As I've researched the classic-era of US commemorative coinage, I've learned that assuming single-source information is accurate can be a bad thing. I've occasionally come across published news items about specific coin issues that make me smile due to the lack of understanding of the subject matter the story demonstrates. Case in point, this brief item that appeared in
The Wallace Miner (Wallace, Idaho) on January 23, 1923 - the piece did not have a byline.
As it appeared,
[with comments by me embedded]:
The senate has passed a bill authorizing the coinage of special 50-cent pieces to commemorate the one-hundredth anniversary of the Monroe Doctrine. [So far, so good!] It is a move in the right direction, and enough of the coins ought to be put into circulation to make them familiar to everyone. [Oops!] The discussion they would arouse would be an instructive reminder of that great feature of our foreign policy.For context: The bill was passed by the Senate on January 3, 1923; passed by the House on January 15, 1923 and signed into law by President Warren G. Harding on January 24, 1923.
It appears that the paper's staff did not understand that the coin was not intended for circulation and/or that it was intended to be sold at a premium as a fundraising tool. As commemorative coins were still relatively new and far from commonplace at the time, I'll give the newspaper a "pass" on the circulation vs. not issue, but I wouldn't want to be the one to spread such misinformation based on the story!
My advice: If primary sources aren't available, I recommend always seeking out at least one second independent source before accepting something as fact! It's a good way to avoid passing on bad info to others!
1923 Monroe Doctrine Centennial
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f75f1/f75f1c863d9c10d7a0b090faebbfc21e01eb7a05" alt=""
For other of my posts about commemorative coins and medals, including more on the
Monroe Doctrine coin, see:
Commems Collection.