The Mott Token - More Than You Ever Wanted to Know
MidLifeCrisis
Posts: 10,522 ✭✭✭✭✭
In my OFFICIAL COLONIAL THREAD, oldabeintx asked why the Mott token is still collected as a colonial.
The Mott Token is very controversial in colonial numismatics. Once believed to be America's first native trade token, the origin of these pieces has been frequently debated. Previous authors have attributed them to various members of the Mott family, including some who turned out to be grocers. The dating of the token has ranged from 1789 (the date on the coin) to the 1830s or later.
Mott tokens were issued in copper in both thick and thin planchet varieties. There are a few examples in each thickness that have an ornamented edge rather than the usual plain edge. There is also a unique pewter (or white metal) trial piece that was in the collection of John Ford and was, as far as I can tell, last sold at auction by Heritage in 2009.
In 1920 Edgar Adams in his United States Store Cards (NY 613) listed an example with the edge lettering PAYABLE AT LIVERPOOL, LONDON OR BRISTOL; in 1988 Breen listed this as untraced (Breen 1026) while in 1997 Rulau (2nd ed., p. 37, NY 613) listed the variety. In all the different varieties later die states show a prominent die break at the top left corner of the clock. These tokens were regularly used, as most examples are in a worn, circulated state.
The coin pictured above is a Mott Token I previously owned. It had a thin planchet and a plain edge. The token was graded AU55 by PCGS. It was the Breen-1021 variety, struck from the earliest state of the dies with no trace of a break at the top of the clock and no evidence of die bulging. The token was also ex Stack's December 1984 sale of the Richard Picker Collection, lot #272.
For over one hundred years numismatists relied on Charles Bushnell's account of the Mott token, published in 1859 in his work, An Historical Account of the First Three Business Tokens Issued in the City of New York. Bushnell identified the firm issuing the token as William and John Mott of 240 Water Street in New York City. Very little information challenging this view was brought forward before the 1980s.
In 1971 Cornelius Vermeule noted the eagle on the Mott token was quite similar to the eagle designed by John Reich in 1807 for the reverse of the half dollar and the five dollar half eagle gold piece (the eagle is found on silver half dollars from 1807-1891; gold quarter eagles from 1808-1907, gold half eagles from 1807-1908 and gold eagles from 1838-1907). Vermeule took this as an indication the "Reich eagle" was not a new design in 1807 nor was it of American origin, but rather that it had been created in 1789 in England for the Mott token. Others mentioned this similarity in later publications but none questioned the dating or origin of the Mott token. Then, in 1986 William Anton wrote a brief notice in Penny-Wise reporting his acquisition of a 1789 Mott token overstruck on a U.S. large cent. The date of the cent could not be read but from the words ONE CENT on the reverse of the cent (on the eagle or reverse side of the token) the coin was identified as the transitional small letter variety, found on large cents from 1837-1839.
The Anton discovery not only brought into question the dating of the Mott token but also the country of origin. Q. David Bowers followed up on the observations of Vermeule and Anton. In the winter 1987/8 issue of Rare Coin Review he published an article stating the Mott eagle exactly matched the eagle found on the $10 gold piece of 1838, the $5 gold of 1839 and the $2 1/2 gold coin of 1840. Based on these findings he suggested the eagle on the token was copied from one of these gold coins. This theory fit well with Anton's discovery of a Mott token overstruck on a large cent of 1837-39. From this Bowers concluded the Mott token was produced in the 1830s. He suggested it had been issued in 1839 to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the Mott firm, hence the backdating of the token to 1789. Thus, according to Bowers, the Mott token was part of the "Hard Times" storecard series rather than a colonial product.
