Remember When: Mint Director Jay Johnson Remembers, Part 3 (Conclusion)

Jay Johnson, director of the Mint in 2000 and 2001, passed away in mid-October of 2009. He was a fine friend, always willing to help with research or anything else. As a tribute to his memory we now conclude our sharing of some of his comments contributed to The Official Red Book of Washington Quarters, by Q. David Bowers, Whitman Publishing LLC, 2007.

This week we tell of one of Jay’s first official experiences. Johnson was confirmed as Mint director by vote of the U.S. Senate May 24. He was sworn in by Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers, May 25 and on May 26 he was in Columbia, S.C., for the ceremonial debut of the South Carolina quarter. U.S. Treasurer Mary Ellen Withrow and Johnson helped South Carolina governor Jim Hodges launch the coin at ceremonies at Dutch Fork Elementary School.

To start the event, Hodges presented the new quarter to students. Attributing the success of the coin program to the youth of the nation, Withrow said, “Many of the ideas for the South Carolina quarter design came from elementary students who are enthusiastic about our nation’s culture and history.” For Johnson, it was his first public appearance in his new job. He had been sworn in just the day before.

Director Johnson remembered the event:

I studied all about coins and the entire 50-state quarter program while waiting to be confirmed as Director of the Mint.… I walked into the Mint offices the day after I was sworn in, and said, “Isn’t there a quarter launch in South Carolina tomorrow, and shouldn’t I be there?” Some staff member looked at me with surprise, and said, “Isn’t this kind of sudden?”

I said I assume that I have to give a little speech, and somebody’s probably already written it, so I think I can read a speech successfully. They asked again if I wanted to really go to South Carolina the next day. I said yes. They made arrangements to get tickets, and I was there in Columbia, South Carolina the next day. Ironically, I had been in Columbia before. I spent about six weeks there in basic training in the US Army in 1966. So, I had lots to talk about with the local folks—about how Fort Jackson had changed a lot since I was there 34 years ago. Unfortunately, I didn’t have enough time to get on the old Army base and check out the barracks where I spent a hot summer, but I thought it was a great start for my first 50 state quarter launch.

Amazing to some Mint folks with me, I was able to handle the print and radio and TV interviews about the greatness of the 50 State Quarter Program, even though it was only my second full day on the job. I also recently found some of the South Carolina quarters that I was supposed to hand out that day![1]

---

[1] Letter to the author, July 27, 2004.

From the Experts: Notes on the 1916 Standing Liberty Quarter

Minted to the extent of only 52,000 pieces, the 1916 quarter dollar represents the first year of the new design by Hermon A. MacNeil, one of several sculptors who designed coins during the decade. The design with Miss Liberty having one breast exposed was modified in 1917, when she was encased in a jacket of armor.

Here at Stack’s Bowers Galleries the 1916 Standing Liberty quarter has been a favorite for many years. How many we have offered at auction since our founding in 1933 (first auction was in 1935), and how many at private sale, we have no way of knowing. Many hundreds for sure—and possibly over a thousand. Many of these have been old friends—bought from us, then sold or consigned when a numismatist’s interests change.

An interesting discussion of this elusive coin is found in Dave Bowers’ popular More Adventures with Rare Coins book and is adapted here.

Illustrious New Designs of 1916

The year 1916 brought with it a sweeping reform in American silver coinage. The Liberty Head designs of Charles E. Barber, used since 1892, were replaced by motifs designed by sculptors in the private sector. Hermon A. MacNeil was tapped to design the Standing Liberty quarter, while Adolph A. Weinman created the ‘Mercury’ dime and the Liberty Walking half dollar. For the first time in American coinage, the dime, quarter, and half dollar were issued in designs that were not related to each other in common design forms. In contrast, earlier issues of these denominations shared motifs of Barber’s Liberty Head, the preceding Liberty Seated, and earlier Capped Bust and Draped Bust motifs, and other designs.

Making its debut in 1916, the Standing Liberty series was produced continually from that point through 1930, with the exception of 1922. No quarter dollars were made in 1931, and when mintage was resumed in 1932, the Washington motif, first intended as a commemorative, became the standard. Thus, the Standing Liberty quarter faded from the American scene.

