Q. David Bowers
Arlie Slabaugh considered the 1926 Oregon Trail half dollar to be the most beautiful coin in the commemorative series (a sentiment echoed by the majority of members of the Society for U.S. Commemorative Coins, according to a 1985 poll of the group), and David M. Bullowa called the 1925-S California Diamond Jubilee design "a very virile and well executed half dollar." B. Max Mehlfelt that the whole idea of the New Rochelle half dollar was a joke, and Cornelius Vermeule felt that the 1935 Old Spanish Trail half dollar motif was wretched. Yesterday, today, and probably tomorrow, numismatists do indeed have their opinions.
Art in commemorative coinage has always been controversial, just as it has been with pattern and regular issue coins. In my career as a professional numismatist I have spent a great deal of time studying coin designs and their backgrounds. Along the way I have recognized many as favorites. Among pattern United States coins I like the 1872 silver Amazonian coins, several of the 1877 half dollar designs, the 1879 "Schoolgirl" silver dollar, and the 1882 "Shield Earring" silver set. Among regular issue U. S. coins I like large cents, especially of the 1816-1839 years (although few others would consider them to be beautiful), Saint-Gaudens' magnificent MCMVII High Relief double eagle, and, of course (doesn't everyone like them?), the new silver designs of 1916: the "Mercury" dime, the Standing Liberty quarter, and the Liberty Walking half dollar. I also like the 1921 Peace silver dollar; that is, I like exceptional specimens that are well struck, but most aren't. Let me also mention the 1883 Liberty nickel, a great improvement over its Shield design (1866-1883) predecessor. Incidentally, the study of pattern coins in particular provides clues for the source of certain commemorative designs. For example, an element of the reverse motif of the 1915-S Panama-Pacific quarter eagle was taken from a silver pattern of the 1870s.
The list I have just given of pattern and regular-issue coin designs is personal, and your list might contain some of the same issues, but it would not be identical. I have heard many collectors state that the 1878-1921 Morgan silver dollar is very beautiful, and for all I know this may be among your favorites as well. One highly admired coin is an issue which is little known to the numismatic community at large, for the piece is of an early date and is extremely rare. Known as the Myddelton token, and struck in 1796 the coin attracted the attention of Sylvester S. Crosby, who in his magnum opus, Early Coins of America, wrote in 1875 that this design was the most beautiful of the American series, an opinion reiterated years later by Richard S. Yeoman in A Guide Book of U.S. Coins.
A survey of numismatic literature from the 1860s onward reveals that, of the many designs of regular issue coins produced, only the following were widely acclaimed at the time of release: 1907 Indian $10, MCMVII(1907) $20, 1909 cent, and the 1916 dime, quarter, and half dollar. The same survey shows that the following regular issues were strongly condemned: 1866 Shield nickel, 1878 Morgan dollar (in particular; no one liked it), 1892 Barber dime, quarter, and half dollar (intensely disliked by nearly all numismatic writers), 1908 $5 and $10, and just about everything after 1916.
The purpose of this commentary is to illustrate that debate about designs has not been limited just to commemoratives over the years. If anything, collectors and the public have had even stronger opinions on circulating coinage motifs, possibly because they are enduring and must be tolerated (or enjoyed) for many years in pocket change, whereas commemoratives are ephemeral. Art in American coinage, commemorative and otherwise, provides a very enjoyable aspect for contemplation by the numismatist.
Among commemorative coins nearly all designs of the early 1892-1954 period were criticized in their time. It fell to a later generation of numismatists to find beauty in such things as a 1920 Maine or 1924 Huguenot-Walloon half dollar, and I have never heard anyone say anything nice about the motif of a 1936 Robinson-Arkansas half dollar, except for Cornelius Vermeule, who liked the way the portrait on the obverse was done. Vermeule was among those who expressed disdain for the 1920 Maine half dollar, likening it to a medal intended for a school athletic day or a county fair and reflecting for a moment whether a potato would have made a better motif on the reverse than a wreath.
In modern times, in the new series of issues made since 1982, the design of commemorative coins has sparked much controversy, as designs did years earlier. What to one observer is bold, brilliant, and beautiful, may to another be dull, drab, and detestable. As noted, comments on the subject make interesting reading in numismatic periodicals.
My answer (but not necessarily yours) to creating beautiful commemorative coins in the modem era is simple: Make the designs elegant in a classic way, taking inspiration from the attractive motifs of years earlier. Yet it was the classicism of the 1915-S $50 gold coin, sporting on one side the image of Minerva and on the other her owl, that brought forth strong criticism from a reviewer in the American Journal of Numismatics at the time, who stated his preference for a motif specifically related to San Francisco or the Panama Canal. Perhaps to this long-ago observer a design showing an open ditch would have been ideal. Oh, well, you can't please everyone.
Beginning with the 1915 Panama-Pacific issues the Commission of Fine Arts gave opinions concerning designs submitted for commemoratives or, in instances in which no designs were submitted, recommended sculptors and artists to perform the work. Often, the Commission's advice was ignored. Minutes of Commission meetings and correspondence are preserved in the National Archives and make fascinating reading. (Established by Congress on May 17, 1910, The Commission of Fine Arts in 1920 was located at 1729 New York Avenue, Washington, D.C. Charles Moore served as chairman, Col. C.S. Ridley as secretary, and other members included Charles A. Platt, Wm. Mitchell Kendall.john Russell Pope, James L. Greenleaf, Wm. Sergeant Kendall, and James E. Fraser; the last-named individual was a sculptor well known in numismatic circles and was the creator of the 1913 Indian ("Buffalo") nlckel design. Don Taxay's valuable book, An Illustrated History of u.s. Commemorative Coinage, is largely composed of correspondence to and from the Commission.)
Among commemoratives of our own time, I believe that Elizabeth Jones's beautiful head of Victory (modeled after a classical Nike) on the obverse of the 1988 Olympic $5 gold coin is one of the most stunning designs ever to be created for American coinage, an appreciation shared by the editor of Numismatic News, who proffered the opinion that Jones even out-did the enthusiastically acclaimed M CMVII $20 double eagle by Augustus Saint Gaudens, which has been held up as a yardstick of artistic quality ever since it first appeared in 1907. The beauty of the 1988 Olympic $5 is contrasted, in my opinion, by the unattractive obverse of the 1984 Olympic silver dollar featuring two headless figures on a pedestal in front of the Los Angeles Coliseum entrance. It is a free country, as they say, and quite possibly there are those who think Elizabeth Jones's 1988 $5 is unattractive and the 1984 Olympic dollar is gorgeous (actually, the eagle on the reverse of the Olympic dollar is not bad; it is the obverse that bothers me). Indeed, the Prealpino Numismatic Cultural Center of V arese (Italy) designated the Olympic dollar as the "outstanding issue of 1984," an honor said by Consul General Robert D. Collins to be "the Oscar of the numismatic world." (As related by Walter Breen in the 1990 supplement to The Encyclopedia of U.S. Silver & Gold Commemorative Coins, p. 364.)