Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Standing Liberty quarter/archive1
Possible coin image improvement[edit]
Wehwalt, these photographs of a 1917 Type 1 really impress. 1918 Type 2 has excellent detail but the lighting is not even (the best photograph I saw was on a commercial auction site). I do not know if you are a member of cointalk.com, but I think if those collectors are willing to release their photographs under a CC license, it would really enhance this article. Jappalang (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- And how. I'm not a member but I imagine I can join. I emailed one of the grading services this morning and asked for their help, they haven't responded yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Done. It strikes me that one good way of getting coin images is appealing to collectors on that forum. They would have to be willing either to upload or at least send me an email that I could use for OTRS purposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I posted one here. Not much yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think you may need to tell them what the Creative Commons license entails... Some people readily volunteer their work until they realize others could profit from them. I am also not certain if OTRS would accept forum posts. Jappalang (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's worth the experiment! Someone's posted Type 1 Buffalo nickels, which we don't have. If OTRS won't accept forum posts as a source, I'll ask them to shoot an email. I am overwhelmed with work here and likely won't get to the experiment until later. Keep you posted.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think you may need to tell them what the Creative Commons license entails... Some people readily volunteer their work until they realize others could profit from them. I am also not certain if OTRS would accept forum posts. Jappalang (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I posted one here. Not much yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Done. It strikes me that one good way of getting coin images is appealing to collectors on that forum. They would have to be willing either to upload or at least send me an email that I could use for OTRS purposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Continued discussion of design changes to the coin[edit]
(moved from FAC) Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- "... von Engelken decided to revert to MacNeil's original obverse design: that is, without the dolphins."
- What's wrong with that? I can't illustrate the model, it is in private hands and not on display as far as I am aware, and is not in the public domain until 2018 anyway, so I am using the "dolphins" as an easy way for the user to keep track. I've discovered some of the patterns illustrated in Burdette's book are PD as he got the images from the curator at the Smithsonian, but not that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- How did this design overcome the difficulties encountered in producing the dime and half dollar?
- We're going to get more into the technicalities of this in Walking Liberty half dollar (not there yet) but the bottom line is that due to the way Weinman had laid out the designs, excess metal was froming a "fin" on the coin, which would appear to be a very high rim. THat becomes a problem because it either is going to stay, in which case you have a coin that won't work in vending machines, or it breaks off, so you have an underweight coin. Although Burdette doesn't clearly say this, Barber's changes to the design prevented any similar problems with the quarter. Barber was not considered an artist on the same level as Weinman and MacNeil, but he knew exactly what the presses at the US Mint would and would not do. It is all a question of metal flow. Probably too technical for the article, plus we are talking about what didn't happen. Whew.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- To elaborate on why I raised this issue, the story (according to the article) goes like: MacNeil submitted the first design. Woolley's Mint said make a bit of changes because the details on prototypes were too indistinct. MacNeil made changes, adding dolphins! Woolley's Mint is happy. Woolley quits, von Engelken takes over. His Mint said we got problems with making dimes and half dollars (not quarters), so they reverted to MacNeil's original design (whose details Woolley's Mint said was bad) without explanation of the benefits in doing so. There is a disruption in the logic that requires explanation in my opinion. Jappalang (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- They were attempting to apply the experienced gained by the problems with the dime and half dollar to the quarter. Let me poke through Burdette.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- There is a letter from Von Engelken to MacNeil on September 8, acknowledging that MacNeil had stated that the dolphins model would soon be sent, and telling him they were having "extraordinary" difficulties with the dime and half dollar. Von Engelken wrote that they would let MacNeil know what changes would be necessary once they had resolved the difficulties with the dime and half dollar but they never did, they did it in house. Burdette glosses over somewhat the decision making in the Mint; I suspect the letters may not exist. He picks up again on the quarter in mid-October, with Von Engelken and Joyce sending pattern coins back and forth. There is no mention of any correspondence involving the quarter between September 8 and October 13, which is perhaps not surprising as crazy things were happening with the dime just then (see Mercury dime). I am not certain what I can profitably add. Burdette does mention that Von Engelken was both a banker and technically inclined, whereas Woolley was neither (Woolley was no lightweight though, he latter served on the ICC). McAdoo's approval of the dolphins design does not seem to have been preceded by any sort of technical review, if that helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- The exact reason for the reversion to MacNeil's original concept are not known. Unfortunately the Mint had a telephone by then. Burdette speculates, and I say again, he speculates, that two problems were that the IN GOD WE TRUST on Liberty's sash on the dolphins model would have been illegible at coin size, and that the wall had large expanses of blank space. However, that really doesn't answer your question, which was why was the dolphins less coinable (if it was)? Unless there is stuff in the National Archives that Burdette didn't use (I doubt it! the man was thorough), we're not going to have answer to that question. I personally think that the dolphins design is more handsome, but there's a tendency among numismatists to like the "other" design (see Washington quarter for an extreme case). I am uncertain that I can fully satisfy you on this point.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- One more point (my this is a mouthful). They did not use exactly MacNeil's original obverse. There are a number of minor differences that I can regale you with. As usual, Barber's design modifications to make the coin strike better outraged the artist. MacNeil was one of the very few to win that battle. Him and Weinman.