Today, most varieties of Standing Liberty quarters are highly collectible, the two notable rarities—and these are not “impossible”—being the 1916, the topic of the present article, and the 1918/7-S overdate. I have always enjoyed the series, and when in the course of business a nice collection of these quarters comes our way, I pause to reflect upon each coin and appreciate the design all over again.

The story of Hermon A. MacNeil’s creation of this design is capably told by J.H. Cline in his appropriately titled book, Standing Liberty Quarters. Young Dora Doscher, a friend of  sculptor MacNeil was the model for the coin. On the screen as Miss Doris Doree, the multi-talented Miss Doscher was also seen on the Broadway stage, and posed in the studios of several artists and sculptors. J.H. Cline commented, “Many interesting chapters could be written about Miss Dora Doscher in association with the MacNeil family.” Married, she was later known as Doris Doscher Baum.

A long time later in 1972 another contender stepped forward, Mrs. Irene MacDowell, who claimed that it was she who did the modeling. However, by this time the artist, Hermon MacNeil, had long since died, and few numismatists put any stock in the MacDowell claim.

A Design Switcheroo

The Standing Liberty quarter series commences with the 1916, with a low mintage of 52,000 pieces. One would normally expect that many would have been saved as a novelty as the first year of issue, and pieces would be rather plentiful. Exactly what happened is not clear, but probably as the 1916 quarter was produced very late in the year, and as the 1917-dated examples of the same type were made in large numbers, most of the public demand was probably absorbed by the more numerous 1917 pieces. The 1916 was elusive from the outset.

In 1917 the mintage of the Standing Liberty quarter was expanded to include production at all three active mints—Philadelphia, Denver, and San Francisco. Part way through the year the design was changed.

On the first version of the design, as used in 1916 and early 1917, Miss Liberty was shown with an exposed right breast. The revised motif included, among other things, Miss Liberty encased in a suit of mail—certainly a classic case of overcompensation. The reverse was modified as well, and now the eagle was depicted with three stars below it.

For a long time it was stated that the change in Miss Liberty’s dress was in response to public outrage against nudity. This makes a nice story, and it is one that was widely believed—including by the present writer—until some investigation was conducted. Checking into the matter, neither I nor anyone else has been able to come across any contemporary (1917) commentary, complaint, or anything else suggesting that the public objected to the nude aspect of Miss Liberty.

Instead, the design seems to have been changed by MacNeil for other reasons, possibly to indicate preparedness for the World War (which had been raging in Europe since 1914). One might say that the first design showed America personified as an Amazon, guarding the portal of Liberty, and that the second design showed her in an armed, defensive posture.

The modified design made its appearance part way through 1917. Almost immediately, problems arose with the sharpness of striking. While nearly all 1917 quarters of the early or Type I design have sharp details on the head of Miss Liberty, the Type II or modified issues do not. From then through the end of the series there were continuing difficulties with having the pieces strike up fully.

In 1925 a slight modification was made to the date position, but still the problem of striking sharpness continued. Today, numismatists assess the sharpness of the head of Miss Liberty, calling particularly sharp pieces “Full Head” or some high fraction such as “90% Full Head.” Or, at least this is what should happen, but often does not. Certified “Full Head” quarters of the 1920s usually have part of the head flat and range from perhaps 70% full to 90% full. In addition, the two lower left rivets on the shield are often weak or missing, and the raised emblem at the center of the shield is often poorly defined. Numismatics needs a re-evaluation. Is there such a thing as a 1926-D quarter with Full Details (sharp everything?). Maybe so, but probably no. On the other hand, certified “Full Head” 1926-D can be bought easily.

Numismatics and the 1916 Quarter

Only 52,000 1916 Standing Liberty quarters were struck, this figure being far and away the lowest production quantity for any regular coin in that design series.

The low mintage was not widely publicized in 1916-1917, and the public was not alerted to the scarcity of the 1916. There were no popular coin books that gave mintages, and not many collectors made the effort to get a copy of The Annual Report of the Director of the Mint. Mintage figures were routinely published in The Numismatist, but not much attention was paid to them. The “low mintage syndrome” in the hobby was still more than a decade away.

Apparently, nearly all 1916 quarters of the new design slipped unobtrusively into circulation. Although contemporary numismatists were alerted to the new motif, and many sought an example of the type, there was very little interest in assembling sets by date and mintmark sequence. This latter discipline did not become popular until the 1930s when Wayte Raymond launched the Standard Catalogue of U.S. Coins (1934) and in the same decade published a popular series of “National” coin album pages.

