Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Troodon, post: 25551519, member: 4626&quot;]That&#039;s been a popular explanation for the change, but the problem is nobody has ever been able to find any published articles anywhere contemporary to the time that said that.&nbsp; Another popular explanation is they added the armor to signify when the US entered World War I (no better support for that explanation either, since they didn&#039;t take the armor back off after the war was over.)</p><p><br /></p><p>I mean, it&#039;s certainly plausible that <i>some</i> people complained, but there&#039;s no evidence that enough did at the time that the Mint changed it for that reason.</p><p><br /></p><p>The actual reason has never been known, because nobody in charge of making the decision ever publicly said why the decision was made, and now they&#039;re not alive to ask.&nbsp; It&#039;s only ever been guessed at.</p><p><br /></p><p>Widespread outcry over nudity just seems an unlikely reason, as there was nudity of female figures on US banknotes several times, and few seemed to make an issue of that at the time.&nbsp; For example:</p><p><img src="https://blog.littletoncoin.com/wp-content/uploads/Naked-Electricity.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p>Nobody ever demanded this be redesigned despite the nudity being far more apparent.&nbsp; It did get a few complaints, but a redesigned version was never made because of them.&nbsp; (More people complained of the inconvenience of the numbers not being in the corners, making it harder to count.)[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in