The James Fraser’s Lincoln Cent – 1911 by Roger W. Burdette

By Roger W. Burdette – Special to CoinWeek

Most coin collectors are familiar with the story of sculptor James Fraser’s creation of the Buffalo nickel, and the problems he faced when an inventor of a counterfeit coin rejection device demanded changes to the coin’s final design. The outcome was that Fraser eventually overcame the inventor’s complaints, and the Buffalo nickel soon became identified as the quintessential “American” coin. But few realize that, in the weeks just before beginning the nickel design project, Fraser’s goal was not only the five-cent coin but also the recently introduced Lincoln cent, and he had powerful support from the current and former Directors of the Mint.

As many will recall, the use of Brenner’s Lincoln portrait on the cent was stipulated by President Theodore Roosevelt in the months before transferring office to William Taft. There was no independent review, and the selected design, adapted from a medal by Brenner, underwent several minor adjustments to the obverse and complete changes to the reverse.[1] The cent’s basic design was delivered to the mint director on February 17.

On being shown a version with the motto “in God We Trust” added above Lincoln’s head, freshly inaugurated President Taft selected the motto, and the matter was largely settled.

Most newspaper comments were amenable to putting Lincoln’s portrait on the cent. Objections concentrated on use of a specific person on a coin, and some commentators expressed the opinion that,

[The Lincoln] … coin itself looks more like a medal than a coin. It does not stack well, and American art has not been bettered by its creation.[2]

The few southern papers commentating on the new coin largely expressed a dislike for Lincoln on the coin. A few comments were more pointed about the portrait, similar to that of the Brooklyn Citizen.

Misrepresentation of Lincoln
If the purpose of the government in issuing the new cent was to perpetuate among the people a faithful likeness of President Lincoln, there can be no doubt that it has failed in its intent; for the effigy on the copper coin is by no means a good work in cameo of the great war President as he is represented in photographs that were pronounced faithful by intimate friends and thousands of others who saw him before and during the war period, in which he was the master figure. –– Rochester Union (Dem.)[3]

Citizens also made their opinions known to the Mint Bureau along similar lines.
Behind private curtains of government offices and artists’ ateliers, sentiment might have been in agreement with the Brooklyn Citizen. When Philadelphia Mint Engraver Charles Barber was instructed to make designs for a George Washington five-cent coin in late 1908, his first attempts, dated 1909, followed the Brenner Lincoln in scale. However, by 1910, Washington’s portrait had increased in size and lost some of its rigidity.

It’s possible this change was due to Mint Bureau dislike of the small scale Lincoln on the new cent, something that remained objectionable when the Buffalo nickel was proposed in 1911.[4]

Fraser and the Mint

The first serious mention of redesigning the cent or nickel using something other than Barber’s Washington head, is in a letter from Assistant Secretary of the Treasury A. Piatt Andrew to Eames MacVeagh on May 2, 1911.

My dear Eames:
You are quite right – the nickel is the only coin which can be changed during this administration except by vote of Congress. The present nickel was designed in 1883 and therefore has been subject to change since 1908. The present designs for our silver coins were adopted in 1892, the gold coins in 1907 and 1908, and the bronze coins in 1909. When I was in the Mint I was much interested in the plan of arranging for competition among medalists for an ideal set of coins and had it in mind that if anything satisfactory resulted from it we could appeal to Congress to have them adopted, and I succeeded in getting Mr. Archer Huntington of the American Numismatic Society interested in the plan, but since I left the Mint the matter has been dropped and so far as I know nothing has been done about it. I am glad you have recalled the matter of the nickel to my attention and I will take it up again with the Director of the Mint.[5]

The letter suggests Eames had contacted Andrew and mentioned redesigning the nickel sometime before that date, and may have suggested a specific artist. According to mint director Roberts writing in a later memorandum, “The first step in the negotiations for the new nickel piece was taken by assistant secretary Andrew in 1911. As a result of his interest in the subject, Mr. J. E. Fraser of New York, on his own initiative, prepared several small wax models showing the Indian head and the buffalo about as they now appear upon the coin…”[6]

Andrew wrote to Roberts, also on May 2, asking for information on legal specifications for coins and having a non-mint artist prepare designs:

Will you please send me the following information:
(1) The legal restrictions as to size, weight, material, design and inscriptions which would have to be observed by a medalist in preparing a pattern for a new five-cent piece.
(2) Is there any fund which could be made available to employ a designer or medalist outside of the present service to design such a piece?[7]

