1926 Peace dollar: "GOD"

[villa66]

I lucked into a decent 1921 Peace dollar and have been playing with it for two weeks solid. (The ;21 Peace is one of the most interesting coins in the entire American series) Along the way I learned something about the Peace dollars of 1926 that I cannot remember having read before—the word GOD in the motto IN GOD WE TRUST had been recut and emphasized.

I found that difficult to believe, but the examples sitting in my own collection (from all three mints) seem to confirm it, with the word GOD returning to its usual appearance the next year, in 1927.

Sorry about the darkness of the images…'

v.

[klaupo]

Sorry about the darkness of the images…'

Looks better this way, doesn't it?

Best regards
klaupo

[villa66]

Much better! Danke...

v.

[Mynter]

I lucked into a decent 1921 Peace dollar and have been playing with it for two weeks solid. (The ;21 Peace is one of the most interesting coins in the entire American series) Along the way I learned something about the Peace dollars of 1926 that I cannot remember having read before—the word GOD in the motto IN GOD WE TRUST had been recut and emphasized.

I found that difficult to believe, but the examples sitting in my own collection (from all three mints) seem to confirm it, with the word GOD returning to its usual appearance the next year, in 1927.

Sorry about the darkness of the images…'

v.

Congratulations on your 1921. I am still looking for a decent piece at a resonable price . The 1921 is not too rare but allways comes with a hefty premium due to the great story linked to this one-year-type.
Accordig to the Red Book the masterdie for the 1926 was partially retouched, as the IN GOD WE TRVST was said to have become weeker during the production of the 1924s and 1925s. The engraver probably started his recutting on the word of GOD because it "was the middle word and simply convenient " ,the Red Book assumes.
Strange, how the name of God has weakend again just one year later. Either the engraver stood on Moscows payroll ( rather unlikly ) or in 1926 they did not recut the mastertools afterall ?

[villa66]

Mynter: “…this one-year-type.” It is a one-year type, and why Krause has been so backward in recognizing that in their standard catalogs is something I’ve never understood. Any idea whether Schӧn gives the 1921 a separate catalog number? (I gave Numista a quick look and didn’t see anything.)

Mynter: “Strange, how the name of God has weakened again just one year later…[perhaps]…in 1926 they did not recut the mastertools after all?” My knowledge of the process is not deep, but the way I understand it is: the master hub makes the master die, the master die makes the working hubs, and the working hubs make the working dies. If that’s correct, the 1926 master die could be recut and GOD strengthened, while leaving the master hub untouched, which would produce a 1927 master die with the original, weaker GOD of 1925 and before. Or maybe it was that Moscow thing .

Mynter: “The engraver probably started his recutting on the word of GOD because it ‘was the middle word and simply convenient’, the Red Book assumes.” This seems to be the consensus, but it does beg the question—so why then did the work stop? And I have also read speculation to the effect that it could have been underground comment on the 1925 Scopes trial (America’s infamous “Monkey Trial.” But heck, if the floor’s open for speculation, I’ll suggest my own—why not link it to the big and money-making religious movie Ben Hur, released at the end of 1925? (Which came on the heels of 1923’s big and money-making religious movie The Ten Commandments. Public or political comment—in that sort of cultural climate—about the Peace dollar’s blurred and indistinct GOD might have been heard at the Mint.

One last note on the motto as it was rendered on the Peace dollar, IN GOD WE TRVST. I read a very emphatic declaration by someone who insisted that the “V was for Victory.” Nope. It was just a contemporary artistic conceit. A useful reply to the “V for Victory” thesis is the Standing Liberty quarter, which first appeared in 1916, before the United States even entered the war.

Hope you find your ’21 Peace, Mynter. Just like you said, they’re a tough coin to buy right. Mine? It’s got “Saarbrücken, again” written all over it. But that I’ll have to explain at a more reasonable time of day…

v.

