Proof coin order from 1878
RWB
Posts: 8,082 ✭
Following is one of several letters that seem to refute the common idea that copper versions of 19th century circulating coins were “set-up pieces” “trials” or other forms of sliced bologna. The proof sets included trade dollar through silver 3-cent. Five in normal alloy cost $10.70 and five in base metal cost 45-cents.
Reality is that copper versions were requested by various collectors and officials, instead of silver or gold. This was a lot cheaper and copper took a better impression than other coinage alloys.
Tests of new design dies were made in wet cardboard or lead (soft dies), or on copper plates (hard dies). Press set-up trials were made on correct planchets for the coinage, otherwise there was no point to “setting-up” the press.
[The letter is from 1878.]
[This post is also an example of misinterpreting a document. Capt. Henway is likely correct in his interpretation, and mine was incorrect. That’s one reason why pre-publication reviews are important.]
Reality is that copper versions were requested by various collectors and officials, instead of silver or gold. This was a lot cheaper and copper took a better impression than other coinage alloys.
Tests of new design dies were made in wet cardboard or lead (soft dies), or on copper plates (hard dies). Press set-up trials were made on correct planchets for the coinage, otherwise there was no point to “setting-up” the press.
[The letter is from 1878.]
[This post is also an example of misinterpreting a document. Capt. Henway is likely correct in his interpretation, and mine was incorrect. That’s one reason why pre-publication reviews are important.]
0
Comments
TD
I'll toss this letter in the "dead evidence" folder....
Thanks!
What would have been the composition of these silver proof sets? If 1868 no Trade Dollar, if 1878 no half dime or three cent silver.
TD
Free Trial
<< <i>You just don't see penmanship like this anymore. >>
That's because a lot of us don't wear leotards anymore.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>What an awesome letter. So they sent the Trade dollar instead of a Morgan ? >>
Of course! The letter is from 6 weeks before the first Morgan dollar was struck. (I'll let you go kick yourself now, Jack.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>What a curious custom, noting the year by only a single digit. >>
Looks like there's a faint trace of pre-printed text on the page, including the letterhead and likely the digits 187 in front of the written 8.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
You're correct. The full resolution original shows faint numbers "187" as well as the heading "United States Mint" at the top. Printed letterhead did not copy well in many press copy books.
The same coiner's correspondence journal has information about the 1878 Morgans, including number of dies used and comments about problems. I'll post them once I’ve finished processing the images.
[FWIW: Press copy pages are very thin and had to be backed with white paper then photographed individually. No tripod – available light only w/manual white balance. Each image was corrected for geometry, sharpness, contrast, color, saturation and cropped. Lastly, the archive reference was added and the image layers merged. Resolution is about 2500 x 4000 pixels. For posting, a low resolution version was made – about 500 pixels wide – and additional sharpening performed.]
<< <i>The same coiner's correspondence journal has information about the 1878 Morgans, including number of dies used and comments about problems. I'll post them once I’ve finished processing the images. >>
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
were sold at face value, $2.14. Likewise for the base at face value of 9 cents. This may be an invoice
for the Mint cabinet as collectors were always charged a nominal sum above face value. It is also
possible that these sets were intended for Mint Director H.R. Linderman.
This set included the Trade dollar and not the Morgan as the latter was not struck until some weeks
later. The Morgan dollar replaced the Trade dollar in the 1879 silver proof set. In 1878 Morgan dollar
proofs were sold to collectors separately from the regular sets.
Denga
<< <i>
<< <i>What an awesome letter. So they sent the Trade dollar instead of a Morgan ? >>
Of course! The letter is from 6 weeks before the first Morgan dollar was struck. (I'll let you go kick yourself now, Jack.
Yes, I realized that at the time. I just never heard the Trade dollar being sent instead of the Morgan before. I would have thought the requester wanted a Morgan so my question was to ensure that the order wasn't held until the Morgans were produced. The Mint was well behind their internal production schedules, so a collector sending a January 1878 request for 1878 coins would have been expecting the Morgan I would have thought.
Free Trial
I strongly agree. Nonetheless, RWB raises an interesting point that has been long debated by pattern researchers. In the late 19th century, were copper strikings, from regular dies, of silver denominations true ‘die trials’ or just exotic items for collectors?
EagleEye << The term "Minor" to describe the copper and nickel coinage was used in official documents, like the Mint Reports. This is the first I've seen "Base" being used. >>
I also do not recollect the use of the term ‘Base Metal’ in conjunction with Proof copper and nickel coins. While it makes logical sense, I would not say that I like it. Does anyone remember the term ‘base’ being used in relation to Proof sets or Proof coinage of any sort?
RWB << The same coiner's correspondence journal has information about the 1878 Morgans, including number of dies used and comments about problems. I'll post them once I’ve finished processing the images.>>
Thank you for posting this document. I am glad that you are planning on posting additional images from this ‘journal.’ I am very interested.
