In 1915, Director of the Mint Robert W. Woolley began steps to replace the Barber dime, quarter, and half dollar, as he mistakenly believed that the law required new designs.

On September 26, 1890, the United States Congress passed an act providing: The Director of the Mint shall have power, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, to cause new designs ... to be prepared and adopted ...

[6] On January 2, 1915, an interview with Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Adam M. Joyce appeared in the Michigan Manufacturer and Financial Record: So far as I know ... there is no thought of issuing new coins of the 50-cent, 25-cent, and 10-cent values.

The same day, Malburn requested the opinion of the Treasury Department's Solicitor concerning the Mint view that it could strike new designs for the three denominations in 1916.

[14] The three sculptors submitted design sketches in mid-February, and on February 23 met with Woolley in New York so the artists could make presentations of the work to him and answer his questions.

[18] Lange notes that "numerous delays were encountered as the artists fine-tuned their models while simultaneously avoiding obstacles thrown in their path by Barber.

In an article in the December 2003 edition of The Numismatist, Timothy B. Benford Jr., suggests that the supposed deception was to fool MacNeil's wife, who saw MacDowell as a potential romantic rival.

According to Burdette, the design was intended to send a message to the belligerents in World War I that America wanted peace, but was ready to fight.

[27] According to art historian Cornelius Vermeule, "Liberty is presented as the Athena of the Parthenon pediments, a powerful woman striding forward"[21] and states that, but for the Stars and Stripes on her shield, "everything else about this Amazon calls to mind Greek sculpture of the period between Pheidias to Praxiteles, 450 to 350 BC.

Vermeule noted that the reverse marked the beginning of the end (at least for that era) for naturalistic depictions of eagles on US coins, stating in 1970 that those after 1921 tended to present a heraldic appearance instead.

At that time, Woolley selected a reverse similar to that eventually coined, showing an eagle in flight, wings extended and shown almost in full.

However, the Mint quickly revised the submission deadline to May 1; this proved optimistic as MacNeil did not submit his models, in the form of bronze casts, until May 18.

[32] On June 21, Woolley wrote to Superintendent Joyce, The model of the obverse on the half dollar will have to be made over and Mr. Weinman informs me he is now at work on it.

One of von Engelken's first acts as Mint Director was to inform MacNeil of McAdoo's acceptance of the design changes, telling him he could place his monogram (a small "M") on the coin; it appears on the wall, to the right of the two low steps which Liberty descends.

[35] The bronze casts were made by the Medallic Art Company; on September 6, MacNeil wrote to von Engelken that they would shortly be shipped to the Philadelphia Mint.

In the hope of heading off similar problems with the quarter, Mint officials decided to reexamine MacNeil's designs, and subsequently, to adjust them.

According to Burdette, "the action saved the government less than $20 in October, but may have cost many times that amount before the revised quarter design was accepted the following year.

Feeling it was impossible to make the change in time to strike coins in 1916, von Engelken instructed Joyce that beginning in 1917, the figure of Liberty should be sharpened.

[39] Throughout late 1916, the Mint was intensely busy first sharpening the design to be used in 1917, and then in large-scale preparation of dies to begin striking the new quarters on a massive scale once the new year began.

[37] Small change was in great demand: Mint officials had hoped not to strike any Barber pieces in 1916, but eventually had to do so in large quantities to satisfy the need.

Although no correspondence is known to exist, it appears that the Mint Director and sculptor spoke by telephone over the next several days, as on January 17, von Engelken sent Secretary McAdoo a letter asking for discretion to allow MacNeil to modify the design.

However, Morgan proved unable, given engraving technology at the time, to combine the two obverses, meaning the coin would have to be entirely redone by MacNeil.

Burdette suggests that this change was not unusual for MacNeil, who was increasingly cladding female figures in garments which covered their breasts, as with his statue Intellectual Development, sculpted around that time, and also reflected the deterioration of the international situation in February 1917, as the United States moved towards war with Germany.

Breen stated that "through their Society for the Suppression of Vice, the guardians of prudery at once began exerting political pressure on the Treasury Department to revoke authorization for these 'immoral' coins".

[45] Ron Guth and Jeff Garrett, in their book on US coins by type, aver that the covering up of Liberty was "a change never authorized by MacNeil".

[46] Numismatic historian David Lange concedes that there is no evidence of outcry from the public, but suggests that the decision to change the coin was "more likely prompted by objections from the Treasury Department".

One of von Engelken's final acts in office was to recommend the appointment of Barber's successor, Morgan, who was subsequently nominated by Wilson and confirmed by the Senate.

The matter was brought up in the House of Representatives on June 25, led by Congressman Ashbrook, who told his colleagues both that the issued design was not true to the artist's concept, and that the coins would not stack well.

Unwilling to seek another act of Congress, Mint officials made the step on which the date appears recessed into the design, rather than raised from it.

[63] Nevertheless, many Standing Liberty quarters remained in circulation until silver coins began to be hoarded by the public in 1964, prompting the change to base-metal pieces.