Question re: Mint Act of Sept. 26, 1890

[shirohniichan]

In his famous Encyclopedia, Breen says the US Mint "[j]ump[ed] the gun by several weeks" in coining the Liberty Standing quarter in 1916 because the Mint Act of Sept. 26, 1890 mandated that coin designs only change after having been used for at least 25 years.

 

Breen doesn't use that claim regarding the Winged Liberty dime and Walking Liberty half, both of which also began coining in 1916. In fact, the Barber half had been used even less than the dime and quarter since no Barber halves were struck in 1916.

 

Question:

Were the 1916 designs for the dime, quarter, and half actually in violation of the Mint act?

 

I don't know what month any of the Barber designs began coining, so it's possible (for example) the dime was struck from March 1892 until March 1916 then replaced sometime thereafter (and thus fulfilling its 25 years of use).

 

It appears the Barber half design was only used for 24 years since none were coined in 1916, so I'm surprised Breen didn't charge it with being in violation of the Mint Act instead of the quarter.

[GDJMSP]

What the Act does is prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from the changing the design of his own accord until it has been used for 25 yrs. It does not however prohibit Congress from changing the design by statute as has happened many times.

 

But in this case I think it has to do with a technicality more than anything else. The Mint's fiscal year ends in June and begins in July. So even though no Barber halves were minted in 1916 - technically they were in use the required 25 yrs. The same is true of the quarter & dime.

 

The phasing out of the Barber coinage was being driven by a contest for new designs that had begun in 1915. And the Secretary of the Treasury was anxious for his new designs to be minted. So I think he may have bent the law a bit - but did not break it.

[shirohniichan]

Breen says the Mint got around the law by coining the SLQ's in Dec. 1916 and not releasing them until January 1917, thus remaining in compliance with the letter of the law.

 

Does anyone know the dates in 1892 when the Barber dime, quarter and half were introduced and the dates in 1916 when the new dimes and halves were released?

 

[jom]

I think Congress was bored as hell with Barber, the man's attitude and his dullard designs and just went forward. I mean, wouldn't you?

 

jom

[shirohniichan]

Has anyone read David Lawrence Feigenbaum's books on Barber coins? DO they have the info I'm looking for (i.e. the date Barber coins were released)? Are there others with the info?

 

I need references!

[DWLange]

I've never seen that information in print anywhere. One would have to scour local newspapers in the major cities for the month of January, 1892. I do know that coinage commenced January 2, 1892.

[shirohniichan]

Were I writing a book on the subject I'd do the research and find the answer. Since this mystery is only a small part of the article I'm writing, I'll leave it as an open question.

[chrisfuccione]

I've said this before that it is funny that noone has put op on the internet any mint reports from the 20th century. The only web site that I could find for earlyer mint reports has been Paul R. Hybert's site.

 

link

[GDJMSP]

I've searched far & wide for Mint reports from the 1800s - that is the only site I've ever found. If you ever find another - I'd sure like to know about it.

 

As a matter of fact - I've had no luck finding any prior to 1998 either other than the site you mention.

[DWLange]

Mint directors' reports can be purchased from dealers in numismatic literature. Here's a link to some of them:

 

http://www.coinbooks.org/club_nbs_ads.html

 

[GDJMSP]

Thanks DWL - I may just go that route. And perhaps I'll use them to make a new on-line resource so that others may share.

[chrisfuccione]

I was on the Mint's website and I found links to 1998-2001 mint reports. CHRIS

 

LINK