As to the reverse, the device adopted by Congress is practically incapable of effective treatment; it can hardly (however artistically treated by the designer) look otherwise than as a dull emblem of a masonic fraternity. * * *
Mr. Winsor commented upon Professor Norton’s notes. He agreed that the seal was not a good coat of arms. He thought, however, that it had not been the purpose of Congress “to show an heraldic bird”—that “the American eagle displayed proper” could not be an heraldic eagle. “Whether present authorities,” he continued, “can venture to correct their [the Congress’] bad taste, may be a question.” Of the reverse, he declared it was “both unintelligent and commonplace. If it can be kept in the dark as it seems to have been kept, why not keep it so?” On January 2, 1884, he wrote to Mr. Dwight:
When you say “It might be best to reproduce the original die,”—you suggest what is really my opinion. There is a certain naïvely Archaic look about it which is honest and covers a multitude of artistic sins, in a way that will not be easy to do by a modernization of it. I like to preserve such original devices.
Mr. Whitmore did not agree with Mr. Winsor. He wrote December 30, 1884:
I feel assured that the treatment should be heraldic. An eagle displayed must be an heraldic one. The term American eagle, I infer, means a bald-headed eagle, not the European type which shows in heraldry a tuft or crest on his head. This is allowable, just as a double-headed eagle is.
The best examples give the wings raised to the shoulder and then dropping, which is more graceful and natural.
As to the reverse he said: “It is a thankless task to arrange it, as Prof. Norton says; use it as little as possible.” Mr. Whitmore submitted designs which were intended to be an improvement heraldically on those under consideration, which he criticised, especially with reference to the arrows, the form of which had been changed under Mr. Dwight’s direction so as to represent a distinctively American Indian arrow. Mr. Dwight conformed to Mr. Whitmore’s suggestion, and “the technical form of barb” arrow was restored. Of the die of 1782 Mr. Dwight wrote to Mr. Whitmore January 6, 1885: “Is not that die to be regarded as in some sense sanctioned by long use, in view of its origin, as entitled to the same authority as a law?” In regard to the crest Mr. Dwight said: “On referring to the order of 1782 on this point, it seems that we have no liberty to depart from that form, as it reads: ‘A glory, or, breaking through a cloud proper, and surrounding thirteen stars.’ It has been advised that an appearance of more splendor would be gained by allowing the rays of the glory to extend beyond the clouds, as though piercing them; but to that advice I do not feel warranted in agreeing, as the old die gave no authority therefor.” Of the reverse he said: “For the present purposes we shall not order the reverse; as Mr. Winsor remarks, it has been so long kept in the dark, a few months more of shade will do it no harm. I would like to have your opinion if adverse to the cutting of that side. The law distinctly specifies it and it was not cut presumably at the same time as the obverse, because the latter was urgently needed, even as to day. The subject was probably lost sight of at that time, when all the thoughts of the fathers were engaged in the foundation of the Republic. I do not expect that the reverse can be conveniently used for the purpose of sealing documents, but it is not in my opinion improper that the device should be determined and cut.”
December 13, 1884, Messrs. Tiffany & Co. submitted the designs.
After having studied carefully the description of the devices as adopted by Congress in 1782, and considered also the suggestions and remarks that we have of late seen and received regarding the same, we have carried them out strictly according to the rules of heraldry. * * *
The eagle is the American bald eagle and has been drawn after careful studies and made as natural as the rules of heraldry will permit. We have decided that the third feather shall be the one extending to the end of the wing. The escutcheon on the eagle’s breast is drawn as described, the direction of the lines indicating the colors. As no stars are mentioned in the chief, they have not been introduced here. The suggestion to suspend the shield from the neck of the eagle by a ribbon or cord, we have not carried out, as it would not be proper and would rob the whole arms of its dignity.