Time for a Change

As the first decade of the twentieth century drew to a close, the winds of change were blowing through the U.S. mint. Spurred on by Theodore Roosevelt, the virtual stranglehold held by Mint Engraver Charles Barber on U.S. coinage design was coming to an end, and new, fresh designs from outside artists and engravers began to emerge. Roosevelt was an enthusiastic backer of classical, innovative designs, and once wrote that he had "no earthly objection to having [the new] coins as artistic as the Greeks could desire."

Roosevelt's reform of our gold coinage began in 1905, after having seen the artistic work of Augustus Saint-Gaudens on the inauguration medal. A lively correspondence between the two ensued, and many fascinating letters survive describing both Roosevelt's feelings on our national coinage and Saint-Gaudens' ideas for new designs. These will be examined in depth in a later article. While Saint-Gaudens focused his work on the larger eagle and double eagle, Dr. William Bigelow, another friend of Roosevelt, undertook the design of the quarter and half eagle.

A Novel Idea

Bigelow had the unique idea of sinking the design of the coin below the fields, or background. Virtually all coins up to that point featured the main device of the coin above the level of the fields, where it would be the first area to be worn when the piece entered circulation. The new technique utilized an incuse design and was intended to preserve the coin's beauty even after years in circulation. The preparation of the models was entrusted to Boston sculptor Bela Lyon Pratt, who completed the work by the middle of 1908. At the end of September, a delighted Roosevelt wrote to Bigelow, thanking him for the "great service you have rendered the country" and enclosing the first Indian gold piece struck.

By November of that year, the coins were ready to enter circulation. Unfortunately, they met with a flood of criticism upon their release; some of it justified but much of it either "sour grapes" or traditionalists' objections to anything new. Perhaps the most vocal critic of the new design was longtime Philadelphia numismatist S. H. Chapman, who wrote to President Roosevelt in December 1908:

"It was the hope of every one that when our new coinage appeared we would have one of great beauty and artistic merit. But the new $5 and $2.50 gold pieces just issued totally lack these qualities, and not only those of beauty, but actually miss the practicability to which every effect of beauty in relief has been sacrificed. "The idea of Dr. Bigelow to sink the whole relief below the flat surface of the coin causes it to appear like a design merely incised in the blank, and precludes entirely the effect of miniature bas-relief. "The head of the Indian is without artistic merit, and portrays an Indian who is emaciated, totally unlike the big, strong Indian chiefs as seen in real life. The treatment of the head is crude and hard, with sharp, abrupt outlines as if carved by a mere metal chaser; and on the reverse is a reproduction of the Saint-Gaudens' eagle, which represents not our national bird [the bald eagle] but resembles more closely the golden eagle, which is also indigenous to Europe. "The placing of the design below the surface of the flan, with deeply incised outlines, gives the effect of having been engraved into the metal, and can, therefore, be closely imitated by any metal chaser with the graver, without dies or moulds. And I am certain that if this had been suggested to the secret service officials it would never have been issued by the Treasury Department, and the issuance ought to be immediately stopped and the coins recalled, for every one will be in danger of the imitations. "The sunken design, especially the deeply sunken portion of the neck of the Indian, will be a great receptacle for dirt and conveyor of disease, and the coin will be the most unhygienic ever issued."

Chapman went on to criticize the poor stacking qualities of the new coin, and noted that because the coin was thinner than its predecessor, the stacks made by banks would no longer be of uniform height, especially when mixed with the coins of the previous design. Ugly, easily counterfeited, unhygienic and poor stacking qualities; these were serious charges, and Bigelow responded three days later:

"He [Mr. Chapman] says 'sinking the relief below the surface makes it look like an incised design and precludes the effect of a bas-relief.' This is hardly correct, as Mr. Chapman can readily see for himself in photographs of the Egyptian sculptures. The bas-relief effect is accentuated and not diminished by the shadow of the sharp outline. "He says the head of the Indian is 'without artistic merit and portrays and Indian who is emaciated, totally unlike the big, strong Indian chiefs as seen in real life.' The answer to this is that the head was taken from a recent photograph of an Indian whose health was excellent. Perhaps Mr. Chapman has in mind the fatter but less characteristic type of Indian sometimes seen on the reservations. [Regarding ease of counterfeiting] "This criticism can hardly be taken seriously. If a forger were going to engrave anything, he would not waste his labor on a single coin. It would be as easy to engrave a die [thereby allowing him to make hundreds or thousands of coins.] [Regarding the unhygienic qualities] "This remains to be seen. The question of hygiene has more relation to silver coins than gold, as they find their way into dirtier pockets. A dirty gold coin would be an anomaly. I have never happened to see one. [Regarding stacking and thickness] "What Mr. Chapman says in regard to this is perfectly true. I noticed it as soon as they were issued and called Mr. Leach's attention to it. It proved to be due to an accidental warping of the steel die in hardening. Mr. Leach tells me that it can and will be avoided in the future. I agree with Mr. Chapman that it would be well if all the coins in circulation were of the same thickness."

Several days later, Chapman again wrote to the President, and again offered a point by point refutation of Dr. Bigelow's letter, including another jab at the health of the Indian and noting that out in California, there were plenty of filthy gold coins. Chapman's diatribe was in vain however, for the Bigelow-Pratt gold coins continued to be struck as long as the Mint issued quarter and half eagle coins.

Like the Liberty series that preceded it, mintages for Indian quarter were smaller than their larger gold counterparts. Gold coins rarely circulated outside the Western states, and in the East, spent most of their time in bank vaults. Due to ease of storage and handling, most banks preferred the larger denominations. Consequently, most were struck in annual quantities of about a half a million pieces, and nearly all were struck at the Philadelphia mint. Mintage was suspended due to lack of demand in 1916, and did not resume until 1925. Indian quarter eagles were last struck in 1929.

Despite the criticism that they met upon their release, the design has aged well and today is regarded by many as one of the more aesthetically satisfying among 20th-century American coinages.

Collecting and Investing

With only fifteen different date/mintmark combinations, and only one scarce issue, the Indian quarter eagles are the easiest U.S. gold series to complete. The only truly tough coin is the 1911-D, which commands a substantial premium in all grades. In higher grades (MS-63 and above) the 1914-P and 1914-D are also quite scarce and are priced well above the common dates. The remaining twelve issues are all approximately equivalent in both rarity and price, and should present no real difficulty. In round numbers, MS-63s should cost around $675, MS-64s around $1,250 and MS-65s should be available for around $3,750.