[klaupo]

“…this one-year-type.” It is a one-year type, and why Krause has been so backward in recognizing that in their standard catalogs is something I’ve never understood. Any idea whether Schӧn gives the 1921 a separate catalog number? (I gave Numista a quick look and didn’t see anything.)

Schön distinguishes the 1921 issue from the later issues:

S# 22.1 High relief 1921 - VF 60,- EF 120,- UNC 300,- Proof 2.400,-
S# 22.2 Flat relief 1922-1928, 1934, 1935 - VF 10,- EF 18,- UNC 35,- Proof 400,-

Kind regards
klaupo

[villa66]

Danke, klaupo…and good for Schon!

While I’m at it, I’ve got one more question along the same lines. So would someone please be kind enough to say whether Schon assigns a separate catalog number to the Standing Liberty quarters of 1925-1930?

The last time I looked, Krause was still failing to do this, and it makes their standard catalog less useful to collectors who aren’t already acquainted with this series. So I wonder, does Schon break the American Standing Liberty quarters into three groups (1916-17, 1917-24, 1925-30)?

v.

[coinnuttius]

“…this one-year-type.” It is a one-year type, and why Krause has been so backward in recognizing that in their standard catalogs is something I’ve never understood. Any idea whether Schӧn gives the 1921 a separate catalog number? (I gave Numista a quick look and didn’t see anything.)

Schön distinguishes the 1921 issue from the later issues:

S# 22.1 High relief 1921 - VF 60,- EF 120,- UNC 300,- Proof 2.400,-
S# 22.2 Flat relief 1922-1928, 1934, 1935 - VF 10,- EF 18,- UNC 35,- Proof 400,-

Kind regards
klaupo

Komisch, weil auch 1922 high relief existiert, aber nur als PP, daher müsste es dann 3 Nummern geben.

Das ist dann eine Entscheidung die Schön getroffen hat. KM orientiert sich eher am offensichtlichem Design und Material. Daher haben Morgans eine Nummer, aber Kennedy Halves mehrere. Oder alle Goldmünzen, welche als Serie schon existierten, dann aber "In God we trust" dazu bekamen (e.g., $10 Libs).

[villa66]

KM orientiert sich eher am offensichtlichem Design und Material....

No—with respect—I don’t think that’s the problem here. (I’ve spent a lot of time over the years puzzling out the slenderest of design differences between coins with different KM numbers, and have vehemently objected to their sometime practice of assigning different KM numbers to coins merely because of their different mintmarks.)

Instead I think the difficulty with the American section’s KM numbers lies in the patchwork nature of the catalog, and its American origins. Krause published coin magazines for the American market that included periodic price listings of American coins, and when they began assembling their big world catalogs in the 1970's I had the impression that they had merely imported their existing template into the American section of the KM.

So there were no catalog numbers assigned to American coins in the KM, an omission that took many years to correct. But of course that deficiency didn’t matter much to most Americans who used the books, because catalog numbers aren’t traditionally used in the general collecting of U.S. coins—die varieties in certain series, patterns and trial strikes being notable exceptions.

Yeoman,--in his world type catalogs—Scott, and Breen have all generated catalog numbering systems for American coinage, but they are more or less irrelevant to most American collectors, who have for many decades learned the hobby’s basics from the Bluebook and Redbook, both of which are simple creatures of series, date and mintmark.

Bottom-line is that the American tradition of date-collecting has resulted in a slow and uneven assigning of type numbers in the KM’s American section. It’s too much to expect them to break the 1921 Morgan out on its own, but the 1921 Peace is an easy call—it’s that much different from all the other dates in the series (a handful of rogue ’22 proofs notwithstanding!). But the one that’s really wrong, though, is the Standing Liberty quarter.

The Buffalo nickel (5-cent piece) has two KM numbers because of a hollowed-out exergue. The same should be done with the 1917-24 and the 1925-30 Standing Liberty quarters. There too the difference is a hollowed-out exergue (this time to protect the date). It’s an easy difference to see, but not only does KM not give them their own catalog numbers (as of the 2016 edition), there’s not even a note to explain the change—or the substantial difference in prices beginning in 1925, after the change.


v.