By the 1920s the 1916 Standing Liberty quarter dollar was recognized as being scarce by the few who were interested. In Mint State such pieces were particularly hard to find. Henry Chapman (the Philadelphia dealer) and John Zug (who conducted his highly successful mail order business from a barn on his homestead in Bowie, Maryland) maintained a small supply, but examples were lacking in most other dealers’ stocks. Abe Kosoff in a Coin World article, April 12, 1967, suggested that William L. Pukall had put away several rolls of these coins in 1916 and started selling them years later, apparently dispersing them all by the 1940s. Having had quite a few dealings with Pukall in the 1950s (but none involving 1916 quarters), I can say that Kosoff’s narrative is no doubt true, for Pukall had hundreds of certain 20th century coins, including Matte Proof Lincoln cents and Buffalo nickels still in the tissue wrappers of issue.

Today the fame of the 1916 Standing Liberty quarter is widespread, and it immediately comes to mind whenever 20th century rarities are mentioned. In fact, it is hard to believe that it was not a sensation in its own time—in 1916, when it first saw the light of day.

Crossing the Block: The World’s Largest Coinage

Yap Island Stone Money “Fei” to be offered in Stack’s Bowers and Ponterio’s January 6-9, 2012 NYINC Auction

The stone money of the Yap Island could never be classified as “pocket change.” In fact, the largest examples are over 12 feet in  diameter and weigh about two tons. In our 2012 New York International Numismatic Convention auction, January 6, 7, and 9, we are pleased to offer a 54-pound, 18 x 3.5 inch Yap Island “Fei.” These stones are seldom seen on the numismatic market and have been called the “Holy Grail” of primitive money collecting.

Considered sacred among local people, Yap Island stone money was not easy to make or to transport. As there is no large source of stone on Yap, the calcite stones were quarried and shaped on the Island of Malakal, in Palau, using axes made of clam shells, and then shipped on native boats to Yap. The overseas trip could be very dangerous, and often the value of a stone was directly related to the number of human lives lost in its quarrying and delivery. Although ownership of a stone was traded, often the stone itself would not be relocated as the size and weight made actual transfer of the item impractical.

Although there are many sizes and shapes of Yap stones, they can be classified into two basic types pre and post O'Keefe. The earliest stones were produced by locals using axe heads made from shells of giant clams. Later stones or "O'Keefe stones" were produced in the 1800s using metal tools. David O'Keefe was an American of Irish heritage who came to Yap with tools and a junk boat acquired in Hong Kong which he used to quarry and transport "Fei" from Malakal to Yap. Through this process he set himself up as the King of Yap Island. The 1954 motion picture "His Majesty O'Keefe" starring Burt Lancaster (although somewhat dramatized), fairly accurately portrays this series of events.

The stone we offer in our January New York City sale (Opitz-pg.316/21; Quiggin-pg.144, pl#12; Sigler-pg,19; Gillilland-Smithsonian Institute "The Stone Money of Yap a Numismatic Survey"-pg.58-type-d) is of the pre O'Keefe type, quarried and shaped by the native Yapese using the traditional axes made from giant clam shells. Seldom are larger stones available for sale, as removing them from the island was extremely hard due to their size and weight. In terms of condition this stone is complete, unbroken and attractive.

Crossing the Block: An Impressive High Relief Counter Reformation Multiple Ducats

Stack’s Bowers and Ponterio is proud to present the January 2012 N.Y.I.N.C. Auction, being held at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City January 6^th and 7^th and in our own auction Gallery on January 9^th, in conjunction with the New York International Numismatic Convention. This year is the 40^th Annual NYINC, and is the United States’ most prestigious numismatic event focusing on the needs of the world and ancient collecting communities.

Lot viewing begins in our new California office, located at 1063 McGaw in Irvine by appointment only starting this Wednesday, December 7^th through December 14^th. Lot viewing will also be taking place in our New York office from December 20-30 by appointment only, and then will resume on Wednesday January 4^th-7^th at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel.

