Here is what Robert B Hughes was paid for his seated Liberty coin design 0

[RWB]

Mint U.S.

 March 10, 1841

 James T. Barker, Esq.,

First Comptroller

Etc., etc.

 Sir,

            In your letter of the 8^th inst., to the Treasurer of the Mint, respecting his accounts for the second quarter of the year 1840, you introduce the following item:

             “Robert B. Hughes’s bill for Figure of Liberty, suspended for explanation,” $75.00     

I have, sxxx on this notice, to state, that the figure in question was a medallion for the “expression emblematic of Liberty” used on our coins, and was made for the purpose of being used as a pattern for casting in iron to be employed in a [particular] lathe by the operation of which the hubs for striking dies may be turned. The work ordered of Mr. Hughes was strictly for the regular business of the Mint.

            R. M. P.,

            Director

[RG104 E-1 Box 21]

Edited July 17, 2023 by RWB

[Sandon]

    Presumably, Robert Ball Hughes (1806-68) was being paid for creating a model of what became known as the "with drapery" (at elbow) versions of Liberty Seated half dimes, dimes, and quarters minted from some point in 1840 on, as well as all of the regular issue Liberty Seated dollars that were first minted in 1840.  This model was actually a completely redrawn version of Christian Gobrecht's original design concept, with a fuller figure of Liberty wearing heavier clothing and, for the half dimes and dimes, holding an upright instead of slanted shield.  (The half dollars remained generally faithful to Gobrecht's original concept, with some additional drapery having been added at Liberty's elbow for most of their first-year issues of 1839.)

   The differences in the "no drapery" and the "with drapery" versions are readily apparent.

Half dimes:

Dimes:

Quarter dollars:

Photos, except for that of the 1839 dime, are courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries. The coins are currently in my collection.

 

 

 

[RWB]

Nice coins. The design is, in my opinion, "disagreeably ugly."

[GoldFinger1969]

ASG was given $5,000 for 4 designs, right?

[RWB]

On 7/17/2023 at 10:31 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

ASG was given $5,000 for 4 designs, right?

Yes. 1 for gold and 1 for the cent, These ended up on the DE and E, with the E rev from the inaugural medal SG designed.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/18/2023 at 1:00 PM, RWB said:

Yes. 1 for gold and 1 for the cent, These ended up on the DE and E, with the E rev from the inaugural medal SG designed.

I guess either ASG's notoriety or the need to escape decades of lousy coinage designs led the Mint to up the ante, huh ?

Edited July 18, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

He received the largest fees of any artist in America, and rarely kept to a deadline.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/18/2023 at 4:28 PM, RWB said:

He received the largest fees of any artist in America, and rarely kept to a deadline.

It's fun to speculate -- and a bit sad, too -- to think what he could have done with our coinage had he lived another 10-15 years.

Wonder if the Saint designs might have changed on the obverse or reverse after about a decade or so.

[VKurtB]

On 7/17/2023 at 8:38 PM, RWB said:

Nice coins. The design is, in my opinion, "disagreeably ugly."

Gotta agree. “Ugly” is what many U.S. designs have in excess. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 7/19/2023 at 3:46 AM, VKurtB said:

Gotta agree. “Ugly” is what many U.S. designs have in excess. 

Has to be a few coins whose designs you like.  Morgan Obverse ?  Saint Obverse and/or Reverse ?  Small denomination coins ?

Definitely was angst and disgust about coin design by about 1880-1890 in the U.S. as I detailed in the Liberty Head DE book tidbits.  They even had a younger ASG and others get together to review potential design changes but nothing submitted was deemed worthy.

Edited July 21, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

A subsurface theme running through internal Mint correspondence was a desire to replace the seated design with something much better. This appears in the early 1840s ( ! ) and continues through the failed 1891 design fiasco.

[The figure of Liberty, which is after a design of Sully, has much merit, but I need not tell
you that it has also many faults. The eagle, on the reverse, has given us infinite trouble. We had
at one time a flying eagle, without any heraldic appendages to it; but it did not satisfy the public,
and was abandoned. I am inclined to think, now, that since we must abandon nature, and have an
eagle with a shield nailed to its breast, and branches and arrows in its claws, it would be best to
go still further, and adopt for our reverse the arms of the United States, as prescribed by law for
the great seal. I should hope, that by a proper [xxxxide] of taste, something of this kind could be
designed that would be satisfactory.] RG104 Entry 23 Peale Papers. November 25, 1842 to Horatio Greenough from Robert Patterson.

Fundamentally, the design culture for coinage was stuck on a phony Greco-Roman portrait style which produced nothing but imitations. (Compare with our current commercial- coin style -- we had to go back to L. Fraser's 1931 Washington bust to get a fresh portrait for the quarter. Why? )

[VKurtB]

On 7/20/2023 at 10:02 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Has to be a few coins whose designs you like.  Morgan Obverse ?  Saint Obverse and/or Reverse ? 

None of those, really. You want design? Check out early 20th century France and Italy. Want "martial" iconography? Check out most German coins. Want classic understatement with national symbols? The U.K. (Also prodigious royal probosci.) What's, to me, the most compelling U.S. design? Pretty clear to me. Both for artistic and technical (coinability preserved with great difficulty) merit, the Buffalo nickel. The Walking Liberty half is a close runner-up. Nothing else approaches, among circulating designs. There are a few really compelling classic commem designs, particularly the reverses (Pilgrim, Texas, etc.). But all in all, U.S. coins excel in two things: ugliness, and excess.

Edited July 20, 2023 by VKurtB

[J P M]

On 7/20/2023 at 2:30 PM, VKurtB said:

None of those, really. You want design? Check out early 20th century France and Italy. Want "martial" iconography? Check out most German coins. Want classic understatement with national symbols? The U.K. (Also prodigious royal probosci.) What's, to me, the most compelling U.S. design? Pretty clear to me. Both for artistic and technical (coinability preserved with great difficulty) merit, the Buffalo nickel. The Walking Liberty half is a close runner-up. Nothing else approaches, among circulating designs. There are a few really compelling classic commem designs, particularly the reverses (Pilgrim, Texas, etc.). But all in all, U.S. coins excel in two things: ugliness, and excess.

And don't forget being overpriced most of the time.

[VKurtB]

On 7/20/2023 at 8:02 PM, J P M said:

And don't forget being overpriced most of the time.

Lately, … ALL THE TIME! U.S. coin prices now are certifiably NUTS! I won’t buy much of anything at these levels. Why do you think I’m doing an 18 day Europe numismatic trip this fall? Yes, happy wife, happy life, but still… 

The opportunities to buy U.S. material at sane prices are few and far between, and mostly in transmontaine Pennsylvania. Gotta go out where Whitetail deer outnumber humans. 
 

One auction I went to, I drove right past the “secret” entrance to Camp David in Maryland. Yup, whitetail deer and suits wearing sunglasses and flag lapel pins. 

Edited July 21, 2023 by VKurtB