[coinnuttius]

KM orientiert sich eher am offensichtlichem Design und Material....

No—with respect—I don’t think that’s the problem here. (I’ve spent a lot of time over the years puzzling out the slenderest of design differences between coins with different KM numbers, and have vehemently objected to their sometime practice of assigning different KM numbers to coins merely because of their different mintmarks.)

Instead I think the difficulty with the American section’s KM numbers lies in the patchwork nature of the catalog, and its American origins. Krause published coin magazines for the American market that included periodic price listings of American coins, and when they began assembling their big world catalogs in the 1970's I had the impression that they had merely imported their existing template into the American section of the KM.

So there were no catalog numbers assigned to American coins in the KM, an omission that took many years to correct. But of course that deficiency didn’t matter much to most Americans who used the books, because catalog numbers aren’t traditionally used in the general collecting of U.S. coins—die varieties in certain series, patterns and trial strikes being notable exceptions.

Yeoman,--in his world type catalogs—Scott, and Breen have all generated catalog numbering systems for American coinage, but they are more or less irrelevant to most American collectors, who have for many decades learned the hobby’s basics from the Bluebook and Redbook, both of which are simple creatures of series, date and mintmark.

Bottom-line is that the American tradition of date-collecting has resulted in a slow and uneven assigning of type numbers in the KM’s American section. It’s too much to expect them to break the 1921 Morgan out on its own, but the 1921 Peace is an easy call—it’s that much different from all the other dates in the series (a handful of rogue ’22 proofs notwithstanding!). But the one that’s really wrong, though, is the Standing Liberty quarter.

The Buffalo nickel (5-cent piece) has two KM numbers because of a hollowed-out exergue. The same should be done with the 1917-24 and the 1925-30 Standing Liberty quarters. There too the difference is a hollowed-out exergue (this time to protect the date). It’s an easy difference to see, but not only does KM not give them their own catalog numbers (as of the 2016 edition), there’s not even a note to explain the change—or the substantial difference in prices beginning in 1925, after the change.


v.

Hi,

I beg to differ. The design Type I vs Type II was changed because of wear on the Type I from the raised lettering on the higher field vs the lower field, resulting in a "mound" vs "line" change for the Buffs. That is a readily noticeable design change and the numbers may be due to that, not "hollowed out exergue" <--> relief --> KM number change DUE to that.

The Type 2a vs Type 2b St. Libs differences are not a large noticable change, nor does it cross date boundaries where it would be the "diagnostic" difference. The Morgan "relief change" all in a single year (8TF via transitional 7/8 TF to 7 TF design) has it annotated with a picture to help (all 1878) but no KM# change, as the change is barely visible in the overall design. Even the reverse changes in the Morgans did not get a separate umber, but is way more visible and annotated. KM talks about high relief on the $20 Saints, but the obvious part are the roman numerals. The relief was changed, but so was the date to arabic numberals. Obvious. That is also the trend in the catalog.

I tend to believe that point is that the catalog is designed such that a novice can find a coin by date/type/denomination/mintmark and obvious "markers" using the small b/w picture thats is provided. The novice knows little about relief, die varieties/matings, etc. If KM started to enummerate all possible minor design deviations it would be enormous, diced into smaller and smaller differences, but not as bad as PCGS coin numbers, I guess . The new KM editions have more DDO/DDR/RPD/RPM annotations for some series (WashQ), but not others ($20 Libs). That is following the trend in collecting these day pushed by the big players, where slicing things smaller and smaller is popular, because it generates value in a market that was fairly stagnant (lower segment of the coin market).

When you specialize in a series you use other sources anyways, e.g, VAM book or Breen gold varieties and the issue becomes moot.

Kind regards,

coinnuttius

[villa66]

First please let me say I appreciated the thoughtfulness of your post….