One of the many exciting coins to cross the block that week is an impressive high relief Counter Reformation multiple ducats graded NGC-63—Wolf Dietrich Von Raitenau (1587-1612). Fr-674; KM-MB577; Probszt-715; Zottl-818.  EXTREMELY RARE. Wolf Dietrich Von Raitenau was heavily involved in the Counter-Reformation movement. In 1588 Raitenau had all of the Protestants expelled from the city of Salzburg. The obverse of this remarkable type depicts a three-tiered tower in the midst of a great storm, assaulted by the four winds and crashing of waves. The legend reads "IN. DOMINO. SPERANS. NON. INFIRMABOR" (Trusting in the Lord I shall not be Weakened). This allegorical design symbolizes that Catholicism, like the well built tower, will withstand the temporary storm of reformation. It is struck with precision on a large round planchet from remarkably high relief dies. The artistic beauty, style and detail of this numismatic work of art convey somewhat of a three dimensional overall general appearance. Exceptional in its execution, it clearly displays Raitenau’s affinity for fine art and love of Baroque architecture. 

Check out our entire auction online or give us a call at 949-955-1250 to receive a copy of the catalogue.

From the Experts: Charles E. Barber - Originality not Required

By David Thomason Alexander, Senior Numismatist

Collectors of U.S. coins are most likely to remember Charles E. Barber  (1840-1917) for his designs for the dime, quarter and half dollar coinage of 1892-1916. However, this British-born coin designer created a vastly larger body of medal designs for the Philadelphia Mint  and for private medallic firms during his long career. A dour, humorless man, Barber sometimes casually appropriated other engravers’ work to speed up projects of his own. One such adaptation was the 1881 Yorktown Surrender Centennial Medal whose obverse reappeared in 1900 on the Lafayette dollar, which hailed the erection in Paris of Paul Wayland Bartlett’s equestrian stature of Revolutionary War hero the Marquis de Lafayette.

Both medal and dollar presented conjoined busts of George Washington and an aged Lafayette facing right. The Washington likeness was faithfully copied from a bust by French sculptor Jean-Antoine Houdon, done from life after the Revolution. The very mature Lafayette bust was created by engraver Francois Caunois in 1824 for the French hero’s triumphal visit to America. It was an odd choice, since the Lafayette who came to the U.S. to serve as Washington’s aide was little more than a teenager. With its scene of Cornwallis’ surrender at Yorktown, this medal was assigned number 452a in William S. Baker’s classic 1885 catalogue of Washington medals. A near-Gem example of this medal was Lot 239 of Stack’s Bowers’ September 2011 Philadelphia Americana Sale.

The medal combines Houdon’s work with that of Caunois, and the commemorative 1900 dollar’s reverse was merely a copy of Bartlett’s statue. That the obverse showed Lafayette as he looked 44 years after Yorktown bothered Barber not at all! The dollar was not a great success in 1900 and lagged in collector interest for decades after. The medal suffered from the general lapse of American collector interest until the 1980s, when such types as U.S. Mint, Washington, and Presidential Inaugural medals suddenly experienced a dramatic revival. In 2011, both items are sought by collectors, who may find both difficult to find in Gem condition.

Remember When: Jay Johnson Remembers, Part 2

Mint Director Jay Johnson Remembers, Part 2

Jay Johnson, director of the Mint in 2000 and 2001, passed away in mid-October of 2009. He was a fine friend, always willing to help with research or anything else. We continue our sharing of some of his comments contributed to The Official Red Book of Washington Quarters, by Q. David Bowers, Whitman Publishing LLC, 2007.

Innovative programs had been devised under the watch of Mint Director Diehl and continued with Jay Johnson when he became Mint director. One of those was the use of a cartoon character. During this period, the state quarters program was riding high. In November 2005, Director Johnson, in reply to Dave Bowers’ inquiry about the numismatic fate of Kermit, said this:

As to Kermit, yes, he was hired through his parent company which produced Sesame Street, and he was the “spokesfrog” for the 50 State Quarters. We then had a series of TV ads featuring the actual employees of the U.S. Mint, from engravers to press operators at the various mints, showcasing the coins and U.S. Mint themselves. All this stopped when some members of Congress objected to the expenditures and spending money for “promotion” of the 50 State Quarters® Program, and Henrietta Fore cancelled most of the marketing contracts of the U.S. Mint.

There has since been a slight return of TV ads selling the generic U.S. Mint products, but NOT specifically the 50 State Quarter series NOR the Golden Dollar (remember George Washington using a Golden Dollar in TV ads).