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- The exact reason for the reversion to MacNeil's original concept are not known. Unfortunately the Mint had a telephone by then. Burdette speculates, and I say again, he speculates, that two problems were that the IN GOD WE TRUST on Liberty's sash on the dolphins model would have been illegible at coin size, and that the wall had large expanses of blank space. However, that really doesn't answer your question, which was why was the dolphins less coinable (if it was)? Unless there is stuff in the National Archives that Burdette didn't use (I doubt it! the man was thorough), we're not going to have answer to that question. I personally think that the dolphins design is more handsome, but there's a tendency among numismatists to like the "other" design (see Washington quarter for an extreme case). I am uncertain that I can fully satisfy you on this point.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- There is a letter from Von Engelken to MacNeil on September 8, acknowledging that MacNeil had stated that the dolphins model would soon be sent, and telling him they were having "extraordinary" difficulties with the dime and half dollar. Von Engelken wrote that they would let MacNeil know what changes would be necessary once they had resolved the difficulties with the dime and half dollar but they never did, they did it in house. Burdette glosses over somewhat the decision making in the Mint; I suspect the letters may not exist. He picks up again on the quarter in mid-October, with Von Engelken and Joyce sending pattern coins back and forth. There is no mention of any correspondence involving the quarter between September 8 and October 13, which is perhaps not surprising as crazy things were happening with the dime just then (see Mercury dime). I am not certain what I can profitably add. Burdette does mention that Von Engelken was both a banker and technically inclined, whereas Woolley was neither (Woolley was no lightweight though, he latter served on the ICC). McAdoo's approval of the dolphins design does not seem to have been preceded by any sort of technical review, if that helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- They were attempting to apply the experienced gained by the problems with the dime and half dollar to the quarter. Let me poke through Burdette.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- To elaborate on why I raised this issue, the story (according to the article) goes like: MacNeil submitted the first design. Woolley's Mint said make a bit of changes because the details on prototypes were too indistinct. MacNeil made changes, adding dolphins! Woolley's Mint is happy. Woolley quits, von Engelken takes over. His Mint said we got problems with making dimes and half dollars (not quarters), so they reverted to MacNeil's original design (whose details Woolley's Mint said was bad) without explanation of the benefits in doing so. There is a disruption in the logic that requires explanation in my opinion. Jappalang (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- We're going to get more into the technicalities of this in Walking Liberty half dollar (not there yet) but the bottom line is that due to the way Weinman had laid out the designs, excess metal was froming a "fin" on the coin, which would appear to be a very high rim. THat becomes a problem because it either is going to stay, in which case you have a coin that won't work in vending machines, or it breaks off, so you have an underweight coin. Although Burdette doesn't clearly say this, Barber's changes to the design prevented any similar problems with the quarter. Barber was not considered an artist on the same level as Weinman and MacNeil, but he knew exactly what the presses at the US Mint would and would not do. It is all a question of metal flow. Probably too technical for the article, plus we are talking about what didn't happen. Whew.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I foundthisA letter in Cline's bookthat have letters from those involved. Itseems to state that von Engelken actually was partial to having the coin struck as Woolley approved? Jappalang (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)- Yes, I scanned a copy of Cline a the ANA library. I wouldn't agree with that. In fact, Burdette thinks that Cooksey (who signed the letter, G M Cooksey) and von Engelken were referring to the half dollar. Von Engelken sent Weinmann a letter on September 7 discussing the Mint's technical limitations, which he seems to relate because he prints them consecutively in a section dealing with the half dollar. He does not discuss the contents, however, other than to attach a biographical note about George M. Cooksey. All this is on page 68, I don't know if it is on Google Books.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Re-reading all these and the article text suggests to me that "A number of pattern coins were struck, and von Engelken decided to revert to MacNeil's original obverse design: that is, without the dolphins" could be changed to "After a number of pattern coins had been struck, von Engelken decided to adopt a modified version of MacNeil's original obverse design (the one without dolphins)." This would make it instantly clear to the reader that it was not a blind reversion, but one with modifications. Jappalang (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- How about "A number of pattern coins were struck, and van Engelken decided to abandon the dolphins version. By mid-October, patterns with a modified version of MacNeil's original obverse were being struck." That's closer to the source. Unfortunately, there seem to be five weeks of material missing at the Archives.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that will work well. Conspiracy alert! Five weeks of missing material, eh... Maybe the pyramid with the all-seeing eye is involved, somehow... *cue X-Files theme* Jappalang (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's done now anyway. Do you think Barber was knocked off by AQ?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- No... that would be too obvious. It would be more insidious for the name-that-shall-not-be-spoken to send the little green spores from Mars.... or nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Jappalang (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's done now anyway. Do you think Barber was knocked off by AQ?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that will work well. Conspiracy alert! Five weeks of missing material, eh... Maybe the pyramid with the all-seeing eye is involved, somehow... *cue X-Files theme* Jappalang (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- How about "A number of pattern coins were struck, and van Engelken decided to abandon the dolphins version. By mid-October, patterns with a modified version of MacNeil's original obverse were being struck." That's closer to the source. Unfortunately, there seem to be five weeks of material missing at the Archives.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)