It was fun to see your use of “Buffs,” which reminded me of my own moment’s hesitation when I used “Buffalo nickel.” I knew I was breaking the three rules insisted on by the purists, but “Buffalo nickel.” is how I learned it as a kid, so what the heck. Of course I also learned the types as “buffalo on mound/buffalo on plain,” but that didn’t make much sense—the problem was exergual, not topographic—so I jettisoned that one years ago. Reason for the change from one type to the next? Wear on the denomination, just as you say, but stacking too was apparently a concern, and I’ve even read that the the change was made so they would work better in vending machines.

I continue to suggest the inadequacy of the catalog numbers in the American section of the KM are largely the result of its American origins and that hobby’s traditional penchant for date- rather than type-collecting. Again, the KM isn’t at all shy about generating catalog numbers in other sections of the catalog. (Which point was brought home to me yet again the other night when I was taking a closer look at the piece below, KM #196.26.

More later on….

[villa66]

You’ve raised several interesting points of departure, coinnuttius, but I’d better just stick with my original focus—that the Standing Liberty quarters of 1917-1924 should have a different KM catalog number from those of 1925-1930.

When I posted the two pictures of the 1920 and the 1930 side-by-side I remember laughing to myself and shrugging my shoulders, wishing I had pictures on hand of two more thoroughly circulated coins—there just wasn’t enough contrast to make my case. So it didn’t really surprise me when you replied: “The Type 2a vs Type 2b St. Libs differences are not a large noticable change, nor does it cross date boundaries where it would be the "diagnostic" difference.”\

But I continue to think the “date atop pedestal/recessed date” is a very substantial difference—if not in 2-dimensional photos, then certainly in 3-dimensional metal. It was enough of a difference, anyway, that it definitely affected the way the two types circulated—or didn’t circulate.

In point of fact, the “date atop pedestal/recessed date” difference is often diagnostic—as the coin pictured below illustrates. This badly worn, dateless SLQ is instantly recognizable as a “date atop pedestal” coin belonging to the 1917-1924 time period.

When I began collecting in 1964 it was not too uncommon to see SLQ’s in circulation—but only dateless ones. (I picked the coin below off Pop’s dresser in ’65. It was an “S” mint!) But I never—ever—saw a SLQ circulating whose date I could read—or even try to puzzle out its remnants (as I did many times with the Buffalo nickels then still circulating).

And the reason the only SLQ’s that I saw circulating had their dates completely erased? Because I was seeing only the “date atop pedestal” coins of 1916-1924 (dateless SLQ’s of the 1916-1917 types 1a and 1b also still circulated). The “recessed date” coins of 1925-1930 had already been pulled from circulation by ’64 and were already sitting in the collections and accumulations that were (it seemed) in every family in those days.

Funny, isn’t it? The newer SLQ’s of 1925-1930 departed circulation before the older ones of 1916-1924.

Anyway, as I see it, the KM should assign the SLQ series 4 different catalog numbers, all based on obvious design differences along the following lines: 1a 1916, 1b 1917, 2a 1917-1924, 2b 1925-1930.

Finally, the San Francisco-mint coin below. It was at least 41 years old the first time I saw it—and it tortured me as a kid. That was 55 years ago, and when I look at it now I still wonder…1917s, 1918s, 1918/17s, 1919s, 1920s, 1923s or 1924s?

v.

[coinnuttius]

Hi villa66,

yes, good point. I guess if you try to assign numbers to imperfect series or "moving targets" as more and more differences come to light / are emphasized then it will be more difficult to come across as having a unified numbering scheme.

There are more or less easy ways to settle the question:

1. Call Krause and get an answer

2. decide the matter in a duel the old-fashioned way

Since 1. is obviously next to impossible, I am obliged to offer you the option to pick your drink of choice. First one on the ground, passed out, wins.

Cheers,

coinnuttius

[villa66]

I drink to your health! Thanks for the good talk.

v.