Do you find any of the US coins to be obscene, like the type I Standing Liberty quarter because of her uncovered breast? Was Anthony Comstock right to actively petition to get the coin redesigned to cover her breast? Just curious what others think.
Since it was not a representation of a real women, but rather of a classical style pose I do not see why it would be objectionable. You see the same but life size going to any good museum, and kids take field trips there every day. What was interesting is that in no correspondence internally in the mint was this ever discussed. The change to Type II was always talked about redesigning the reverse to make the coin have better strike characteristics.
Anyone with enough time on their hands to actively petition the covering of a 1/16 inch wide breast on a coin needs to find something better to do.
There is this article on the issue: "It has been reported that once the new quarters went into circulation, a public debate ensued over the classical Greek pose of Miss Liberty with her right breast exposed. Was this Art or Smut? The followers of Anthony Comstock and the Society for the Suppression of Vice began a campaign against this "immoral" coin. They wanted the coin withdrawn from circulation because it was a corruption to society. Comstock carried enormous political clout, and began exerting it upon the Treasury Secretary William G. McAdoo. "Comstock may have thought he won in his fight when a new design was released in the latter half of 1917, but the reality of the matter was that Hermon MacNeil had petitioned McAdoo in January of 1917, even before the release of the first issue, to modify the design. Most of the design modifications were to expand the life of the coin in circulation, but MacNeil also wanted to add a chain-mail vest to Liberty thus covering the exposed breast (as suggested by some authors from studies of MacNeil's sketches), and to reconfigure the stars on the reverse of the coin to add balance. By the time MacNeil's proposal reached Congress to modify the quarter, so did the political hammer of the Society for the Suppression of Vice. Modifications were approved under the false presumption that the coins would not stack due to the relief. This law was enacted on July 9, 1917, but what was not written into the Congressional Record or the law, was that Miss Liberty's exposed breast was to be covered." http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art44412.asp Would Comstock ever have a field day in 2012!
I bet he may wish to have a conversation with Ms. Jackson. A field trip to the valley in SoCal would probably just stop his heart dead.
Although I appreciate the art, I don't believe that the exposed breast was appropriate. Not that it was innapropriate, just that the concept of putting an exposed breast on a mass circulated coin seems taboo?
I think the big cry out was about the nipple being exposed. It's always been one of my favorite designs and I don't really get it. It's just a coin, you spend them and the design wears, I mean back then. I wonder if any ladies were offended by the design? Any ladies here?
No, I don't think it obscene or even inappropriate. What I do find obscene is using our commemorative coinage to glorify war and those who made war.
Folks, the thread is an appropriate thread ...AS long as the punsters, jokers, utube vidiots, etc. allow it to be. Stay on the subject and do not try to impress all with your wit. Keep it 1950s language, etc. Thanks Jim
I found a copy of Breen's coin encyclopedia where I believe he went into Comstock's role as a censor. Tangling with Saint-Gaudens was most unfortunate, with how top notch SG was. In 1892 with the Pan-Pac expostion the great sculptor had a contract to help with the designs then. Here is how one numismatic company described it: "In 1892, Saint-Gaudens was asked to design the official medal of the World Columbian Exposition in Chicago; it would be presented to prizewinning exhibitors. The obverse of Saint-Gaudens’s design, showing Columbus coming ashore, was noncontroversial; his reverse, which featured a torch-bearing naked youth carrying wreaths to crown the victors, was attacked by the censoring postal agent, Anthony Comstock, as obscene. The exposition directors hastily withdrew the reverse design and replaced it with one created by Barber which, according to numismatic historian Walter Breen, was “notable only for banality”. A furious Saint-Gaudens swore to have nothing more to do with the Mint or its employees, and for the next decade refused all commissions which might involve him with that bureau." http://premiercoingalleries.com/background-history-of-saint-gaudens-gold-coin/ I would agree that the classical designs harkening back to ancient Greece was not inappropriate as long as they did not cross the line. This is the old Hellenism-Hebraism divide that Matthew Arnold discusses in his essays, "Culture and Anarchy". The first culture prized beauty and creativity for its own sake; the latter valued action and accomplishment and 'family values" for lack of a better term. Comstock was an embodiment of the latter.
[h=2]Is the 1916 Standing Liberty quarter "obscene"? [/h] Yeah, 3 grand in G-4 is obscene in my book.
No I don't and Comstock never did actively petition to have the design changed. (It would have been rather difficult for him to have done so considering he died in Sept 1915 over a year before the quarter appeared.) There was no public outcry over the coin, the Mint never order the breast to be covered. In fact they did specify changes to be made to the design, and specifically said no changes other than the ones ordered should be made. MacNeil changed the design and added the chain mail on his own. In fact the legislation passed to allow for the changes specifies: "No changes shall be made in the emblems or devices used. The modifications shall consist of the changing the position of the eagle, the arrangement of the stars and lettering, and a slight concavity given to the surface. Such changes shall be made and completed on or before July first, nineteen hundred and eighteen." The legislation was passed July 9th 1917. The public outcry story of obscenity is a myth.
Well if anyone remembers the "super bowl incident" with Janet Jackson, any kind of exposed breast is obscene. Not in my book but in other peoples. Makes no sense. We can have heads lopped off, guts spilling out, etc on TV, but as soon as bare breast is shown, its the end of the world...
Good points, and I will look forward to doing more research and hope the "official" versions get corrected. "No changes shall be made in the emblems or devices used. But please, please, please, get that @#!!!%*%&!!! covered up, ASAP!"
Perhaps the flappers of the 1920's were sick of the opression. Maybe it wasn't offensive towards woman at all. I believe at the time woman were expected to display full clothing while at the beach.