As a result (in my opinion) with the falloff of the TV promotion ads, the 50 State Quarters® Program itself slowed down. Fewer quarters were demanded, and fewer were produced. Other factors included the slowing of the economy in general and a mid-term lag in interest in a ten year coin collecting program.

BUT, I think as it nears an end and going into 2008, with people seeing the end of their 10-year 50-state program in sight, the program will finish on a strong note, and all those who have been quietly hoarding their 1999 to 2005 quarters will see a renewed interest in getting the complete set, and the program will grow to a strong finish.[1]

---

[1] Communication with the author, November 8, 2005.

Did You Know - A Question about Auctions

A Question about Auctions

In looking through some files we came across this inquiry addressed some time ago to our own Dave Bowers—and the answer he gave:

Question: Dear Dave” I want to thank you very much for your weekly column "The Joys of Collecting" in Coin World.  I look forward to reading it every week.

I am wondering if one of your future topics for your column might discuss the numismatic origins and history of the 15% buyer’s fees we normally all have to pay when purchasing coins for our collections. If you could also include your opinion on the pros and cons of the buyer’s fee and discuss the relevancy of this fee in today’s market that would be very nice.

I really do not enjoy having to pay a buyer’s fee, mainly because I do not understand it and wonder why the seller doesn’t just mark up the purchase price. Being a novice collector, I really appreciate all the knowledge that you provide us each week. It has been very helpful to me and helps make collecting coins fun.

Again, thank you for your column and all it provides to those of us who read Coin World. Keep up the outstanding work you do. --- Sincerely, J.W.E.

Answer: Dear John The idea of a buyer’s fee for auctions was widely used in the art and antiques field by the time it took hold in numismatics, circa 1982. In its most familiar form today the fee is applied to the hammer price. If an auctioneer sells a lot for $1,000, on the invoice 15% is added, making the total price $1,150.

The 15% is by no means consistent. Some auction houses charge no fee at all, others 10%, and in certain areas of art and antiques, the fee is higher than 15% on lower value items, and is reduced on items of especially high value.

The idea originated in numismatics with the thought that consignors often resented paying a typical reasonable commission to have coins, tokens, medals, and paper money auctioned. The standard seller’s commission for items requiring typical cataloguing and the like used to be about 20%. For certain items, such as gold bullion coins, high denomination paper money, and the like, the seller’s commission would be less. For some other series, say certain tokens, medals, scrip, and the like, it would be higher than 20%. All these figures were negotiable.

Although there was really no difference in the amount of money involved, auction houses found that if they charged the consignor nothing at all, but charged the buyer, say 15%, the seller would feel that he or she was having his material auctioned for free. Of course, this was not the case from a logical viewpoint, but it did have appeal. The system caught on, and soon it was widely used.

With regard to you as a bidder, the smart thing to do is to calculate the entire price paid. If $1,150 is the maximum you want to pay for a coin, then you should submit a bid of $1,000 with the thought that if this bid is successful for its full amount, the bill indeed will be $1,150. If you want to pay $1,000, deduct 15%, and bid $850. The math does not work out precisely, for in this instance $850 plus 15% equals $977.50. For a better approximation, deduct 13% from the $1,000 price, yielding $870 hammer price, to which when 15% is added, comes to $1,000.50. Of course, you need a pocket calculator or a computer to figure this out—but it is easy once you set up a system.

Also, be sure to read the fine print. Shipping and handling fees can be relevant on certain lots that have small value. These are not necessarily related to the postage marked on the shipping envelope, as many companies have private insurance and, in any event, handling is not reflected in postage. Some companies have a minimum handling charge for inexpensive lots. In summation, the most important thing is the price you actually pay. Calculate all aspects in advance, including the buyer’s fee, estimated postage and handling charges, and, if relevant, sales tax. Then bid a figure that, when these other charges are added, will approximately equal the amount you wish to pay.

Although this has nothing to do with coin auctions, it is relevant to the fine print—in this instance which I did not read. On e-Bay I bid on an old postcard and won it for $2. I was charged $2 plus $8 for postage. I queried the seller, and he replied, “Postage is how I make my money.”

In a related example, also on e-Bay, a seller advertised something like, “I am not familiar with old paper money, but I have acquired some very nice copies of original sheets of four notes each.…” A bidder thought that “copies” meant “examples,” and offered a strong price. He won, and received the mail some cheap photocopies.

Thanks for writing! I hope this has been of some help.