Bowers suggested the need for further research. He had explained the firm of William and John Mott were listed as grocers in 1789 and continued to be listed as grocers until 1830, not as watch and jewelry makers. In 1831 the firm was listed under Ann Mott, widow of John Mott, and continued in the following years as grocers under other members of the family. Bowers wondered how could a grocery firm be responsible for a token advertising a clock, watch and jewelry store. Bushnell had identified the Mott grocers as the Mott firm mentioned on the token for he had only looked for firms with the name of Mott listed in the New York City register for 1789, as he believed the token dated from that year. Bowers understood this was problematic and suggested, "perhaps the Mott grocery firm was a different enterprise from Mott the jeweler." (Bowers, p. 62). Nevertheless, in assigning a date to the token Bowers suggested the fiftieth anniversary of the grocery firm.
In the summer 1988 Rare Coin Review, Eric Newman suggested further research was needed to find Mott clock and watchmakers in New York. In looking through a copy of the 1834 New York City Register, that happened to be available in his daughter's library, Newman discovered James S. Mott and Jordan Mott as clock and watchmakers. He suggested someone should systematically look through all the directories from 1789 onwards to clear up this problem. Newman's suggestion was not taken up for a decade. During that time most standard guides accepted Bowers' thesis that the Mott token was a backdated product from the Hard Times token series. This explanation is found in Rulau's, Early American Tokens and in his Standard Catalog of United States Tokens 1700-1900 and in David Alexander's Coin World Comprehensive Catalog & Encyclopedia of United States Coins as well as in the annual editions of R.S. Yeoman's A Guide Book of United States Coins (the Redbook).
In the fall of 1998 Angel Pietri took up the question of the Mott token. Following Newman's suggestion he looked through all the New York City registers for the period. As a result of his research he suggested Jordan Mott was the most probable candidate for the Mott mentioned on the token. Both Newman and Rulau had mentioned Jordan Mott in their discussions of the token but neither had investigated the history of his firm. Pietri discovered Jordan Mott's advertisements closely match the wording on the token. His advertisement from the 1810 directory is reproduced by Pietri (Pietri, p. 40, figure 11). It locates Jordan at 247 Pearl Street and states that he:
Has on hand an extensive assortment of CLOCKS,
GOLD and SILVER WATCHES, JEWELRY and
SILVER WARE.
Pietri explained Jordan Mott was first listed in the New York City Business Directory in 1796. If Jordan is the correct individual then it appears the 1789 token is indeed backdated, as Jordan Mott was not listed as a watchmaker until that year. Pietri does indeed believe the token is backdated but suspects it originated before the mid 1820s and therefore predates the Hard Times token era. An interesting argument Pietri gave for an such a dating is the lack of an address on the token. Basically he stated that up to 1789 New York City was not as large as Philadelphia or Boston, however by 1800 it had surpassed both other cities and was continually growing. Pietri suggested as New York City grew and competition increased it became necessary for merchants to include their location on advertisements. Thus Pietri surmised tokens without locations were probably earlier products.
Unfortunately there are very few datable pre 1820 New York City merchants tokens on which to test this intriguing theory. There are the Talbot, Allum & Lee tokens of 1794 and 1795 and the very rare Theatre at New York token dating to 1797 or 1798; neither have a street address. All other datable merchant tokens are from the 1820s or later. With the exception of tokens that were simply circulating coins on which the merchant's name was counterstamped, almost all other merchant tokens carry the business address. The few exceptions include the very rare J.P. token of ca. 1825 (Rulau-E NY 625); the Tredwell, Kissam & Co. token of 1823 (Rulau-E NY 920) and the C. Wolfe, Clark & Spies token of 1829 (Rulau-E NY 958; Baker 590). Interestingly, when the Tredwell token was reissued in 1825-6 (Rulau-E NY 921) the firm's address of 228 Pearl Street was added; also when the Wolfe token was reissued in late 1829-1830 (Rulau-E NY 961) the firm's address, at 193 Pearl Street, was added. The unanswered question is - Should the Mott token, which lacks an address, be categorized with these exceptions from the 1820's or with the earlier merchant tokens?