The idea of changing the nickel design may not have belonged exclusively to Eames MacVeagh, but he seems to be the person who got the idea “off the ground” in the Taft administration and stirred his father to action. In a short letter written on May 4, 1911 to his father he said:

A little matter that seems to have been overlooked by all of you is the opportunity to beautify the design of the nickel or five cent piece during your administration, and it seems to me it would be a permanent souvenir of the most attractive sort. As perhaps you are aware, it is the only coin the design of which you can change during your administration, as I believe there is a law to the effect that the designs must not be changed oftener than every twenty years. I should think also it might be the coin of which the greatest numbers are in circulation. The attached letter from Mr. Andrew explains the matter further and shows his interest in it, and I feel quite sure that the present director of the Mint would also be interested if he were stirred up about it. He is himself the possessor of a very rare and beautiful Greek coin.[8]

Secretary MacVeagh forwarded the two letters to director Roberts the following week along with a note:

Dear Mr. Roberts:
Here is some correspondence about the nickel. It brings up the general subject of the designs of coins. This will be an interesting matter to discuss with you at your convenience. Please consult with Mr. Andrew first. He has given a good deal of thought to the matter and is greatly interested in it.[9]

In language of the time, MacVeagh was instructing Roberts to immediately discuss the matter with Andrew, then visit the secretary’s office as soon as he could schedule a meeting. The Secretary’s request indicated the redesign was important to him and his son, and Roberts was expected to begin working on it.

May 27, 1911.
Mr. J. E. Fraser
MacDougal Alley, New York City

For your information I am enclosing wherewith copies of the statutory provisions governing the designs, size, etc. of United States coins.[10]

On June 9 mint director Roberts wrote Fraser in response to a meeting between Roberts, Fraser, and Assistant Treasury Secretary Andrew held in Washington a few days previously.

The Belgian coin bearing the portrait of King Leopold which you showed when here made a great impression upon me. Dr. Andrew and I have been wondering whether some such effect might not be obtained with the Lincoln head instead of the present miniature reproduction of a design originally made for a medal. We would have to get an act of Congress to allow us to change the present design, it having been adopted only a few years ago, but we would be willing to try if we had such a substitute at hand. What do you think of it?

I want to get one of those Leopold coins; will you please let me know the denomination in order that I may order one.[11]

Robert’s comment about Fraser’s Lincoln head and Congressional approval, makes it clear that he and Andrew thought it possible to replace Brenner’s small portrait with Fraser’s large, more dynamic rendition. It also places probable creation of very early electrotypes between late May and early June.

The foreign coin mentioned by Roberts was possibly a Belgian 50 centimes struck in 1909. The coin, only 18 millimeters in diameter, presented a large portrait of the King with minimal inscriptions.

Leopold II’s head was about 13.85 mm tall on an 18 mm diameter coin. For comparison, Lincoln’s head on the 1909 cent was only 6.67 mm high on a 19.05 mm diameter coin; while Fraser topped them both at about 17 mm on a 21 mm diameter electrotype. (Figure 4, below.)

A June 13, 1911 letter from James Fraser to Mint Director Roberts is quoted in part by Pollock:

I think your idea of the Lincoln head is a splendid one and I shall be very glad to make you some sketches as soon as possible and let you see them. I think they should be reduced to the actual size of the coin; otherwise we will not be really able to judge them, even in the sketch period. I will have that done here, where I can watch the process.[12]

Fraser’s “sketches” were small models in plaster or wax. It was these which Fraser had reduced by Medallic Art company to approximate coin-size, and electrotypes created. The casts were rough because they were made quickly and because the sketch models were not finished compositions. This is the point in design creation where the sculptor separated himself from his predecessors. Instead of expecting non-artists, such as the director and secretary, to look at drawings or models and imagine coins, Fraser took the extra time and effort to make coin-like medals. These could be handled and examined as if they were real coins, and helped “sell” Fraser’s designs to officials.

At this juncture our sources are clearly favoring replacement of the cent’s Lincoln portrait, but there is no mention of the reverse. All we know is that both current cent and nickel designs were replacement candidates, and the entire matter was open to discussion.

However, we might have at least one possible Fraser cent reverse design. This is a coin-size electrotype similar to others made by Medallic Art Co. for the Buffalo nickel, but with a diameter of 18.2 x 18.5 millimeters – just a little smaller than the cent’s 19.05 mm diameter.

