar
United States
94367 Posts
 Posted 04/20/2022  09:31 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add Coinfrog to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Good info as always, thanks!
Moderator
Learn More...
jbuck's Avatar
United States
187544 Posts
 Posted 04/20/2022  10:01 am  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add jbuck to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
Very interesting. Reminds me of "feature drift" where you end up with a product unlike what you set out to create.
Moderator
Learn More...
nickelsearcher's Avatar
United States
15386 Posts
 Posted 04/25/2022  6:57 pm  Show Profile   Bookmark this reply Add nickelsearcher to your friends list Get a Link to this Reply
I have always associated this issue as a personal project for the profit of racketeer Thomas G. Melish at the height of collector abuses in 1936.

It was certainly not worthy of a commemorative issue based on it's false historical narrative - i.e. there was nothing going on in Cincinnati in 1886 that justifies a national commemorative issue 50 years later.

Your informed report on the House bill language softens the blow just a teeny bit - but my feelings on the origins and justification for the 1936 Cincinnati issue remain the same - an overt push for Melish to gain personal profit from the collectors of the day (and to this day as well!).
Take a look at my other hobby ... http://www.jk-dk.art
  Previous TopicReplies: 3 / Views: 982Next 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 - 2026 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 - 2026 Coin Community Forums
It took 0.23 seconds to rattle this change. Forums