If one believes the eagle design on the token is an original work, independent of the Reich eagle, then it is possible to consider the token to be from a very early date. On the other hand, it should be noted several New York City merchants tokens from the 1820s use some variation of the Reich American eagle as a reverse. If one considers the Mott eagle to be a member of this group then a dating to the 1820s or later seems possible.
With the uncovering of the firm of Jordan Mott, Pietri seemed to have discovered a more appropriate merchant to be considered as the originator of the token. If Jordan Mott was the person who ordered this token bearing the date 1789, it indeed appears the token is backdated. Beyond this fact the actual dating of the token is conjectural. Perhaps the date 1789 over the American eagle celebrated the foundation of the federal government under the Constitution on March 4, 1789, or the inauguration of Washington as the first President of the United States, which occurred in New York City on April 30, 1789, or some other significant national historical event.
In 2002, researcher Wesley S. Cox and Russell Rulau presented evidence linking the Mott Tokens to other private tokens issued by Robert S. Lovett, Jr., thus placing the Mott Tokens somewhere in the period between 1832-1844. Efforts to place the dating of the Mott Tokens in the late 1830s based on the unique example allegedly overstruck on a Large Cent have been discounted because of the questionable authenticity of the piece.
Sources:
1. "The Mott Token 1789 (backdated): Introduction", by Louis Jordan; University of Notre Dame, Department of Special Collections website at https://coins.nd.edu/ColCoin/ColCoinIntros/Mott.intro.html
2. PCGS Coinfacts, Ron Guth, https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/category/colonials/post-1776-private-regional-issues/mott-token-1789/833
3. Heritage Auctions
4. Freepages.rootsweb.com at http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~silversmiths/genealogy/makers/silversmiths/36483.htm
Comments
After putting this thread together, I realized that I never answered @oldabeintx - Why is the Mott token still collected as a colonial?
Here are my thoughts:
- Tradition, mostly. Tradition is a powerful force in numismatics.
- The 1789 date on the coin
- It "looks" like a coin from the colonial period.
- As you can see from my OP, no one really knows the origin of the Mott Token.
Wonderful informative post
Latin American Collection
Thank you for this most excellent summary!
TD
Maybe this thread should be titled "Mott, The Hoopla"...
Thank you. I think I'll leave it off my list, for now. The "eagle' argument persuades me.
MLC,
Very nice summary. I have saved it for my files (I always ask for forgiveness AFTERWARDS).
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
For the heck of it I just went to eBay to see what was for sale. The condition of these tokens (the few available) and their overall look are indeed persuasive in favor.
One thought is that colonials remain convenient probably because there's no other good place to put it, especially if it's not a HTT or CWT.
CRO has a decent one.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Great write up, I really enjoyed reading it.
Nice post!
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Great writeup! The Mott you used to own is a fantastic very early die state. So many are crumbled and illegible. What die state is the one overstruck on the 183x large cent?
Mine is a thick planchet, middle die state with lettering starting to blur, but no die break at the clock or bad deterioration. Date is sharp, as I wanted for my Prime Number set.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Great write up. The 1789 date probably refers to the date the company was first established much as the 1839 date on the well know Peacock tokens (actually issued much later) refers to the founding date of that company. Just when the Mott tokens were actually struck may never be known but they should not be considered to be a "colonial" issue.
Good read!
Thanks @MidLifeCrisis for a lot of great info in this thread, but "More Than You Ever Wanted to Know" is a tall order
What I want to know is whether anyone researched if the candidate Mott companies had offices in Liverpool, London, and Bristol
Wow... what a great post.... Very informative, I really did not know much about these tokens...Thank you @MidLifeCrisis . Cheers, RickO
A well written and useful summary of the Mott token.
This was a most interesting read. Thank you for this post as it is totally all new information for me and quite enjoyable.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
I find it generally more plausible that the Mott eagle is a copy fo the Reich eagle than the other way around, as the Reich eagle has been copied to numerous tokens but I haven't seen such a copy of a token to a US Mint coin. Are there any?
Can you imagine the scandal if there were?
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Here's the John Agre @CoinRaritiesOnline coin: