A commemorative story: The Robinson/Arkansas commemorative

[Wihlborg]

The 1930’s were the heyday of commemorative half dollars in America, but by 1936 there was a glut of commemorative half dollars on the market, most were not selling well, and the states of Texas and Arkansas both already had authorization from congress to have coins minted spanning a number of years to commemorate their state centennials.

 

These facts however, did not keep the Texas Centennial Commission from trying to have another bill passed in congress that would authorize the minting of additional Texas commemorative half dollars with five new reverse designs.

 

With the submission of this new Texas bill, the smell of money was in the air and as soon as the Arkansas Centennial Commission got a whiff, they too had a bill submitted to congress that if passed would authorize the minting of three new reverse designs for the Arkansas commemorative. While the Texas bill failed to pass, the Arkansas bill had some success. They received authorization in late June of 1936 to have one additional Arkansas commemorative minted with a new reverse design.

 

To some degree, the Arkansas Centennial Commission’s partial success was most likely due to the fact that the senate majority leader at the time was none other then Arkansas’s own Joseph T. Robinson, the very person who’s portrait appears on the coin!

 

Robinson’s likeness was not the original design for the new coin however. Originally, the Arkansas Centennial Commission’s idea for the design was either a portrait of Hernando de Soto, who was the first European to explore the region, or an image of a coin that Hernando de Soto gave to a Native American woman he meet while in the area. These ideas for the design did not prove to be popular however, and soon it was decided to use the portrait of Robinson on the coin, which Robinson himself was against.

 

Sculptor and medalist Henry Kreiss was chosen to prepare the model of the new reverse. Kreiss was a talented sculptor who also created the models for the Bridgeport and Connecticut commemorative half dollars. The Arkansas Centennial Commission did not receive final approval for the design by the Commission of Fine Arts until Dec. 23, 1936.

 

This caused somewhat of a dilemma because the bill authorizing the new reverse specified that the coin must bear the date of 1936, and there was no time left to have the coins minted before the end of the year. But as they say ‘where there’s a will, there’s a way’, and the Arkansas Centennial Commission certainly had the will to get the coins minted.

 

They were able to get around this little technicality because while the bill specified that the coin must be dated 1936, nowhere in the bill did it say that the coins had to be minted in 1936. The coins were minted in January of 1937 bearing a date of 1936 and that is how the Robinson Commemorative half came to be.

 

I have always liked the design of the Robinson commemorative half dollar and although I have owned a very nice MS-65 example for about seven or eight years, I had always wanted to add a truly spectacular MS-67 example of this coin to my collection. With a mintage of 25,250 and most examples surviving in mint state, this may not sound like it would be too difficult, but the mintage figures and survival rate for the Robinson is deceiving. While MS-65 and MS-66 examples are available, the majority of surviving examples grade MS-64 or less. At the MS-67 level the Robinson is a tough coin.

 

This is due in large part to the design itself. Robinson’s portrait is large and offers a vast, smooth area to attract ticks, bag marks, and scrapes. Any of these marks will stick out like a sore thumb on a Robinson, lowering the grade accordingly. The Robinson is also an issue that is not commonly found with the ‘look’ or eye appeal that most would call truly attractive.

 

And so I searched for years, at coin shows, shops, dealer’s web sites, and auctions. I looked at many MS-67 graded examples during that time, but none met the standard that I had set my mind to. Some had too many distracting marks, on some the luster was too muted, but most just did not have the eye appeal I wanted. If anything, they had negative eye appeal in my opinion.

 

A few weeks ago I finally found just the example I had been looking for. Technically the coin is all there, exceedingly clean mark wise, every detail fully struck, and great luster, but there’s more to this coin then just its technical grade. It also possesses the most stunning eye appeal that I have ever seen on a Robinson.

 

The obverse is tab toned in vibrant orange/red around the rim, giving way to light gold before fading to an original silver center. The tab tone pattern is more evident when viewing the coin in hand then it appears in the photo, but if look closely, you can make out the telltale round area of tone on Robinson’s temple, as well as the opposing untoned areas at the rim.

 

There is some of the same orange/red and gold toning around the rim on the reverse also, though it is nowhere near as pronounced as it is on the obverse. The majority of the reverse is a gorgeous original aged silver color.

 

Here are my photos of the coin.

 

 

As always, comments are welcome

 

John

[EZ_E]

It is a shame that so much politics enter into the realm of coin design. Can you imagine the beauty that could adorn these metalic discs if the true spirit of artistry went unchecked!

 

I don't think that a balding, middle-aged, Roosevelt-like portrait is the most stunning design imaginable. Yet, with the incredible eye-appeal on John's coin, even Robinson looks dashing.

 

[Hoot]

What a fabulous post!!! The story of the coin is fantastic and puts the design in context, which is what I like best about numismatics.

 

Your coin is the prettiest Robinson I've ever seen. This is a coin that typically comes with spotty and black or gray toning, and is often one that is quite scuffy. The tab toning and thick, crusty white make this coin quite evidently original and one that was handled over the years with a lot of TLC. Finding a pice among the survivors that has this look, not just the grade, is a daunting task that takes immeasurable patience. You have done exceptionally well!!!

 

The coin's reverse has one of the most beautiful eagle effigies ever rendered. Above the rising sun, this is a vision of a glorious hope for the future. Tremendous.

 

Hoot

[Bruceswar]

Great Story and even sweeter coin!!

[LuvToCollect]

Thanks for a wonderful numismatic lesson.