Denga << This particular invoice seems somewhat special. … This may be an invoice for the Mint cabinet as collectors were always charged a nominal sum above face value. It is also possible that these sets were intended for Mint Director H.R. Linderman.>>
Are you certain that it is an “invoice?” Could it be some kind of internal accounting document? Would an invoice regarding the sale of Proof sets clearly list the name of the buyer, or the name of his agent, or at least have a prominent blank line in the absence of a buyer’s name? Plus, invoices often indicate as to whether payment has been received.
If Linderman is the buyer, as you suggest might be the case, is this document really what you would expect a sales invoice from the U.S. Mint to Linderman personally to look like?
Denga <<The Morgan dollar replaced the Trade dollar in the 1879 silver proof set.>>
Why were the Trade Dollars not included as well? Was a Trade Dollar omitted to keep the cost of the set lower than it would have been had both a Morgan and a Trade Dollar been included? Is it relevant that 1879 dated Morgans were produced in business strike format while the 1879 Trade Dollar was a ‘Proof-only’ issue?
WTB: Barber Quarters XF
<< <i>This particular invoice seems somewhat special. The 5 silver sets, which included the base coins,
were sold at face value, $2.14. Likewise for the base at face value of 9 cents. This may be an invoice
for the Mint cabinet as collectors were always charged a nominal sum above face value. It is also
possible that these sets were intended for Mint Director H.R. Linderman.
This set included the Trade dollar and not the Morgan as the latter was not struck until some weeks
later. The Morgan dollar replaced the Trade dollar in the 1879 silver proof set. In 1878 Morgan dollar
proofs were sold to collectors separately from the regular sets.
Denga >>
Um, how do we get $2.14 face value in silver without including a whole bunch of trimes, which were discontinued in 1873? For a Trade Dollar and a Seated half, quarter and dime I get $1.85.
What is that written comment just before the $10.70 figure? Surely these were not being valued at silver value, which would have been less than face value by 1878.
TD
<< <i>Um, how do we get $2.14 face value in silver without including a whole bunch of trimes, which were discontinued in 1873? For a Trade Dollar and a Seated half, quarter and dime I get $1.85. >>
20-cent piece? That gets us to $2.05.
Still not sure where the other 9 cents are accounted for. Unless the "silver" set also included the base coins, which were another 9 cents: $1 + .50 + .25 + .20 + .10 + .05 + .03 + .01 = $2.14.
<< Um, how do we get $2.14 face value in silver without including a whole bunch of trimes, which were discontinued in 1873? For a Trade Dollar and a Seated half, quarter and dime I get $1.85. >>
20-cent piece? That gets us to $2.05.
Still not sure where the other 9 cents are accounted for. Unless the "silver" set also included the base coins, which were another 9 cents: $1 + .50 + .25 + .20 + .10 + .05 + .03 + .01 = $2.14.
The math is correct. The Silver Set always contained the minor coins.
Denga
Denga << This particular invoice seems somewhat special. … This may be an invoice for the Mint cabinet as collectors were always charged a nominal sum above face value. It is also possible that these sets were intended for Mint Director H.R. Linderman.>>
Are you certain that it is an “invoice?” Could it be some kind of internal accounting document? Would an invoice regarding the sale of Proof sets clearly list the name of the buyer, or the name of his agent, or at least have a prominent blank line in the absence of a buyer’s name? Plus, invoices often indicate as to whether payment has been received.
If Linderman is the buyer, as you suggest might be the case, is this document really what you would expect a sales invoice from the U.S. Mint to Linderman personally to look like?
Denga <<The Morgan dollar replaced the Trade dollar in the 1879 silver proof set.>>
Why were the Trade Dollars not included as well? Was a Trade Dollar omitted to keep the cost of the set lower than it would have been had both a Morgan and a Trade Dollar been included? Is it relevant that 1879 dated Morgans were produced in business strike format while the 1879 Trade Dollar was a ‘Proof-only’ issue?
1) Although asked of someone else, yes the “minor” coins were often called “base” in the Mint
records although “Nickel sets” was more often used to describe the minor proofs.
2) The Trade dollars were not included in the 1879 proof set and had to be purchased separately.
This was a decision made by the Superintendent, perhaps for accounting reasons as Trade dollars
were struck under special circumstances after 1878. I do not recall offhand seeing an explanation of
this in the Mint records.
Denga
Denga << This particular invoice seems somewhat special. … This may be an invoice for the Mint cabinet as collectors were always charged a nominal sum above face value. It is also possible that these sets were intended for Mint Director H.R. Linderman.>>
Are you certain that it is an “invoice?” Could it be some kind of internal accounting document? Would an invoice regarding the sale of Proof sets clearly list the name of the buyer, or the name of his agent, or at least have a prominent blank line in the absence of a buyer’s name? Plus, invoices often indicate as to whether payment has been received.
If Linderman is the buyer, as you suggest might be the case, is this document really what you would expect a sales invoice from the U.S. Mint to Linderman personally to look like?
I will agree that you are right, it is not an invoice in a formal sense. However, the proof sets were meant
for someone and this document would have shown how much had been paid and that the superintendent
needed to be reimbursed that amount. Dr. Linderman was the most likely person to have requested these
sets but it could also have been another government official such as Treasury Secretary John Sherman.