As shown in the illustration below, the electrotype features a bison facing left in much the same configuration later adopted for the five-cent nickel. It stands on a level plain below which is the date, “1911.” At present this is the only known electrotype with these details; however, we can compare it to one of Fraser’s pencil drawings, presumably from 1911, where the bison is on a plain and has a large hump. This version has the inscription “5 CENTS” beneath the animal.

Among all of Fraser’s known drawings and small electrotypes, only one other piece has this large hump, and none are dated. These might have been part of Fraser’s experiments with a bison for the reverse of a cent. The electrotype’s scale is satisfactory, but we might have expected a denomination “ONE CENT” in place of the date, if this were truly being in the sculptor’s thoughts. The size fits, but the detail does not. This also begs the question of a connection between Lincoln and American bison. Original range of bison included the states where Lincoln later lived, but by 1800 almost all bison east of the Mississippi had been exterminated. If there was a connection, it was tenuous at best.

Presently, we have nothing explicitly describing Fraser’s intention to use a bison on the reverse of a revised cent, and available documents do not mention the cent reverse in any context.

Fraser’s coin-size electrotypes were evidently a significant factor in encouraging the mint and treasury department to actively consider commissioning Fraser to design a coin. These small, bronze or nickel plated facsimiles were the equivalent of pattern coins of the proposed designs. In an unusual letter to Fraser, director Roberts offered to pay for the sample designs and appeared to view them as prototypes of the coinage:[13]

After considering further the subject of designs for the five-cent nickel piece it has been decided to have you present your ideas in the form of models of the same size as the legal coin, provided you will accept the sum of one hundred fifty dollars ($150) as full compensation for your labor and any expenses incident to preparing and submitting them, with the understanding that if these designs are accepted and used for the regular coinage a new agreement is to be made as to the amount of your compensation, and the one hundred and fifty dollars payment now contemplated will apply thereupon. If, however, the designs are not accepted for use the payment of one hundred and fifty dollars will be final and in full for all services. Payment will be made from the Contingent fund of the Philadelphia Mint, fiscal year 1912.

Secretary MacVeagh’s reaction to the electrotypes must have been extraordinary for the tight-fisted treasury department to offer payment, without any commission or agreement to design a coin. These little experimental design pieces were made with the full knowledge, authorization, encouragement and involvement of the mint director and secretary of the treasury just as would have occurred with an experimental design produced at the Philadelphia Mint. The differences being that Fraser’s electrotypes were cast not struck, and the work was done outside the mint. The secretary’s offer to pay $150 for the pieces is further evidence of their being considered design prototypes. The pieces also conform to Barber’s May 14, 1910 definition of a pattern: “A pattern piece or die is one made for the purpose of displaying a certain design for a coin, whether for a contemplated change in design or some existing coin or merely to exhibit the design.”[14]

On August 1 Fraser advised director Roberts that payment was not necessary, a gesture of cooperation which likely ensured there would be neither competition nor consideration of anyone else’s designs:

I am very sorry that I happened to be away from New York the day you called; I would like to have shown you some of the various things I am doing. When you say “the new models” do you mean the designs for the nickel? I have the sketches, which I took to Washington, in a better condition than they were then; they are now electro-plates. I will send you some copies. It’s very kind of you to suggest paying my expenses in regard to the work I have done; but I don’t feel that you ought to trouble too much in that direction. I am certain you wanted me to do this work and it will be no fault of yourself or Dr. Andrew if I do not receive it. I myself feel most confident over the result which I attained through doing the sketches; I know of no coins which were studied in just this manner, and I feel sure that is the only way of arriving at satisfactory results.[15]

Most of Fraser’s early letters concerning the Lincoln cent or nickel project included a medallic sample, photo or other item designed to engage the reader and keep them involved in the project. It appears Roberts and Andrew became more deeply entangled in the sculptor’s ideas until Fraser’s artistic concept became normal and any alternatives were quickly dismissed. To secretary MacVeagh, he wrote on September 19:[16]

