The VDB uproar.

If you read about the 1909 S VDB cent, it says that there was such a public uproar, that the VDB was removed from the back, and placed near the edge, much smaller.

However, why would people make such a big fuss over it?

Here is the back of a VDB.




As you can see, the initials are placed at the bottom, and not really in the way of anything.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think because the coin was to commemorate Lincoln people felt that the designer signing it was disrespectful.

 

Yup, what Biggie said........

 

[HR][/HR]What green said.

 

And if you scramble the letters around, you get the name of some popular tidy whities that were pretty mainstream in the 1980's.

 

nice,...

 

You should read Burdette's book on the Renaissance of American Coinage... it's three volumes but the one that covers 1909 discusses the matter at length.

The uproar over VDB's initials was pretty much nonsense. He was not the first and certainly not the last designer to use his initials on American coins. All Barber coinage (1892-1916) features a "B" at the base of Liberty's neck. Morgan Dollars (1878-1921) have an "M" on the ribbon at the base of the wreath on the reverse. The St. Gaudens $20 gold (1907-1933) have the designer's monogram near the date. The $2.5 and $5 Indian gold (1908-1929) have the B.L.P. initials just under the Indian.

But for some, having three initials "VDB" out in the open and not hidden in the design was apparently improper as they felt he was using the coins to advertise/promote himself. Apparently enough letters and attention made it to the Mint to result in the removal of the initials. Of course, they were put back at the base of Lincoln's bust in 1918.

The initials on today's coins are much more prominent and offensive. Just look at some of the Statehood quarters with multiple designers/engravers who each put their initials on the coins. The worst is the new shield cent with the two large sets of initials on the reverse which I find really distracting, much more so than the VDB ever was.

I think Brenner got a raw deal.

 

It was not a one-step process. The initials were not simply moved to the obverse. First they were removed entirely. Most of the Lincoln Cents struck in 1909 and all Lincoln Cents struck 1910-1917 do not have the designer's intials. As illini pointed out, it was not until nine years later that the initials were added to the obverse.

 

I got a few pair of those from my army days...

 

Wasn't there some dust-up over Longacre's "L" on the 1864 IHC?

 

The US Mint was inconsistent in its actions and decisions, which is pretty much how the US Mint has operated for many years.

 

Good information, but I do not think he got a raw deal. The American public has always hated designers signing their coins blatantly. Look at the early designs of Gobrecht dollars. The versions with him signing it in n obvious manner got changed due to objections. I am not terribly sure it hasan't always been that way. Even ancient coins, if signed, are signed very unobtrusively into the design so you cannot see it unless you are looking for it. That is how most initials are in US coins today.

 

The bigger dustups were over the JS initials on the dime, people thought it was for Joseph Stalin, and then the GR that looked like the hammer and sickle on the Kennedy half. Or how about how Felix Schlag didn't even have his initials on the Jefferson nickel until after his lifetime?

 

Actually, the Lincoln cent design galvanos of engraver Victor David Brenner, as submitted to the Mint, had BRENNER spelled out in small letters at the bottom rim on the reverse. This was abbreviated to V.D.B. at the Mint, without the designer's knowledge. When the coins debuted in August 1909, Treasury Secretary Franklin MacVeagh remarked that he thought the designer's initials would be an incused B, in the manner of the B for Charles Barber on the bust truncation of the Barber coinage. But there was no way that the notoriously obstructionist chief engraver Charles Barber, who objected to any outside designers, would allow a single initial B to confuse his designs with those of others. So the initials were removed entirely. It is no accident that they were restored to the shoulder of Lincoln cents in 1918, the year after Barber died.

Best Regards, :hail:

George

 

When I hear "public uproar" I think of events like the bombing of Pearl Harbor. This wasn't exactly neighbors all across the country talking over their backyard fences. It was rather a fastidious handful of coin collectors with nothing better to do.

 

As with most stories about a great public upraor, there wasn't one. Not really enough time. The coins were released on Mon Aug 2nd. That evening a reporter asked for a statement about the initials and asked if they could be considered a form of advertising, and wasn't advertising like that illegal on US coins. To me that seems to indicate that the reporter is planning to stir up something. Assistant Treasury Secretary Norton (The person asked by the reporter) asked Mint Superintendent Landis about it on Aug 4th and Treasury Secretary MacVeigh decided to suspend coinage on the 5th until a decision was made.

Chief Engraver Barber was consulted on the matter. Now remember Barber was strongly against ANY outsiders designing US coins. He was definitely against using just a B for Brenner lest people be confused that HE designed the coin. He did say that the initials could be added elsewhere but making new master hubs would take 14 days. Just grinding the initials off the master die and making new dies and hubs would only take three days, and the country was in short supply of cents and needed production to restart as soon as possible. With that last argument the choice to just grind off the initials and continue was the obvious choice.

Not really, there was no complaint about the initials of Mint Engravers Longacre, Barber, and Morgan. There was no outcry against the initials of Saint-Guadens, or Bela Pratt. The problem with Brenner's appears to most likely have been a "created" uproar. Later there was no problem with Fraser, or MacNeil. Weinman's prominent initials seems to have gotten some comment but no complaints. The first REAL objection to designers initials seems to be the JS on the dime in 1946.

Common story based on the Name below the base patterns of 1836 but there are two problems with the story. There are only about 18 of these coins Not really enough to have created a great widespread public outcry if they had been put into circulation. Secondly, from die rotation studies it appears that ALL of the name below base patterns are restrikes made in the late 1850's. So they would have had nothing to do with it. The actual coins issued into circulation in 1836 had his name on the base. If there has actually been a lot of objections I would not have expected all the coins issued in 1837 to have also had the name on the base. The name was ground off the hub before patterns were made in 1838, and the same altered hub was used to make the dies used for circulation coins in 1839. Even so the mintage of the dollar coins in 1836 and 1837 was so small that for all practical purposed no one ever saw them, so how could there be that much of an outcry?

Schlag's initials didn't appear because when he submitted his designs he didn't know he could include his initials. His initials were added in 1966 and that was NOT after his lifetime. The first two coins with his initals on them were presented to him. Schlag died in 1974.

 

Conder, excellent. :thumb:

 

Much like here on these boards? :devil:

 

I'm surprised none of the "purists" made a comment on calling the reverse "the back".:smile

 

You got the innuendo.