Denga
Several other letters and statements indicate that copper strikes from either pattern or normal dies were nothing more than inexpensive items made on request. Multiple people requested them, so this was not limited to H.R. Linderman. Additionally, a copper example likely took a better impression than silver, and the owner could then have them silver or gold plated to increase the "impact" on visitors and friends. (Nearly every middle-class home had a cabinet of curios - minerals, coins, medals, bones, and the like.)
Business people still decorate their offices with items of personal interest.
When looking for answers you have to “think” 19th century.
Successful Trades: Swampboy,
Buying top quality Seated Dimes in Gem BU and Proof.
Buying great coins - monster eye appeal only.
Analyst (05/17/10) < RWB raises an interesting point that has been long debated by pattern researchers. In the late 19th century, were [some] copper strikings, from regular dies, of silver denominations true ‘die trials’ or [were all] just exotic items for collectors?>
RWB (05/18) << Several other letters and statements indicate that copper strikes from either pattern or normal dies were nothing more than inexpensive items made on request. ... Additionally, a copper example likely took a better impression than silver, and the owner could then have them silver or gold plated to increase the "impact" on visitors and friends. (Nearly every middle-class home had a cabinet of curios - minerals, coins, medals, bones, and the like.)>>
I did not word my initial point in an optimal manner. The fact that some such copper strikings were sold to collectors does not prove that none of them were true die trials. It has always been clear that some copper strikings of silver denominations were made for collectors and/or dealers who dealt with dedicated collectors. It was believed that such copper strikings were distributed quietly without much of a paper trail. Like BillJones, I am startled by RWB’s point that anyone could have ordered them, for any reason. Further, RWB is asserting that many such buyers did silver-plate them, not for the reasons that BillJones suggests, but to impress visitors to their “middle-class homes”!
I know that there were many copper patterns of silver denominations in coin auctions from the 1860s onward. At the moment, I do not remember if there were, offered in auctions, a large number of copper strikings with dies that were used for silver regular issues. My guess is that there were a considerable number and that they were thought of as die trials. The auctioned copper strikings of silver denominations, however, both of regular issue dies and patterns, were usually sold to wealthy collectors, who were each buying a substantial number of numismatic items. Collecting patterns and die trials was (and still is) an expensive endeavor.
RWB’s theory or discovery (?) that these were largely made for a whole different market, of middle-income people who showed them to guests, is new to pattern collectors and researchers. Were these really “nothing more than inexpensive items made on request”?
1) How inexpensive could these have been? If ordered directly from the Mint, what would a regular dies quarter struck in copper, dating from the 1870s, have cost? Would a copper ‘silver dollar’ cost less than four times as much as a copper quarter?
2) How would a member of the general public, in a “middle class home” with relics and curios, have gone about ordering copper quarters, half dollars and silver dollars that were struck with the same (or very similar) dies that were then employed for the regular silver coin issues?
I hope that Denga and CaptHenway will comment as well. If RWB is correct, this is certainly a significant finding regarding the history of coin collecting and the practices of the U.S. Mint. Thanks.
New column on Rarities & Related Topics
The Queller collection of Patterns, Part 1
The Queller collection of Patterns, Part 3
Several other letters and statements indicate that copper strikes from either pattern or normal dies were nothing more than inexpensive items made on request.
Multiple original documents scattered through 1870s-1890s.
Multiple people requested them, so this was not limited to H.R. Linderman.
Multiple original documents scattered through 1870s-1890s, with special reference to the Barber and Morgan dollar patterns.
Additionally, a copper example likely took a better impression than silver
Multiple statements by Engraver and coiner over 1870s-1890s.
… and the owner could then have them silver or gold plated
Plated examples are known and there is nothing stating if the plating was applied at the mint or privately.
… to increase the "impact" on visitors and friends. (Nearly every middle-class home had a cabinet of curios - minerals, coins, medals, bones, and the like.)
conjectural statements based on 19th Century American cultural and social behaviors. Thousands of references in contemporary and scholarly sources.
As for “discovery/theory” – my comments suggest only a wider view of copper specimens and the application of some contemporary “common sense” to the label “die trial.” I do not endorse any implied certainty.
The comment: It was believed that such copper strikings were distributed quietly without much of a paper trail. This is reasonable except there are multiple paper trails; not for every coin or every year, but it was not a huge “State Secret” either. Some collectors were aware of copper specimens. Some, such a R.C. Davis, were regularly advised of new patterns with the Mint wanting to be sure Davis had an example or two. This also carries forward to the Goliod and Metric coins both individually and in sets.
Maybe one day I, or another researcher, will tie this together in a nice article. Right now, I have to say it is rather far down the “To Do” list.
here as he has apparently examined the letters of the mint directors on a more systematic
basis. There are occasional mentions of such matters in the records of the Philadelphia Mint
but all of this came to a crashing halt in, I think, 1887 when Mint Director James P. Kimball
asked for a full set in copper and got a very frosty reception from the Philadelphia Mint on the
grounds that this was illegal under the act of 1873. Kimball got even by issuing draconian
regulations against anyone getting anything along this line in the future though there were
of course occasional lapses.
Denga