Although I realize that no definite commission has been given me in regard to the designs for the new coins, I have become so much interested in the sketches that I have pushed them a little farther and now they are in the shape of electrotypes which I should like to submit for your consideration. Of course, this means that they are still merely sketches and not finished products, but I have had them reduced and made into their present form for the purpose of showing exactly what I would wish done, provided I finish them. At present, they are the size of the penny but they could easily be enlarged to any size desired. The idea of the Indian and the buffalo on the same coin is, without doubt, purely American and seems to be singularly appropriate to have on one of our national coins. You will see that the Indian is entirely different than any that has ever been used on a coin. Most of the heads have been Caucasians with an Indian head-dress; in this case I have avoided using the war-bonnet and have made a purely Indian type. Therefore, I should like to ask whether or not you would consider placing these designs on the new nickel. I have also carried the Lincoln head farther, not only because I was personally interested in it, but because Mr. Roberts has rather encouraged the idea of doing so. Possibly you will be interested in knowing that the Italian Government has purchased a collection of my medals for its National Museum in Rome. The Belgian Government obtained a somewhat similar collection of my work last year.[17]

A clue to possible use of the 1911-dated bison is found in this letter: “At present, they are the size of the penny but they could easily be enlarged to any size desired.” This shows that until at least mid-September 1911 all the electrotypes were smaller, cent-size pieces. Given the absence of any mention of a reverse for Fraser’s cent, it is reasonable to feel that the 1911-dated bison was simply part of the artist’s early group of design concepts.

The electrotypes, below, are likely the ones Fraser “pushed a little further” Notice that the bison now stands on a hill, but that the hump is still large and somewhat forward leaning.

Little was done about a new nickel design at the Treasury Department during the balance of 1911; however, by January 1912 the topic again had secretary MacVeagh’s attention:

I am now writing to Mr. J. W. [sic] Fraser in acknowledgement of the attached letter[18] and apologizing for the fact that we have not heretofore been able to give the matter our careful attention. I am also telling him that he may expect, within a day of two, to hear directly from you.

The sketches submitted by Mr. Fraser are in every way so satisfactory and he is a man who stands so high in his profession, that I am glad we all have agreed to let him continue with the matter without looking further or incurring additional delay. Will you, therefore, please write to him and tell him that the nickel five-cent piece is the coin for which we have been considering his designs and the only one that is available at this time. Tell him that of the three sketches which he submitted we would like to use the sketch of the head of the Indian and the sketch of the buffalo, subject to adaptation; the head of the Indian to appear on the obverse and the figure of the buffalo on the reverse. Only such inscriptions as the law requires should, of course, go on the coin, in order not to mar its beauty and to avoid crowding.[19]

Thus, by January 1912 secretary of the treasury MacVeagh had selected both designer and designs for the new nickel.[20] He also took the opportunity to explain potential use of the new Lincoln portrait and offer his view on problems with the Saint-Gaudens designs of 1907:

I presume you have received within a few days a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury indicating that your designs have received such favorable consideration that the way is now open to deal more definitively upon the subject.

We cannot, as you understand, change the design on the one cent piece unless we can get Congress sufficiently interested to grant special authority as the law forbids changes by executive action oftener than once in 25 years. We all like your Lincoln head very much better than the Lincoln Bust which now appears upon this coin and it is possible that we may be able to bring the matter to the attention of the Coinage committees of Congress. At present, however, we propose to deal only with the nickel piece. We would like to have you perfect the Indian Head and Buffalo for the obverse and reverse of this coin and to proceed with the matter as rapidly as practicable. We wish you to submit the designs complete in every respect, including the inscriptions required by law.

…It will be necessary, of course, for us to reach an early understanding as to the terms upon which this commission is to be executed but perhaps a personal interview will be the best means of reaching this end. You can do as you like about coming to Washington at once for this purpose or leaving it to be adjusted at a later meeting when a further conference is desirable.[21]

Roberts gave first priority for the Indian-Buffalo nickel design. Changes in the Lincoln cent, however much they might be desired, would have to wait until completion of the nickel – or longer. Charles Barber’s nickel portrait of Washington, completed two years before, was ignored.[22]

Post Script

All evidence indicates our little cent-size bison was not a tentative one-cent coin reverse. Rather it was likely one of the first electrotypes made by Fraser. Its small size was normal for these initial samples, and the date might have been merely a casual experiment or creative whim. Although evidentially not truly “new” it has a secure place among the other electrotype forerunners to Fraser’s most famous coin design.

Roger W. Burdette
Copyright 2025. All rights reserved.

******

Citations: [NARA – National Archives and Records Administration]

The post The James Fraser’s Lincoln Cent – 1911 by Roger W. Burdette appeared first on CoinWeek: Rare Coin, Currency, and Bullion News for Collectors.