[mommam17]

John- GREAT coin. Like the Bridgeport marks stand out and kill the eye appeal on many coins. This is one coin that has done very well. Afew years ago you could get a 65 for $165 or so. Today, they are closer to $300!

[Stanley]

Enjoyed the story (lesson) and nice Commemorative Half

[MAULEMALL]

I am 100% with Hoot...Great post and Fantastic coin...

[Amanda]

Neat story!

 

I have never seen one of those coins before, or even really knew of them. Thanks for sharing!

 

I love the tab toning on yours, by the way.

 

The story kind of reminds me of the Gettysburg Commem- A coin dated 1936, struck in 1937 commemorating an event in 1938!!

 

-Amanda

[TJ'S Coins]

Too bad Henry Kreiss did not do more coin designs than the obverse on the Robinson and the full Connecticut and Bridgeport Commemorative Halves. I really like his work as an excellent representation of Art Deco in coinage.

 

John I heartily agree that this is a fantastic coin with truly wonderful toning. It would make an excellent addition to any coin set and is also the nicest Robinson that I have seen. Thanks for sharing the story behind the coin as that always adds so much to the hobby we enjoy.

[DaveG]

That is a sweet coin!

[zrlevin]

[SkyMan]

SHOCKED, I am SHOCKED that there would be politics involved in commemorative coins.

 

EXCELLENT post and coin John!!! Great info and a very nice looking Robinson/Arkansas.

[DC Dawg]

The 1930’s were the heyday of commemorative half dollars in America, but by 1936 there was a glut of commemorative half dollars on the market, most were not selling well, and the states of Texas and Arkansas both already had authorization from congress to have coins minted spanning a number of years to commemorate their state centennials.

It was the glut of commemorative coins in the 1930s that ended the commemorative program becuase of the complaining by collectors. In the difficult economic times caused by The Great Depression, what few collector who were able to maintain their collections saw the proliferation of commemoratives as a way to generate money for the government without giving the collector any value.

 

I have a paper-based article from the New York Herald (now defunct) that called the coins ordinary. If you look at the coins, they were all designed by a few artists at the mint, so they looked almost the same in many ways. The article accused the Mint on trying to capitalize on various early events of the founding of the country at the expense of a tenuous economy.

 

When congress re-authorized the commemorative program in 1982, the committment was to limit the number of commemoratives. Rather than learning their lesson, congress authorized too many commemoratives for the 1984 Olympics hosted in Los Angeles. So many coins were not sold that many were melted. Following that fiasco, congress reaffirmed the law to create only a maximum of two commemorative coins per year. Of course they violated their own law in 1996 for the Altanta Olympics--a program that was only slightly more successful than the program for the 1984 games.

 

The fault for the failure of the early commemorative program and the issues from the current programs are the fault of congress. From the original Mint Act of 1792, and reaffirmed in four subsequent Mint Acts, only congress has the authority to determine what the Mint creates. If you read recent laws, congress has dictated the design down to the details. The American Gold Buffalo is an example of this where the law says that the coin is supposed to be modeled after James Earle Fraser's Type 1 Buffalo Nickel. With power like this, politics is inevitable.

 

Remember, politics are the reasons for nearly every coin design. Politics returned Monticello to the reverse of the Jefferson Nickel--because the representatives from Virginia thought it would take away from their promoting Monticello as a tourist site. Politics have presented the removal of Kennedy and FDR from coins--both *spoon*--in place of Ronald Reagan, which would be a violation of the law that says that passed presidents cannot appear on circulating coinage unless it is a minimum of 20 years since their term ended and are deceased.

 

At least there is some control. The US Mint could be like the Royal Canadian Mint, who puts out more commemoratives than almost any other mint I know. The RCM is beginning to resemble the US Mint of the 1930s, which is not a good thing.

 

Scott

[MikeKing]

You're a REAL collector, John. What a great story. It's must be so rewarding to find just what you were looking for after searching for so long.

 

[markm597]

Fabulous coin. Great story behind the mintage.

[TomB]

As I told you in a previous PM, John, that is a fantastic coin! However, I think your post might have some added humor to it if you added our exchange about the purchase (and the Pan-Pac) to your thread.

[Wihlborg]

Thanks for all the kind comments about both the coin and the post everyone.

 

O.K. Tom, since you brought it up I’ll let everyone in on what you are referring to.

 

I won this coin in Heritage’s recent Dallas auction. While waiting to receive it from Heritage I couldn’t contain my excitement about wining the coin any longer so I PM’ed two characters, Tom and Hoot, both of whom I consider good friends and whose opinions about coins I value highly. I asked them to take a look at it and give me their opinions about it.

 

I did not say anything about the coin in my PM to either of them. I just told them that I won a coin, give them the lot number, and asked them to give their opinions on it.

 

A short time later, Tom PM’s me back. He’s all excited that I bought the coin and had given a detailed critique of it in his PM. The only problem was that it was not the coin I won!

 

It turned out that when I sent the PM’s to Tom and Hoot I made a typo on the lot number I gave them. The coin Tom thought I won was a PCGS MS-68 Pan-Pac that sold for $68,000.

 

I quickly informed Tom that I did not buy a $68,000 Pan-Pac and we both had a good laugh about what had happened. Thankfully, Hoot did not see my PM with the wrong lot number before I sent him another PM informing him of my mistake and including the correct lot number, so I did not have to go through the same thing with him.

 

John

[TomB]

I'm glad you shared the rest of the story. I still stand by my original assessment of this coin in that it is the finest Robinson I have ever seen. Folks, these don't come with terrific, original color and luster like this coin. This piece is a moose and may be impossible to replace.